Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder 1.5 rumblings: Corefinder

[nevin]

Yes. They only provoke on a critical failure, and in some cases they get stronger effects on critical success and/or using the same maneuver more than once.

this sounds Great. That is one of my frustrations with 1e is the amount of actions gated behind feats.

 

[Don Durito]

What is a critical failure?

Do you mean roll a natural 1?

 

[LegendaryGames]

this sounds Great. That is one of my frustrations with 1e is the amount of actions gated behind feats.

We are definitely working to have less of that built into the rules assumptions.

 

[LegendaryGames]

What is a critical failure?

Do you mean roll a natural 1?

For the Alpha version, we are adopting a system similar to PF2, wherein a critical failure is if you fail the check by 10 or more. A natural 1 is treated as a result one step worse than what it normally would be, so if, for example, a 1 + your bonuses would normally be a critical success, it is a regular success; if it would be a regular success, it's a failure instead; if it would be a failure, it's a critical failure.

Bear in mind that "critical failure" does not necessarily mean some kind of catastrophe, fumble, or similar disaster. For a lot of checks, a failure is more like "limited/partial success," so a critical failure is just absolutely no benefit at all. A critical failure can sometimes have an actively negative effect, but that's certainly not universally true.

 

[Don Durito]

Can't say it appeals to me. I would like to see streamlining and simplification not complicated degrees of success or anything like that.

They're part of the reason I have no time for Pathfinder 2.

I'm quite happy with binary pass/fail.

 

[Retreater]

For the Alpha version, we are adopting a system similar to PF2, wherein a critical failure is if you fail the check by 10 or more. A natural 1 is treated as a result one step worse than what it normally would be, so if, for example, a 1 + your bonuses would normally be a critical success, it is a regular success; if it would be a regular success, it's a failure instead; if it would be a failure, it's a critical failure.

Bear in mind that "critical failure" does not necessarily mean some kind of catastrophe, fumble, or similar disaster. For a lot of checks, a failure is more like "limited/partial success," so a critical failure is just absolutely no benefit at all. A critical failure can sometimes have an actively negative effect, but that's certainly not universally true.

In PF2, the massive failure/success degrees of resolution have a big anti-PC bias. It took tremendous effort to not TPK my group every session - and it still happened every other session. I hope Corefinder avoids this.

 

[LegendaryGames]

Can't say it appeals to me. I would like to see streamlining and simplification not complicated degrees of success or anything like that.

They're part of the reason I have no time for Pathfinder 2.

I'm quite happy with binary pass/fail.

We'll see how it feels in playtest. I've run a couple of sessions of low-level encounters with my home group but we still have fine tuning to do. Feedback is important in seeing how people like it with something closer to PF1.

 

[nevin]

We'll see how it feels in playtest. I've run a couple of sessions of low-level encounters with my home group but we still have fine tuning to do. Feedback is important in seeing

I guess we'll see. I don't like the sliding scale of success in Pathfinder 2e at all. When I read about it I thought it would be great but in play it's just a buzzkill. For some reason "sort of" succeeding seems to demoralize players more than failing.

 

[Neko Princex]

Any new news on Corefinder?

 

[LegendaryGames]

Still working hard on it, aiming towards a playtest in the fall. You can check out the latest updates on our Discord here:

Join the Legendary Games Discord Discord Server!

Check out the Legendary Games Discord community on Discord - hang out with 491 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.gg