Nat 20 rule. Is it immersion breaking?

[Markh3rd]

From the Pathfinder 2 SRD:

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.

So at higher levels, a lone fighter could face 10,000 goblins and never get hit as long as his AC was high enough? Because the best a goblin could get would be low 20s total result. Meaning a critical failure turns into a failure even with a nat 20? So I guess lucky shots don't work in PF2 if I read that correctly.

 

[CapnZapp]

You read that correctly.

Whether you like it or not is a matter of taste. If you like it, no it doesn't break immersion. If you don't, then yes, it can.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If it bothers you, I believe there's an official variant in the upcoming Gamemastery Guide for removing level from proficiency. Without the level bonus, this scenario is extremely unlikely to occur.

I agree that it's a matter of preference. My table, for example, is all about auto-success on a natural 20, and auto-failure on a natural 1. To keep things reasonable, however, I only ask for a roll when success/failure is uncertain (and even then, usually only if it could produce an interesting result). That said, they've shown little interest in P2.

 

[Markh3rd]

This does make me hesitant about the game. The sword can swing both ways with that rule. You could find yourself in a position of no hope where even a nat 20 couldn’t help or save you. I imagine a PFS game where no one at the table is sufficiently skilled at something crucial and the game crashes unless the GM makes something up (which in PFS they aren’t supposed to change the adventure).

Or worse, you’re attempt causes a critical failure that punishes everyone else at the table. This could lead to bad things and it gives me great pause.

 

[Blue]

This does make me hesitant about the game. The sword can swing both ways with that rule. You could find yourself in a position of no hope where even a nat 20 couldn’t help or save you. I imagine a PFS game where no one at the table is sufficiently skilled at something crucial and the game crashes unless the GM makes something up (which in PFS they aren’t supposed to change the adventure).

Or worse, you’re attempt causes a critical failure that punishes everyone else at the table. This could lead to bad things and it gives me great pause.

If the adventure or DM put in a hard block that can only be solved with a 20, doesn't allow rerolls, and has no alternate way to move forward in the adventure - that's poor adventure design, has nothing to do with the game system.

Now we have a case where even a 20 won't handle it, and that stays true. It's bad adventure design or DMing, has nothing to do with the game.

And if it's a combat and the characters can't hit on a 20, perhaps the players should not assume everything they encounter is a fight they can win and instead retreat. With the same caveat - if an adventure has an unbeatable monster and no reasonable way to win via alternate methods or retreat, it's a poorly designed encounter.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This does make me hesitant about the game. The sword can swing both ways with that rule. You could find yourself in a position of no hope where even a nat 20 couldn’t help or save you. I imagine a PFS game where no one at the table is sufficiently skilled at something crucial and the game crashes unless the GM makes something up (which in PFS they aren’t supposed to change the adventure).

Or worse, you’re attempt causes a critical failure that punishes everyone else at the table. This could lead to bad things and it gives me great pause.

That seems fairly unlikely, particularly for PFS. All other things being equal, you're not likely to encounter this unless there's a large level disparity (in the range of a 10 to 20 level difference).

Because you only add your level bonus if trained, it could become an issue at high levels, but really only if the player opts into it. You get a considerable number of skill proficiencies as you level, so it's not too hard to be at least trained in skills you think you might need.

Personally, I prefer the 5e approach where failure or success is rarely guaranteed, but I don't think it is likely to be an issue in practice.

Edit: To put that level disparity into context, the CRB doesn't even have XP rewards for challenges more than +/- 4 of the party's level. While I'm still reading through and can't be certain, I believe the goblin encounter would be considered a trivial encounter that isn't worth XP (unless the GM decides otherwise).

 

[moxcamel]

So at higher levels, a lone fighter could face 10,000 goblins and never get hit as long as his AC was high enough?

I know you're giving an extreme example to make a point, but if I were DM'ing a lone fighter facing a massive horde of creatures like this, I wouldn't be playing out the combat blow by blow. The reality of the situation is that the lone fighter would be overwhelmed and swarmed. Maybe the DM says, "you manage to stand your ground for a few rounds, taking out several dozen of the little buggers, but ultimately there's just too many of them, and you are overwhelmed."

So I'd really only see this kind of situation in a scenario where the DM is purposely overwhelming the PC in order to accomplish some narrative goal, such as "you've been captured by a metric crap ton of Kobolds, and now they've got you trussed up to go meet the chieftain" sort of thing.

The mechanics are setup to handle a typical "us vs them" scenario. Once you start moving outside that box, the mechanics will naturally break down, and it's time for the DM to get creative.

 

[gargoyleking]

I like the idea of taking the level out of the equation. It lets even goblins be a potential threat to high level characters in a meaningful way and also removes a rediculous amount of record keeping from an otherwise enjoyable game.

 

[jib916]

Hasn't Pathfinder (And Most DND Before 5e's Bounded Accuracy) been this way in terms of immersion? Sure Nat 20s and 1s are a thing, but A Higher Level fighter always had a higher AC that low level goblins had a hard time (if not impossible) hitting.

 

[gargoyleking]

In a way, but mainly that was a factor of equipment bonuses adding up as the character's gear improved. In fact, as you progressed in 3.0/3.5 you learned to accept more hits in general as your enemies chances to hit quickly outstripped your ability to block or dodge said hits. It AC was more about stopping that 3rd or 4th attack rather than the first two.