Pathfinder 2's Critical Hits & Failures! Plus Save-or-Suck and Damage On A Miss!

Today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition news roundup is mainly about Critical Hits! And Failures. There's also a brief diversion into "save or suck" effects, and that old favourite, "damage on a miss" (tl;dr -- it's a failed attack roll, but not a miss). As always, this information gets added to the mighty Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!

Today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition news roundup is mainly about Critical Hits! And Failures. There's also a brief diversion into "save or suck" effects, and that old favourite, "damage on a miss" (tl;dr -- it's a failed attack roll, but not a miss). As always, this information gets added to the mighty Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!



20180330-Weapons_360.jpeg

Some weapons by Wayne Reynolds​


  • Last night, Paizo held the first of a series of live Twitch streams with Jason Bulmahn. It's just over an hour long; I haven't had chance to watch it yet, but if I find a transcript or summary I'll post a link here.
  • Critical Hits! A new Paizo blog went up last night, detailing Critical Hits and Critical Failures!
    • We know from previous scoops that a critical success or failure means beating or failing the target number by 10.
    • Saves have critical successes, and critical failure. The example fireball does the normal half damage on a success, but on a critical success it does no damage, and on a critical failure it does double damage.
    • If you have improved evasion, and legendary proficiency in Reflex saves, your Reflex save critical failures are just normal failures.
    • If you have evasion, your Reflex save successes are critical successes.
    • Not all things have critical successes and failures; if they do, then it is listed.
    • A normal critical hit on an attack does double damage. There's normally no critical miss, but there are some exceptions:
      • Certain Strike -- the fighter has an ability where you do minimum damage on a failure, and miss only on a critical failure.
      • Twin Riposte - a fighter can parry with a weapon and attack with another when an enemy critically fails an attack roll.
  • Save or Suck (or, as Paizo calls it, "save or lose) -- effects which remove you from the game with a failed save can have lesser effects on a failed save, and only take you out of the game on a critical fail. The example given is a save vs. dominate: on a fail you can try to break free each round, but on a critical fail you're dominated for the duration; on a success you lose an action each turn as you fight it off.
  • Critical Effects -- Mark Seifter shares some examples of critical successes and failures:
    • The creature is banished and can't return to your home plane by any means for 1 week.
    • The creature takes the full collapse damage and falls into a fissure.
    • The target believes the fact for an unlimited duration.
    • The target's intellect is permanently reduced below that of an animal, and it treats its Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom modifiers as –5. It loses all class abilities that require mental faculties, including all spellcasting. If the target is a PC, she becomes an NPC under the GM's control.
    • The creature is pushed 30 feet in the direction of the wind, is knocked prone, and takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage.
    • You grant a +4 circumstance bonus.
    • Per a failure, except the target believes that everyone it sees is a mortal enemy. It uses its reactions and free actions against these enemies regardless of whether they were previously its allies, as determined by the GM. It otherwise acts as rationally as normal and will likely prefer to attack enemies that are actively attacking or hindering it.
    • The target must succeed at a Fortitude save or die. Even on a successful save, the target is frightened 2 and must flee for 1 round.
    • Your target regains Hit Points equal to 2d10 + your Wisdom modifier.
    • Per a success, but even afterward, the target is too scared of you to retaliate against you.
  • 20s and 1s are still auto successes/failures -- "If your nat 20 isn't a critical success, it is still a success, and if your nat 1 isn't a critical failure, it is still a failure. (Seifter)
  • On how the new save effects compare to PF1 and D&D 4E -- "If you're coming from PF1, I don't think you have much to worry about in terms of the non-damage critical failure effects causing TPKs more than you're used to, in that even regular failures in PF1 are often just as TPKtastic. If you're coming from a game more like 4e, which solved the problem of save or out of the fight by removing many of those effects and allowing a probable recovery from negative effects every round (4e's saving throws), it might indeed be more dangerous." (Seifter)
  • It's not "damage on a miss!" -- "It's not a miss. It's a failure on the attack roll, but it's still a glancing blow, and you only miss on a critical failure for a Certain Strike." (Seifter)
  • On the severity of losing an action -- "Losing one of your actions might not sound like much, but it's often a big problem for monsters and PCs alike. Admittedly, dominate is on the lower end of success effects in part because the fail and critical fail effects are so dire, but even then, slow 1 is preeetty good... I didn't fully grasp it until I played enough games of it, but in addition to the situations mentioned in the blog (and that spellcaster situation is really quite terrifying; it's even worse if you needed to cast a three action spell), it really screws over monsters who have an action routine that either uses all three actions or uses two actions but needs to move first. Grappling monsters that do <bad thing> after grappling you come to mind." (Seifter)
  • Mooks are affected by crits more often now it's "hit/miss by 10" -- "This is one of a lengthy list of benefits from the initial design proposal for this system. Incidentally, it also means you can do some really nasty things against mooky enemies!" (Seifter)
[FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
They said they wouldn't violate their core principles, and that was the core principle which allowed PF1 to succeed where 4E failed. If they drop that, then they have no selling point, aside from brand loyalty.

I don’t agree with you that NPCs using the same rules as PCs was ever one of their core principles. It was a feature of Pathfinder, which many of their fans liked and many merely tolerated. I would say that their core principles had more to do with rich, detailed mechanics with a high degree of granularity and an emphasis on tons of player options. At any rate, the way that they have been talking about monster design and monster abilities throughout the previews so far leads me to believe that they don’t consider NPCs using the same rules as PCs to be one of the principles they’re not going to change. I could be wrong, but I’m fairly confident in that speculation given the evidence so far.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arakasius

First Post
Considering they already broke from that in Starfinder, I doubt they're going to have monsters follow the same rules. They have said though that you can make enemies as NPCs using player creation rules. That is fine and there isn't any issue with that. But they also want a way to make them quicker with most of the same result to cut down prep time.
 

Considering they already broke from that in Starfinder, I doubt they're going to have monsters follow the same rules. They have said though that you can make enemies as NPCs using player creation rules. That is fine and there isn't any issue with that. But they also want a way to make them quicker with most of the same result to cut down prep time.
If they have a quicker way of getting to the same result, then that's fine, but if they have the same result then that means they still have Certain Strike.

PCs and NPCs can either be close enough that a problem for one is still a problem for the other, or they're far enough apart that they're no longer consistent. If the only reason that some NPC fighters can't cheese you down with Certain Strike is because they're NPCs, then that fails the test of internal consistency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arakasius

First Post
Well I would guess that monsters created using the monster creation rules would have access to powerful abilities it wouldn't make sense to give to medium sized humanoid players. Whether that means they can or can't take fighter class feats I don't know.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
If they have a quicker way of getting to the same result, then that's fine, but if they have the same result then that means they still have Certain Strike.

PCs an NPCs can either be close enough that a problem for one is still a problem for the other, or they're far enough apart that they're no longer consistent. If the only reason that some NPC fighters can't cheese you down with Certain Strike is because they're NPCs, then that fails the test of internal consistency.
I see. When I said “It’s a PC ability,” what I meant was “It’s an ability tied to a Class designed for PCs, which NPCs are therefore not likely to have access to” not “An Ability NPCs aren’t allowed to have or use.” The reason an NPC can’t “cheese you” with certain strike (though I still don’t agree that the ability is particularly cheesy) is because Sudden Strike is a Fighter Feat and NPCs will not typically be Fighters. Not to say that you couldn’t make an NPC with the Fighter Class if you wanted to, but that’s clearly not the way they plan on designing monsters by default.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I don’t agree with you that NPCs using the same rules as PCs was ever one of their core principles. It was a feature of Pathfinder, which many of their fans liked and many merely tolerated. I would say that their core principles had more to do with rich, detailed mechanics with a high degree of granularity and an emphasis on tons of player options. At any rate, the way that they have been talking about monster design and monster abilities throughout the previews so far leads me to believe that they don’t consider NPCs using the same rules as PCs to be one of the principles they’re not going to change. I could be wrong, but I’m fairly confident in that speculation given the evidence so far.

I don't know why anyone would complain about "monsters using different rules", for 2 reasons:
1: PF has always leaned towards making anything playable.
2: 4E's monster-building rules is still one of the most liked elements of the game, even among people who don't like 4E.

Look I just went through and built a bunch of PF1 NPCs from the ground up, picked a race, picked a class, applied a template and pretended a gave a doop about adding feats. It wasn't terribly hard, but it's not something I find particularly enjoyable. 4E's monster-building rules gave guidelines on the end result, on how you want your monster to perform, on the type of effects and abilities it should have and didn't give two bits on if it had the right feats or class to do it, because it was an NPC. It's an incredibly more enjoyable process, much more creative and I dare say, far more FUN than the PF1 way of building a monster. (and faster too)
 

Arakasius

First Post
Starfinders approach sounds pretty similar to what you described shidaku. Creating a system to allow quicker creation of monsters/enemies is not a bad thing.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don't know why anyone would complain about "monsters using different rules", for 2 reasons:
1: PF has always leaned towards making anything playable.
2: 4E's monster-building rules is still one of the most liked elements of the game, even among people who don't like 4E.

Look I just went through and built a bunch of PF1 NPCs from the ground up, picked a race, picked a class, applied a template and pretended a gave a doop about adding feats. It wasn't terribly hard, but it's not something I find particularly enjoyable. 4E's monster-building rules gave guidelines on the end result, on how you want your monster to perform, on the type of effects and abilities it should have and didn't give two bits on if it had the right feats or class to do it, because it was an NPC. It's an incredibly more enjoyable process, much more creative and I dare say, far more FUN than the PF1 way of building a monster. (and faster too)

I'm not sure why you quoted me here, but I agree with what you are saying.
 

Lost Soul

First Post
If you prefer, think of it as a reverse Power Attack. You get +10 to hit, but if you do hit you only deal minimum damage, and if you crit you deal normal damage; in order to do double damage, you need to beat the target’s AC by 20. That’s functionally identical to how this Sure Strike maneuver works.

I understand your point Charlaquin but I dislike Damage on a miss attack (DOMA) for a few reasons

1) The reason I like playing martials is a risk vs reward. I enjoy rolling the dice and hoping for a hit or a crit. I loathe misses and fumbles but I NEED them in the game otherwise there is no risk. The risk of a miss and the reward of a hit is the key to making these characters fun for me.

1a) If you create too much of a change in scaling attack rolls by either making them too easy or to difficult and the thrill of rolling the dice is lost. Its one of my big complaints about
5E. The monsters are WAY to easy to hit and if you can hit most things of a 5 or better a big part of the thrill of being a martial is lost for me. Hand to hand combat should be
visceral and exciting. There should be some dread at rolling the dice because in real life fighting brings real risks no matter how good you are at it. Dice combat should be the same

2) It seems like very poor game design. What I mean is that either monster ACs are too good or they have too many hit points that attacks that miss really slow down the battles to a
crawl. I really don't want to go back to hour long combat like 4E just for fighting a group of kobolds or goblins

3) The monsters have nothing similar. If DOMA existed for big "TOUGH GUY" monsters like ogres, giants, dragons, certain types of fiends such as Balors, Mariliths, Pit Fiends &
Malebranche then I would be more willing to entertain DOMA for PC's. If a giant can't DOMA then neither should a PC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top