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!

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]​

 

[dave2008]

What I’m not understanding is your comment that this increases tracking. I assume when you do saves/skills/attacks you check the roll vs the DC. I’m not sure why throwing in the +/- 10 increases tracking. It increases complexity for sure, since many binary spells are now 3 or 4 options. Same things for skills. But I’m not seeing an increase in tracking costs.

Not in the sense you are thinking (I think It is not tracking so much as, having more stuff to keep track of. I'm sure once you get used to it, it is no big deal. But, I know my group has no interest in doing that. With this system you have to "track": DC, DC +10, DC -10, the effect of a hit, the effect of a miss, the effect of a critical hit, the effect of a critical miss, effect of a save, the effective of a failure, the effect of a critical save, and the effect of a critical failure, and sometimes more

 

[dave2008]

The complaining is getting worse by the article.

Particularly by those who misunderstand the rules.

It is possible to understand the rules and complain. For instance I understand the rule and I like the rule. However, I don't like that it is part of the game. My group wouldn't use it if we played PF2.

 

[dave2008]

On topic, I think many of the concerns raised in the thread will prove to not be an issue. I think once everyone gets to give it a test run it will flow simpler than it reads. I may be wrong, but that is what the play test is for!

That is probably true, but there are groups who will not take the time to get to like it. We tried something like this and it lasted half a session before we dropped it.

 

[Arakasius]

That will likely be a difficult rule to house rule out. You could easily house rule out level based modifiers to skills for example. But critical hit/fail are going to be everywhere. Sure you can ignore those options on spells, but that will leave save and suck in an odd spot. Dominate for example in the new PF will on crit fail be completely dominated, that is actually worse than PF1 where command changes give new saves. Fail will be dominate with a save each round, which is weaker than PF1. So how do you house rule not having crits/fumbles? You’re going to have a gimped spell if you ignore the crit blocks, and open up a whole world of issues if you have to house rule each and every spell.

Also crits/fumbles are going to be heavily based into feat choices. You will have options that come up when an enemy crit fails, damage is based around high accuracy giving good chances of double damage. Things like Sneak Attack just do double damage on crits now. Basically I think if you try to house rule this rule out you’ll also be house ruling out a significant chunk of feats and being forced to make house rules on all spells. At that point you should honestly just play PF1 with unchained action rules, it’s gojng to work a lot better for you and give you less headaches.

 

[dave2008]

That will likely be a difficult rule to house rule out. You could easily house rule out level based modifiers to skills for example. But critical hit/fail are going to be everywhere.

Yes, for my group it is one of those issues that is probably a barrier to us playing PF2. It is to baked into the system.

 

[Arakasius]

Yeah it is a more complex system than just the old binary pass/fail. If you want that I’m sure 5e and other games are fine to play. This will really affect a lot of things and give a lot more depth to characters and combat so I’ll enjoy that.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah it is a more complex system than just the old binary pass/fail. If you want that I’m sure 5e and other games are fine to play. This will really affect a lot of things and give a lot more depth to characters and combat so I’ll enjoy that.

We play 5e now and I just narrate what happens on a "critical" success or failure. Basically, if a roll succeeds or fails by 5 or more I just describe something special happening. It was to much of a bother when we tried to make it a house rule and integrate it tightly (and make them responsible). My players prefer if I just make it up.

 

[Lanefan]

That is probably true, but there are groups who will not take the time to get to like it. We tried something like this and it lasted half a session before we dropped it.

The minor but persistent headache from the DM side for this +10/-10 system (or anything like it) is that currently on a really good or bad roll it's immediately obvious to all whether you succeeded or failed. But now those really good or bad rolls will have to be more carefully checked to see if they hit the out-by-10 mark, which slows things down - not much, admittedly, but enough to be noticeable.

I've also tried something like this in the past, and like yours it didn't last very long.

But the idea is good. Easier at the table to just make it happen on any nat 20 or nat 1, as that doesn't take any extra time or look-up.

As for following in 4e and 5e's poorly-directed footsteps with the further wussification of save-or-suck, count me as unimpressed. But, easy enough to ignore these rules...

 

[Markn]

It is possible to understand the rules and complain. For instance I understand the rule and I like the rule. However, I don't like that it is part of the game. My group wouldn't use it if we played PF2.

I agree this is possible and I certainly understand every group has its unique dynamic. Heck, even my group can be quick to pass judgement. I think a DM also has to be a moderator in addition to all the other things they need to be. Sort of, “guys let’s give this a chance before we pass judgement” sort of thing. I don’t know how many times I’ve read a rule or a module even, thinking one thing only to have the experience be vastly different during play - sometimes better, sometimes worse.

FWIW, I think your response to this article has been reasonable, although IMO, you are putting up a bit of a barrier in anticipating your groups response. Having said that, I respect your thought and contribution to the thread as opposed to the simple thread crapping that some provide.

 

[dave2008]

..., although IMO, you are putting up a bit of a barrier in anticipating your groups response.

This is true. We did try something similar as I mentioned in another response. But as part of PF2 it probably works better than tacked on to another system.

To be clear, I am primarily looking at PF2 for things I can bring over to my 5e game. PF1 or PF2 are, in general, too complex in general for where my group is playing at the moment. However, I love the exploration of ideas in the build up to PF2 (just like I did for DnD Next / 5e). My only regret is that they seem really far down the road already and there is less experimentation going on then there was with Next/5e. Regardless, lost of good ideas and discussion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The minor but persistent headache from the DM side for this +10/-10 system (or anything like it) is that currently on a really good or bad roll it's immediately obvious to all whether you succeeded or failed. But now those really good or bad rolls will have to be more carefully checked to see if they hit the out-by-10 mark, which slows things down - not much, admittedly, but enough to be noticeable.

Honestly, it's one of the few saving graces in Pathfinder's modifier-heavy system. Some actions end of up having a lot of different modifiers to them, but normally you can stop counting them as soon as you know that you succeeded. If you had to figure out the actual numeric result of every d20 check, rather than just pass/fail, then that would take up a lot more time.

Of course, PF2 could address that by vastly reining in the modifiers, but there's been no indication that they intend to do so; and there's no way that they could pass off an Advantage/Disadvantage system in this climate.

 

[Markn]

Of course, PF2 could address that by vastly reining in the modifiers, but there's been no indication that they intend to do so; and there's no way that they could pass off an Advantage/Disadvantage system in this climate.

Actually there has been some indication of reigning in modifiers if you read the comments at end of their blogs. The designers provide quite a bit of additional tidbits this way.

For example, they have mentioned that no bonuses of the same type stack. There were a few bits about the max prof differences at certain levels, and lastly with the new crit system it stands to reason that modifiers can’t get out of control otherwise the crit system breaks down.

So I think there has been lots of evidence to suggest this.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As I said in another thread...I probably won't be playing PF2. But who doesn't like to comment?

I think in play all these mods and such would be a bit of a PITA...but after four or five good sessions it would probably become second nature. A lot of complicated games are like this; it just takes time for your brain to 'get' how it works and remember the core modifiers/rolls/whatever. I use Powers & Perils (an old Avalon Hill RPG) as an example; when I introduce P&P to someone for the first time, after about 15 minutes into creating their PC they get the "Eye-Glaze of a Thousand Pages". This predicament persists for a few sessions, slowly, bit by bit the haze starts to lift until....BING! A light bulb goes off over their head. Then they "get it" and understand how the whole system works. I'm thinking that Pathfinder 2e will likely be similar.

I'm disappointed that the rules thus far seem to be HEAVILY favouring the PC's. This is bad, imho, because a player only has ONE PC to deal with. If the DM has to run, say, 5 NPC's with the same amount of info a PC has...forget about it! Paizo better come up with some cool, simplified method for a DM running monsters and NPC's or nobody is going to want to DM. And if there are no DM's, there will be no Players. Hence my long standing belief that catoring to the Players rather than the DM is almost always a bad move...and one reason why I think 5e is doing so well.

If I was to introduce some sort of "Crit/Fumble" to skills and whatnot, I'd add in a rule based on another dice roll made at the same time. Then divide the game into "Standard" and "Dramatic" scenes (Like how the Masterbook RPG does). Roll 2d20's; one is designated as your Primary die, the other your 'Dramatic' die. The Crit/Fum would be based on weather each d20 succeeded or not and what type of scene was happening. (e.g., both succeed in Standard...Crit // both succeed in Dramatic...Normal success // both succeed in Dramatic, and are the same number...Crit ....that sort of thing). This would take all the number crunching out of the equation as all the player/GM has to see is the lowest dice roll.

Anyway...I'm waiting to see if Paizo dishes out some really unique and innovative (or at least good!) stuff for a PF2 GM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Arakasius]

They have said they’re doing a monster/npc character creation more similar to what they did in Starfinder. That should get rid of one of the worst issues of PF in customizing encounters and prepping sessions taking too long. Similarly they are removing a lot of complexity from combat which should help streamline things. The new action system is easier to keep track of then the old and a lot of the worst rules of PF1 are already confirmed to be quite reduced. For example how you run an Animal Companion and how you do combat maneuvers are both vastly simplified. Spells not scaling should also lower things down. They have added one big complexity with four degrees instead of two, but I’m guessing that it’s a unified system across everything will help that become second nature pretty quickly.

On the matter of buffs I agree that is an issue that needs work. We’ve seen two minor examples of progress on this, one being the new power attack and second being no more flat footed AC and just having it decrease AC by two. I do hope they do something to have the every party member getting haste/bless/prayer/bard song around all the time, but they’ve not stated any specifics yet, just hints.

 

[Ancalagon]

I just realized something.

The +/- 10 thing means that a character can critically succeed, or critically fail, but never ever both.

Let's say Jane the archer and Bob the incompetent are attacking an orc with AC 14.

Jane fires an arrow and has a +6 To hit. She may roll a critical hit (if she rolls 18 or higher), but she can't critically fail, even a 1 isn't missing by 10.

Bob then tries to bash the orc, and only has +1 to hit. He can't critically succeed, but could critically fail...

Also think what if Jane had that feat, she would always do damage....

 

[Arakasius]

Yeah but it sounds like that attack is giving up something like power attack. I could see it being used for iterative attacks on high attack characters to try to eek some more damage out when that attack is far less likely to crit. So far we’ve seen mostly exclusive attacks (power attack, certain strike, intimidating strike all seem exclusive) and not anything in line of PF1 weapon focus, weapon specialization or such. I imagine there would be options to go for more attack orientated builds, but we’ve not seen them yet.

 

[Grimstaff]

Too many variables/too much to keep track of for my taste.

Yeah, I was cautiously hopeful that PF2 would do something about those loooong combats, but between this and a previous article talking about adding more AoO situations I don't see it happening.

I'm kind of curious how open to changes this play test will be. Is there an amount of feedback during the play test period that would result in stuff like this being removed for the "final" version, or are all these situationals pretty hard baked into the chassis?

 

[CubicsRube]

There were 2 main things that killed PF1 for me, and i suspect many others. Situational modifiers, and inus stacking.

It sounds like some of the intention around situational modifiers is to base it around the crit success / crit failure mechanic. If they integrate this well it could flow quite smoothly and still retain complexity. Time will tell how well this gets integrated.

The other i havent seen is how many bonus types there are. If I'm playing and before i swing my sword, i have to add on feat buffs, magic item buffs, blessong or enchantment buffs... you've already lost me.

Some of the crit success/failure options sound interesting but there's already some derp moments creeping in. At the same time of saying they want to address thd "fail your save you're out of the fight" options, they've listed a spell that can PERMANENTLY reduxe you're intelligence if you crit fail? How did that even pass the gate to make it in the playtest? It's things like these coming out that are already making me look the other way before they playtest has even come out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For example, they have mentioned that no bonuses of the same type stack. There were a few bits about the max prof differences at certain levels, and lastly with the new crit system it stands to reason that modifiers can’t get out of control otherwise the crit system breaks down.

That's not really comforting. By saying that bonuses of the same type don't stack, they're actually saying that there are a lot of bonuses of different types which need to be tracked because they stack with each other, which is the exact same type of fiddly math that PF1 already has.

Noting that the crit rules will cause the system to fail catastrophically if modifiers get out of hand is also not comforting, since PF1 also failed catastrophically when spell save DCs got out of hand. (GURPS suffers a similar problem, with called shots; it's hard to avoid whenever there are rewards for optimization, and enough decision points to optimize significantly.) Simply being aware of a problem is not the same thing as taking sufficient precaution to keep that problem in check, and every indication is currently that optimized characters will be scoring critical successes more often than not.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just realized something.

The +/- 10 thing means that a character can critically succeed, or critically fail, but never ever both.

Let's say Jane the archer and Bob the incompetent are attacking an orc with AC 14.

Jane fires an arrow and has a +6 To hit. She may roll a critical hit (if she rolls 18 or higher), but she can't critically fail, even a 1 isn't missing by 10.

Bob then tries to bash the orc, and only has +1 to hit. He can't critically succeed, but could critically fail...

Also think what if Jane had that feat, she would always do damage....

Yeah, I had been assuming because of this very fact that natural 20 would always be a crit even if it wouldn’t be a hit, and natural 1 always a fumble even if it wouldn’t be a miss. But learning now that both results won’t always be a possibility, and that in fact they are mutually exclusive possibilities, has some subtle but important implications. For example, that save-or-become-a-vegetable effect people are worried about (which I presume is an Intellect Devourer) can only be fumbled by characters with a save bonus less than [save DC -10]. So if you wamt to use Intellect Devourers (or whatever enemy has that ability) against the PCs but don’t want to risk the players losing their character to one fumbled save, all you have to do is hold off on using it until the PC with the lowest Will save has a high enough bonus. Similarly, PCs who are at risk of fumbling a save or die effect by a small enough margin can potentially chase enough situational bonuses to their save to get themselves away from that danger zone. I kind of like that.

Also, we know that “Reflex DC” is a thing and it’s calculated by simply adding 10 to your Reflex Save Mod. So, assuming Will DC and Fortitude DC will also exist, as a player you’ll always know that you can’t fumble saves with a DC lower than your own DC for that save (short of situational penalties).