The Quality Contest: Better Than the Crit?

[GMMichael]

GM: . . . Those two hobogres flee. The last one stands ready near Blaskewicz, looking disgusted at her cowardly allies through the rain.

PC: I'll teach her not to flee! My longspear is still ready; I'm going to run it straight through her to mid-haft.

GM: Admirable goal. Roll it.

PC: (Rolls a result of 13.) Oh. That could have been higher. That's not even a degree of success, is it?

GM: You forgot to roll damage too. Anyway, 13's actually really good, because that was the minimum you needed to hit. Roll against that.

PC: Huh? (Rolls again). 15. So much for mid-haft.

GM: Great! Roll damage twice, since we're still waiting on your first roll. The 13 was good because it left you (does some counting) 8 outcomes to confirm a good result. If you had rolled higher on your first roll, you'd have less of a chance to confirm with the second.

PC: Stop. Just stop. You had me at "roll damage twice." (Rolls) And 4 damage . . .

The Quality Contest is a follow-up roll to a skill contest (a test or check or what-have-you that adds a bonus based on your skill level). To determine if a roll was high quality (or very poor) you roll a second skill contest, not against the first goal/target but against the result of your first contest. If this second result is also a success, then you've done something beyond expectations. If not, it's a standard success. This flips for failures - roll under your first failure with a quality contest to find out that something has gone very wrong. Like you'll need to check the critical miss table. The quality contest is designed for roll-high, single-die contests (like a d20 + skill vs. target number), but can be applied to other systems as well.

What I like about the quality contest is that it incorporates skill level into the odds of an exceptional effort, instead of making those odds a flat 1-in-20. So, in the combat situation (and who doesn't love combat?) above, the warrior needed a result of 13 or higher to hit. Since skill adds to the d20 roll, more skill means more results that are considered successful. It also means a higher ceiling for the follow-up quality contest, which is why rolling close to the target number was good for the first roll. If your skill makes a hit easy, then odds of a disaster/critical miss dwindle rapidly. A character struggling to hit the hobogre, with a -2 bonus to attack skill for example, has a smaller window for the initial success, and an even smaller window (in all likelihood) to have done an excellent job at it. However, this character's odds of mucking it up are much greater, in the event that the GM wants to check the quality of a miss.

What the quality contest doesn't do is tell GMs when to request one. Quality contests probably shouldn't happen after every roll (although they could). A crit is simple: roll a 20, it's a crit. The quality contest leaves possibilities open - it could happen when a PC rolls max damage, or when a PC has Advantage. I like the idea of the situation calling for quality contests: if the PC is on a roll and has hit for the prior two rounds, or the opponent is panicking while surrounded, roll for quality.

Is the Quality Contest something you'd try in your game? Should skill be a larger factor in critical hits, without taking the time to count degrees of success? If you had to decide on checking the quality of a contest, would you pick a time other than rolling 20 on the die?

 

[Emberashh]

Confirmation rolls are used in Pathfinder to limit crit chances. Generally its not all that great of a solution if d20 swinginess is a concern, as it adds a considerable amount of tedium for a pretty opaque benefit.

Personally, I preferred to redefine how 1d20 is perceived in the context of my game, where it explicitly represents extraneous effort beyond your baseline skill level. Aka, being able to earn roll modifiers >20. This has the benefit of not only making the swinginess desirable and more enjoyable all around, but also makes for a game that gets less complex to run over time, as the amount of rolling required would fall.

 

[Deset Gled]

Okay, first a really important question: is a hobogre a hobgoblin-type ogre, or a hobo-ogre?

Moving on..

Confirmation rolls are used in Pathfinder to limit crit chances. Generally its not all that great of a solution if d20 swinginess is a concern, as it adds a considerable amount of tedium for a pretty opaque benefit.

My first thought was that this Quality Contest sounds functionally similar to the 3.Xe crit rules with the critical fumble variant. I, for one, happen to like those rules. But I like them because of all the fiddly tactical bits with different weapon crit ranges, multipliers, and damages, combined with feats, synergies, strategy, etc. I'm not sure how I feel about tacking that system into lower crunch games (e.g. 5e) without all the accompanying parts that let you really play with it. It would definitely be a lot more rolls and a bit more math. But I'm not sure how much it adds to the gameplay.

 

[GMMichael]

Confirmation rolls are used in Pathfinder to limit crit chances. Generally its not all that great of a solution if d20 swinginess is a concern, as it adds a considerable amount of tedium for a pretty opaque benefit.

By "limit crit chances" are you talking about making a roll to see if the prior 20 result was actually a crit? That is pretty harsh, given that the crit chances were already 5% (sometimes greater). One thing I like about the quality contests presented above is that your odds of confirming increase as your initial success rate increases. Or: an easy hit means an easier crit.

My first thought was that this Quality Contest sounds functionally similar to the 3.Xe crit rules with the critical fumble variant. I, for one, happen to like those rules. But I like them because of all the fiddly tactical bits with different weapon crit ranges, multipliers, and damages, combined with feats, synergies, strategy, etc. I'm not sure how I feel about tacking that system into lower crunch games (e.g. 5e) without all the accompanying parts that let you really play with it. It would definitely be a lot more rolls and a bit more math. But I'm not sure how much it adds to the gameplay.

Similar to 3e confirmation, but odds of a crit can get much higher than 5%. There's more payoff for having high skill.

But when should it happen? Is there a potential window that opens? Like: opponent is Bloodied, attacker is Raging, attacker uses Hero Point, defender is last opponent standing, once per battle, etc.

I'd think that some critical/quality flexibility would be welcome in a lower crunch game, for providing something extra to play with if the crit ranges, multipliers, and special damages aren't there.

 

[overgeeked]

Is the Quality Contest something you'd try in your game? Should skill be a larger factor in critical hits, without taking the time to count degrees of success? If you had to decide on checking the quality of a contest, would you pick a time other than rolling 20 on the die?

The binary yes/no of D&D can get boring, but I’m not sure what actual purpose this extra mechanic serves. Exceptional success or failure? Crits and fumbles already exist. If you want more chance for crits and fumbles, increase the “threat” range of each. Say 1-5 is a fumble or 15-20 is a crit.

Maybe instead when you exceed the DC by 5+ it’s a crit, or fail by 5+ for a fumble.

It reads like it would slow things down. You’re adding an extra roll, which slows things down, and you’re adding math to the extra roll, which slows things down even more. I’m not sure exceptional success or failure justifies that extra time.

You could simplify it as above or make it a simple flat roll. Say 1d6. Pick the appropriate spot for the exceptional bit to kick in. Say 6 for non-proficient, 4+ proficient, and 2+ for expertise. Or something. That way there’s no math with the extra roll but skill still plays a part. And flip it for failures.

 

[GMMichael]

The binary yes/no of D&D can get boring, but I’m not sure what actual purpose this extra mechanic serves. Exceptional success or failure?

Indeed.

It reads like it would slow things down. You’re adding an extra roll, which slows things down, and you’re adding math to the extra roll, which slows things down even more. I’m not sure exceptional success or failure justifies that extra time.

Slowing things down isn't always bad. Ever notice how you feel when watching a movie's combat scene and a critical blow lands, and that blow is in slow-mo or the shot zooms in on the hit? Same thing here. The maths shouldn't be too hard - it's the same thing as the prior contest, but this one has a new target number, influenced by the PC's skill level. The maths of the first roll can be simplified for the second - since the bonus would be the same as the first roll, the PC only needs to roll higher on the die than the prior number on the die.

Maybe instead when you exceed the DC by 5+ it’s a crit, or fail by 5+ for a fumble.

This is a type of operation that a quality roll seeks to avoid (AKA the degree of success). The idea is that it's easier* to perform another attack roll - the exact procedure of the first roll - than to add a new operation to the first roll, in this case, adding or subtracting 5 before doing the greater/less than test.

*and maybe more importantly, more respectful of the character's attributes (skill). I ran some sloppy numbers, and it looks like a combatant's quality/crit numbers go up exponentially with skill. (Versus linear improvement with Critical Hit rules?)

You could simplify it as above or make it a simple flat roll. Say 1d6. Pick the appropriate spot for the exceptional bit to kick in. Say 6 for non-proficient, 4+ proficient, and 2+ for expertise. Or something. That way there’s no math with the extra roll but skill still plays a part. And flip it for failures.

This looks like fun, sort of like adding a Savage Worlds skill die to a D&D attack roll. But I'm not seeing the simplicity savings:

Make attack roll as normal.
Check for 20 roll.
Roll d6, check for crit result based on character skill.

versus

Make attack roll as normal.
Check for success.
Make attack roll against prior result, success is crit.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Maybe instead when you exceed the DC by 5+ it’s a crit, or fail by 5+ for a fumble.

It reads like it would slow things down. You’re adding an extra roll, which slows things down, and you’re adding math to the extra roll, which slows things down even more. I’m not sure exceptional success or failure justifies that extra time.

PF2 has critical success on a natural 20 OR when you beat the TN by 10+

Comparing the odds with @GMMichael's technique, for a range of TNs gives the probability of a critical as:

TN	Suggested	PF2
1​	0.525​	0.5​
2​	0.475​	0.45​
3​	0.4275​	0.4​
4​	0.3825​	0.35​
5​	0.34​	0.3​
6​	0.3​	0.25​
7​	0.2625​	0.2​
8​	0.2275​	0.15​
9​	0.195​	0.1​
10​	0.165​	0.05​
11​	0.1375​	0.05​
12​	0.1125​	0.05​
13​	0.09​	0.05​
14​	0.07​	0.05​
15​	0.0525​	0.05​
16​	0.0375​	0.05​
17​	0.025​	0.05​
18​	0.015​	0.05​
19​	0.0075​	0.05​
20​	0.0025​	0.05​

The Mean absolute difference is < 0.04, so this method is very closely aligned with Pathfinder's in terms of probability of a crit -- basically only about one time in 25 would you get a different result in PF2 than using this system.

Since the PF2 system is faster and extends better to overwhelming superiority -- in the proposed technique if your TN is -10, you have the same odds of a crit as if TN is 1. In PF2, you are certain to have a crit -- I'm not sure I'd find a place for it at my table.

 

[EthanSental]

Is this just a white room talking exercise or has this been used in game and if so, what were the results with the players?

 

[GMMichael]

I've used it before. My players had reactions similar to crit hit/miss reactions. I didn't bother to pick their brains on whether they preferred natural 20/1 Crits. I didn't use them in combat, though, because the game had an intrinsic high/low damage mechanism. Although a high-damage attack coupled with a confirmed success could be pretty epic . . .

I'm presently reminded of AD&D's 18/XX strength rule. That roll was to determine a persistent score, not a fleeting result, but that rule and the quality contest could share a slogan, "that was a high roll! Now let's find out just how high."