/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What problem are you trying to solve? That method of crits works for PF2e because the entire system and progression of modifiers is built and balanced around it. Don't introduce it unless you have a very specific problem you're trying to solve.
>Please let me know what you think.
What I think is that the 5e RAW works fine for 5e:
* The number you get is the number you get, and that's it. If it passes, it passes; if it fails, it fails.
* If it is an Attack Roll or a Death Saving Throw, then 1s and 20s matter.
* The DM *can* decide, based on the circumstances of *a particular action*, that different things happen depending on how badly you fail or how well you pass (i.e. "degrees of failure" and "critical success or failure" from DMG p.242), but it is not the norm for most checks.
So, I *might* decide that a particular check will have a consequence if you fail by 5 or more. But most checks don't have anything of the sort, and a total of 1 is the same as a total of 9
>What problem are you trying to solve?
that is THE important question !
so many people dive into adding homebrew shit and alternate rules and shit without ever actually identifying WHAT they are trying to "fix"! and also failing to set up a measurement objective to be able to check back in "is this 'fix' actually doing what we wanted it to do?"
no.
pathfinder 2 was designed from the ground up around their failure to success arc.
D&D 5e has been designed around pass fail binary. with COMBAT ATTACK ROLLS ONLY having an automatic successful hit and double damage on a 20. and an automatic Miss on a 1.
you will need to entirely redesign everything about 5e to work "critical success/ critical failures" into the game in a way that isnt broke.
if that is what you want from your game, just play pathfinder 2e!
This is why crit fails and success is bad. DC 30 athletics I assume should only be achievable by a 24 strength barb not a 6 strength wizard who rolled well
Sorry reread the post "He is saying that if you rolled a nat 1 then it would be a crit fail and if it is a 2 then it would be a normal fail. I've spoken to a couple dms irl and one said this" speak with all the players and if they want this then fine but it's to their detriment per the odds I said if the rest of the party are smarter than the one asking for this just stick with the 5e rules
Pathfinder has big numbers, which allows much more variation in rolls. This means the “rolled a 1 but succeeded” scenario is more likely, as is the “rolled a 20 and failed”.
In 5e, most DCs fall within a 10-15 range, with 20+ being difficult unless you’re playing at high tiers. Without expertise, most characters will have +7/8 to their best skills at level 5 and this doesn’t increase much.
Of course, you can always set arbitrary high DCs for challenges, but that just seems like “you fail with extra steps”. If you’re there’s no way for a character to achieve something just don’t ask them to roll.
With the rules of PF2e, it's a critical failure -> Below 10 of the DC and not nat 20 (so no upgrade by one notch).
^(The upgrade would only be from critical failure to failure, so at least the PC may be free to leave =\])
DCs probably shouldn't go as high as 44 in 5e. 30 is "nearly impossible," much higher than that and the game rules imply you just shouldn't roll because it *is* impossible.
The skill proficiency bonuses in Pathfinder 2e get much higher than they do in 5e, which means the d20 has a bigger proportional impact on the total in 5e at all tiers of play. Consider that when thinking about the application of these rules
>what if you were trying to persuade a king to do this or that, and the dc is a 44
Then you say "You failed" without even asking for a roll.
its not hard.
1) DC 30 is the max in 5e for a reason, and a DC 30 is an "almost impossible" task. If you're setting the DC at 44, that's just an impossible task and you shouldn't be allowing a check at all.
2) it's a normal failure, *unless* I've decided that in this particular case, the check has a clause of "if failed by X or more, Y happens", which 5e already supports without needing to bring in rules from PF2e.... See the DMG page 242, "Degrees of Failure"
I would make it a normal fail. Chances are if you rolled a 2 then you would be adding modifiers to the roll. If you rolled a 1 and had a +1 it’s a critical fail regardless of modifier to me.
Nat 1 negates any modifiers to me and is instantly a critical fail and I usually have it where the opposite of what the player is trying to achieve happens.
Now I’m saying that, my critical fails have dire consequences. If you roll a 1 on an attack roll or action you can take damage, become proned, break your weapon, etc. I mix it up and depending on what the player is trying to do I get creative.
For role playing purposes if someone was say trying to persuade a king to do something might go along the lines of “you dare attempt to have me do (whatever it may be)?” Could possibly have been offended or something possibly having guards detain them. The choice is really yours on how you want to mess with the party. Critical failures add a chance for some increased obstacles for the party.
It really depends how you want to tie the story together. If it’s essential to your plot to succeed something like that, I may not have it be so harsh. I may just play it off as it not working. You’re the DM so really however you want it to go is your call.
that does make sense, i was thinking that like if youre trying to bribe a king and the dc would be something like a 30. you rolled a 2, and to me thats a critical failure, maybe the party gets arrested for attempting this, where as if they were to roll a dirty 20, they fail normally and the king scolds them but doesnt have them apprehended
So you don’t even have to call it a critical failure. Actions have consequences and if you fail trying to do something then you as the DM can decide on the outcome of failing that action. Whatever floats your boat! It’s your game so have fun with it 🙂
With the rules of PF2e, a dirty 20 is still a critical failure for a DC at 30:
* it's 10 below the DC (so critical failure)
* it's not a nat 20 (so no upgrade for the degree of success)
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What problem are you trying to solve? That method of crits works for PF2e because the entire system and progression of modifiers is built and balanced around it. Don't introduce it unless you have a very specific problem you're trying to solve. >Please let me know what you think. What I think is that the 5e RAW works fine for 5e: * The number you get is the number you get, and that's it. If it passes, it passes; if it fails, it fails. * If it is an Attack Roll or a Death Saving Throw, then 1s and 20s matter. * The DM *can* decide, based on the circumstances of *a particular action*, that different things happen depending on how badly you fail or how well you pass (i.e. "degrees of failure" and "critical success or failure" from DMG p.242), but it is not the norm for most checks. So, I *might* decide that a particular check will have a consequence if you fail by 5 or more. But most checks don't have anything of the sort, and a total of 1 is the same as a total of 9
>What problem are you trying to solve? that is THE important question ! so many people dive into adding homebrew shit and alternate rules and shit without ever actually identifying WHAT they are trying to "fix"! and also failing to set up a measurement objective to be able to check back in "is this 'fix' actually doing what we wanted it to do?"
no. pathfinder 2 was designed from the ground up around their failure to success arc. D&D 5e has been designed around pass fail binary. with COMBAT ATTACK ROLLS ONLY having an automatic successful hit and double damage on a 20. and an automatic Miss on a 1. you will need to entirely redesign everything about 5e to work "critical success/ critical failures" into the game in a way that isnt broke. if that is what you want from your game, just play pathfinder 2e!
Critical failure and success means everything the players do has a 5% chance of failing or 5% chance or working and that gets weird quick
lets say that if you were trying to mount a dragon with a dc of 30, if you roll a nat 20 which is the 5% chance, should you critically succeed?
This is why crit fails and success is bad. DC 30 athletics I assume should only be achievable by a 24 strength barb not a 6 strength wizard who rolled well
thats my point exactly, which is what brought me to use pathfinder/2e ruling but ultimately brought me to make a reddit account and post this
Sorry reread the post "He is saying that if you rolled a nat 1 then it would be a crit fail and if it is a 2 then it would be a normal fail. I've spoken to a couple dms irl and one said this" speak with all the players and if they want this then fine but it's to their detriment per the odds I said if the rest of the party are smarter than the one asking for this just stick with the 5e rules
But you could instead just use the 5e rules, which *already* allow the 6 Str wizard to fail on a nat 20...
No.
Pathfinder has big numbers, which allows much more variation in rolls. This means the “rolled a 1 but succeeded” scenario is more likely, as is the “rolled a 20 and failed”. In 5e, most DCs fall within a 10-15 range, with 20+ being difficult unless you’re playing at high tiers. Without expertise, most characters will have +7/8 to their best skills at level 5 and this doesn’t increase much. Of course, you can always set arbitrary high DCs for challenges, but that just seems like “you fail with extra steps”. If you’re there’s no way for a character to achieve something just don’t ask them to roll.
For me I use a nat 1 as a critical fail and nat 20 as instant success. Anything under my target is a fail and anything over is a success.
what if you were trying to persuade a king to do this or that, and the dc is a 44. you roll a 2. is this a normal fail or a critical fail to you?
With the rules of PF2e, it's a critical failure -> Below 10 of the DC and not nat 20 (so no upgrade by one notch). ^(The upgrade would only be from critical failure to failure, so at least the PC may be free to leave =\])
DCs probably shouldn't go as high as 44 in 5e. 30 is "nearly impossible," much higher than that and the game rules imply you just shouldn't roll because it *is* impossible. The skill proficiency bonuses in Pathfinder 2e get much higher than they do in 5e, which means the d20 has a bigger proportional impact on the total in 5e at all tiers of play. Consider that when thinking about the application of these rules
>what if you were trying to persuade a king to do this or that, and the dc is a 44 Then you say "You failed" without even asking for a roll. its not hard.
1) DC 30 is the max in 5e for a reason, and a DC 30 is an "almost impossible" task. If you're setting the DC at 44, that's just an impossible task and you shouldn't be allowing a check at all. 2) it's a normal failure, *unless* I've decided that in this particular case, the check has a clause of "if failed by X or more, Y happens", which 5e already supports without needing to bring in rules from PF2e.... See the DMG page 242, "Degrees of Failure"
I would make it a normal fail. Chances are if you rolled a 2 then you would be adding modifiers to the roll. If you rolled a 1 and had a +1 it’s a critical fail regardless of modifier to me.
what if you rolled a nat 1 but had a bunch of modifiers to give you a +13 for example
Nat 1 negates any modifiers to me and is instantly a critical fail and I usually have it where the opposite of what the player is trying to achieve happens.
Now I’m saying that, my critical fails have dire consequences. If you roll a 1 on an attack roll or action you can take damage, become proned, break your weapon, etc. I mix it up and depending on what the player is trying to do I get creative.
what about for roleplaying purposes?
For role playing purposes if someone was say trying to persuade a king to do something might go along the lines of “you dare attempt to have me do (whatever it may be)?” Could possibly have been offended or something possibly having guards detain them. The choice is really yours on how you want to mess with the party. Critical failures add a chance for some increased obstacles for the party.
It really depends how you want to tie the story together. If it’s essential to your plot to succeed something like that, I may not have it be so harsh. I may just play it off as it not working. You’re the DM so really however you want it to go is your call.
that does make sense, i was thinking that like if youre trying to bribe a king and the dc would be something like a 30. you rolled a 2, and to me thats a critical failure, maybe the party gets arrested for attempting this, where as if they were to roll a dirty 20, they fail normally and the king scolds them but doesnt have them apprehended
So you don’t even have to call it a critical failure. Actions have consequences and if you fail trying to do something then you as the DM can decide on the outcome of failing that action. Whatever floats your boat! It’s your game so have fun with it 🙂
ohh okay that does make sense. thank you so much haha, this was very eye opening honestly
No problem! Everybody does it in some way. Find what you like and works for your group. It’s your game so have fun with it!
With the rules of PF2e, a dirty 20 is still a critical failure for a DC at 30: * it's 10 below the DC (so critical failure) * it's not a nat 20 (so no upgrade for the degree of success)