• SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well you as a DM set the DC. If it makes sense to work then set it to 3 or something, or just make it free. But setting it to succeed on anything except for critical failure makes sense, since anyone can flub their grand moment.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I also hate the DnD criticals. First, they don’t apply to ability checks if you’re playing by the book, so the point is moot here. Second, why is someone very skilled at something just as likely to crit as someone unskilled? Pathfinder 2E does it great where you need to be over/under the AC/DC by 10 or more for a crit. Someone very good at something will critically succeed more often with that skill than someone very bad, who will critically fail more often. In fact, someone particularly skilled may not even be able to critically fail a check that’s trivial for them. The fact that a master still has a 1/20 chance to critically fail trivial things in the DnD rules isn’t ideal.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        There are abilities and gear that lower your crit requirement, but usually only by 1, so 5% higher chance of crit. I agree that your crit chance should go up as you get better, but only in relation to the skill of your opponent. Like I’m sure Bruce Lee could punch me exactly where he wants to 100% of the time, but not so much against Donny Yen. The pathfinder system sounds smart.

        It’s definitely possible for people who have mastered things to critically fail. How many times have you drunk water in your life? Millions of times? But every rare once in a while you mess it up so bad that you put water into your windpipe. That’s a critical failure. But the chances of it happening when you’ve mastered something should certainly be far lower than 5%.

        • Kichae@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          I agree that your crit chance should go up as you get better, but only in relation to the skill of your opponent.

          Conveniently, that’s also how Pathfinder does it.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I can’t remember when I last failed to drink. Maybe I’m an overgrown halfling and get to reroll 1s

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was going to mention the feats that change crits in DnD 5E but I felt that was getting too far into the weeds. The fact of the matter is you skill doesn’t really matter for crits in 5E. Maybe you decrease the requirment for a crit by 1, but let’s say you have that and great weapon master. Shouldn’t that -5 to hit effect your chance to crit? You’re going all in on power, so you lose precision. Why are the odds exactly the same? It just doesn’t make sense. The crit system is half baked and doesn’t really work, and then your throw in advantage and disadvantage and the system is really flawed. Pathfinder 2E seems to have figure this all out, but the new version of DnD (5.5E, or whatever they call it) doesn’t seem to try to fix it.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Critical success and failures are by the book.

        They are an optional rule in the Dungeon Master Guide on page 242.

        They are as optional as Multiclassing and Feats.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, the rule as stated there is a recommendation to possibly change “exceptional rolls” to have different effects. It talks about rolling a 1 and 20, but I’d say DMs should probably just use the Pathfinder option of getting 10 points higher or lower than the DC. It just makes so much more sense, although the advantage/disadvantage system doesn’t really work for this as well as the Pathfinder system, which actually adds to your roll.

          At the end of the day, everything in the book is a guide. You should throw parts away that don’t work and add things that do. Regardless though, the rules of Pathfinder 2E need a lot less modification to work as you’d expect.

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t play PF2E, but I checked out the crit rules a couple of months ago and rolling a nat 1 or 20 was still accounted for. From memory, doing that or succeeding / failing by 10+ brought you down or up a degree of success, and those degrees were:

            1. Crit fail
            2. Fail
            3. Succeed
            4. Crit success

            So if the DC was 25, you rolled a nat 20, and your result was a 16-24, you would succeed. If your result had been a 25 or higher, you’d have critically succeeded.

            If the DC was 10 and you rolled a nat 1, you didn’t necessarily critically fail. If your result was a 20 or higher, you’d still succeed (since you were over by 10); on a 10-19, you’d fail; and on a 9 or lower you’d critically fail.

            If you rolled a nat 2-19, though, the impact of the over by 10 / under by 10 would be more noticeable. Vs a DC 15, you would crit fail if your result was 5 or lower and crit succeed if your result was 25 or higher.

            Like I said, I haven’t played with the PF2E system, but my impression is that it would be a big improvement over 5e’s current system without suffering the same issues that most homebrew crit systems run into. It makes critical successes and failures more believable. It encourages DMs to prepare outcomes for the higher degrees of success / failure due to them having a higher chance of occurring. It makes it less likely for crit failures to happen to highly skilled characters.

            And, as a fringe benefit, it also means that you can have almost impossible DCs that are possible only for the most skilled, and even then, only when they’re lucky (like a DC of 40 in a game where the highest bonus you can reasonably get is +11-+19, such that only a nat 20 by someone with such a bonus can succeed).

        • Colalextrast@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Arguably MORE optional as this rule does not appear in the PHB, but fair enough. To me, using crits on ability checks messes with game balance too much and challenges verisimilitude. But, to each their own.

    • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Also you can just give advantage if it’s such an obviously threatening situation.

      That should easily make up for the lost + in Charisma modifier.