ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -Commenter Kirinboy39 makes a good point: the system gives GMs who want to reward natural 20s/high rolls in other systems a ready way to reward them. -In the "mitigating luck" section, I probably should have mentioned that PF2e departs from D&D and PF1e in making ALMOST all knockouts result in you just gaining the Dying condition. (No instant death at 0 or at negative X hit points) Of course, there is the Massive Damage rule, but it comes up much more rarely than in those systems. -I appreciate the name-dropping of other systems that have degrees of success, but it's only minimally useful without knowing how the systems rewarded and punished exceptional successes and failures.
One small note: Degrees of Success pop up in some random places of Pathfinder 1e. For instance Trip, the combat ability: - Success: Target is prone. - Fail: Nothing happens. - Fail by 10 or more: You are prone instead. Bull Rush (aka Shove; or a Shove with a running start): - Fail: Nothing happens. - Success: Target is pushed back 5 ft. - Success by 5 or more: Target is pushed back 10 ft. - Success by 10 or more: Target is pushed back 15 ft. - Success by 15 or more: Target is pushed back 20 ft. - Etc. ad infinitum So the Degrees of Success is not new for Pathfinder 2e. The fact that it is consolidated to 10 or less/10 or more however is, as is the fact that it's standardized for most abilities to use them, rather than just a few random abilities here and there. And a Mark Seifter fun fact: why is balanced around 10 or more? Why not 5 or more? Or 8 or more? Simply because adding or subtracting 10 is easier: you just have to change the digit in the tens place rather than make a whole calculation.
The fantasy flight Star wars rpg had a system called "destiny points" There was a pool of coins with dark and light side on them, usually 5-6 (amount of players plus one, iirc). At the start of the session you'd roll to see which side faced up for each coin. Whenever a player wanted to do the equivalent of a reroll or similar, they'd flip a coin in the pool from light to dark. The catch was that the DM could do the same for monsters by flipping from dark to light. As such there was a constant ebb and flow of what was essentially hero/villain points. P.S They also used the flipping off these coins to activate certain abilities, or certain abilities counted the amount of light/dark in the pool for their effects. But that's less relevant to the discussion. Edit: typo, "certain" instead of "vision". Autocorrect you rascal.
Mm. I think Savage Worlds gives the GM bennies to use on specific NPC wildcards (I forget if they're per character or a fixed pool for the whole session) Side note - I hate the term bennies.
The four degrees of success also work really well with monsters even a level higher than your players. The monster seems incredibly strong, but with a stroke of luck, that gunslinger of yours just blows its head off with a gun or the wizard's massive spell blew a hole into its body. You still get that "feel" of a crit, when someone announces a high number and the DM tells that is a critical hit. This even applies to negative effects who's "failure" applies a lesser version of the debuff they were trying to apply, getting completely unaffected by crits and everything. The crit system just feels so good both as players and DM I love it so much.
Levels of success and failure is actually probably my favorite part of PF2e. I do agree it is one of the most important aspects not just for balance, but play feel as well. If you cast a spell in success for failure games, if the enemy makes the save, you might feel bad or think you wasted your turn/action. But with degrees of success, if they succeed but still get some effect, you feel good about it and something goes well. It is a GREAT rule for improving play feel, which is ever so critical in play. Make players feel good in their choices and decisions. Make them feel relevant.
Another thing I want to share is that the way Paizo actually think about criticals make it easier for the GM. I had a few occasions when I was GMing DnD and I frankly have no idea how to reward/punish players when they hit that rare crit, because most occasions that they occur, there's no proper resolution or ideas on how to resolve them, adding a bit more work to the DM's already complicated role. Now with PF2, I can easily find a reference or idea on how to reward/punish them just by looking at some trap or ability and add something there.
Someone's probably already mentioned it, but a few big systems incorporate degrees of success into their core design and have them as a universal mechanic: The FATE system has four degrees of success: failure, tie, success, and "success with style" (essentially critical success). Even within these definitions, many actions also place importance on the specific amount you beat (or fail to beat) the target by, using that to determine how much damage you do or how much progress you make. The Powered By The Apocalypse systems, such as Monster of the Week or Dungeon World, all have three degrees of success: Failure, Mixed Success, and Complete Success. Because this engine has only the players roll dice, the player's rolls also determine the success of monsters or other hazards in harming or hindering the players; when players fail, they don't achieve what they want and the GM takes a "move" to oppose them, and on a mixed success often they get a lesser version of what they were trying to do, or get what they want but with consequences. Blades in the Dark works similarly (including only the players rolling dice, outside of "luck rolls") but separates it out into "effect" and "consequences". On a full success, the player gets the effect of their actions and avoids the consequences, on a mixed success they get the effect but take the consequences, and on a failure they take consequences with nothing to show for it. There is also the possibility of "Critical Successes" as well, which is just Success but... More. Greater effect, however the GM chooses to interpret it. To be fair, these are all much simpler systems which consolidate what might be multiple turns' worth of rolls in Pathfinder into a single check; a single roll determining both whether you hit and whether the monster hits you back, for example, so having more degrees of success allows for at least a wider range of the reasonably expectable results, rather than a binary "you succeed and are awesome and nothing goes wrong" or "you screw up badly and everything is on fire now and it's all your fault", while still avoiding the focused, tactical-minded gameplay that Pathfinder focuses on.
My fav part of 4 degrees of success is when your facing the same group that was a boss monster but now are fodder ergo orge is a boss at low levels. At mid levels you can fight like 10 at once and have a massive fireball crit just feels so epic.
Been playing pathfinder 2e. Only 2 sessions in and my combats have been way more faster then 5e. The crit system is so fun too! Someone crit failed and fell. Other person crit succeed and went to take out the enemy. It brought alot of excitement to the table
I loved PF2 4 degrees of success. Here are some others im aware of: You should look at mutants and masterminds. It was a superhero game, technically d20 based, but it went so far away from d20 that it didnt feel like d&d at all. But they had levels of success and levels of failure. Technically you could have 3 levels of success and 3 levels of failure. Every 5 aabove the DC was a level of success, so if the DC was 20: 20-24 was a success, 25-29 was 2 levels, etc... Dont get me wrong, I love PF2e levels of success its simpler, but its definitely an interesting system. Another ones is another superhero game that goes back to the 80s. Marvel/TSR's "FASERIP" game (named after the stats). You had white (failure), green (success), Yellow (one step above), and Red (2 steps above). (I havent played it in nearly 40 years, but i dont think it had opposed, the numbers needed were entirely based on your stats not a DC style check) You could also have things that required a yellow or red. (it was a column shift, back then more things were table based and it was a d100 system.
For another example, check out the Fate RPG system. Your dice are effectively 4d3 for every roll, and each d3 has a minus, blank, and plus face. That gives a bell curve between +4 and - 4, and your character's skills are between +0 and +4. If you meet a DC, you succeed, but if you get two more than it, you "succeed with style" and can create some kind of benefit in addition to your stated intention. Extra degrees of success is super useful for the reasons presented in the video, and I'm glad pf2e exists to show us that.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I can field the FATE question. FATE is often a more narrative-driven system, meaning it's a lot softer on the mechanics side and does, often, rely on GM Fiat, but there are certain actions that have concrete effects depending on whether it's a success or success with style. For example, when you roll to "Create an Advantage", on a success you create something called an Aspect, which a mechanical abstraction representing some nebulous "trait" about the environment or a character (like "Blinded" or "Hidden" or "Knocked Over Boxes") that players can spend a resource called "Fate Points" to invoke for a bonus on their roll. If you fail the roll, you just don't make the aspect. If you tie the roll (roll exactly the difficulty value of the check), you create a "temporary aspect" that you can invoke, but it goes away once you use it. If you succeed, you make the aspect and you can invoke it for free once without spending a fate point, meaning you get one free bonus on a future roll, on top of defining this trait that anyone can use with that resource until it's no longer relevant. If you succeed with style, you still create the aspect, and there is a GM Fiat in the respect that the GM can allow the aspect to be "more severe" than it would be on a normal success, but you also get two free invokes on the aspect, essentially allowing you to get that bonus twice without having to spend your points. You can even spend both free invokes on the same roll, allowing you to set up a *huge* roll (which is valuable in combat for a reason I'm about to explain). The other big one is when you roll to attempt to harm someone in combat. When you roll to attack someone, you don't roll separately for the hit and for damage, you make one attack roll which determines whether you hit, and if you hit, how much you succeed by is how much damage you deal (with potentially extra damage if you have a strong weapon or a "stunt" that says you deal more damage / "stress" on a hit). So if you hit your enemy but only beat their defense by 1, you deal 1 damage, but if you beat it by 5, you deal 5 damage, which with the scaling the game intends, is easily enough to take out most normal threats and usually force a major NPC to either take an injury or spend fate points to reduce your roll. This is why stacking up a bunch of free invokes to spend on one roll is useful in combat; it's generally better, at least against tough enemies, to set up a really good hit for later than try an unassisted attack that might only do 1 damage, if it hits at all. I believe attack rolls also have a success with style effect where you have the option to give up one point of damage to apply a temporary aspect, like tying on the roll to Create an Advantage, which then grants a +2 on a future roll; so give up one point of damage now to potentially gain 2 points later, or prevent 2 points to someone on your side when the enemy attacks; this is a more minor benefit than usual since the main effectiveness of an attack is already governed by how much you succeed, so the main benefit of succeeding with style is you're doing a lot of damage in one go. I hope this helps a little bit in giving a sense of scale; a success with style isn't usually quite "double" the effect, but when the effect can be measured in numbers it is usually about equivalent to a +2 bonus on a future roll, which means it's about value neutral to spend a fate point to turn a success into a success with style. (A +2 is also a huge bonus in Fate, since the rolls range from -4 to +4 and are *heavily* weighted towards the center, since it's essentially 4d3 as the other guy mentioned; I'd equate it to probably more like a +5 in a d20 system, though the probability distribution is so different it's hard to compare.)
I love the 4 degrees of success. Especially for debuff spells. With even a failure giving a debuff for a round, a well timed debuff spell can still set up a good round for the party even if the enemy gets a normal success on a save. And multitarget debuff spells can really disable groups of enemies. A multitarget slow or fear spell can severely nerve multiple enemies. 1 or 2 enemies crit failing a saving throw is pretty likely if dealing with groups of lower level enemies.
Love the video and channel! On whether previous systems have universally used degrees of success before, I've not played but seen it in the 5th ed. of Talislanta using 5 degrees (mishap, failure, partial, full, critical) for everything in increments of 5 rather than 10 on d20. Not seen other editions
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG The results are described so: "Mishap: not only does the attempted action fail, but it fails miserably and may have additional negative consequences (accidental damage to the character attempting the action, opposite of the intended effect, etc.). It’s the GM’s job to determine the actual results of any Mishap, based on the circumstances surrounding the attempted action. Failure: the action fails to achieve the intended result. Partial Success: the action is only moderately successful, achieving part but not all of the in tended effect (such as half-damage from an at tack or partial effect from a spell, for example). Full Success: the action achieves the intended result. Critical Success: the action is even more successful than intended, achieving the player’s stat ed intent and also yielding additional benefits of some sort (attack causes a Critical Wound that disables the opponent, increased effect from a spell, etc.). It’s the GM’s job to determine the actual results and extent of any Critical Success, based on prevailing circumstances." Difficulty is a modifier from -10 to +10 which a skill or attribute is added to and then to the d20. A total of 0 or less being a mishap, 20 or more a crit.
Agreeing before I even finish the video since I literally just finished GMing my weekly game of Pathfinder! My favorite part of the Crit system is that I can walk my players back through the math and show them that because this person cast a spell, and this ally gave the aid action, that resulted in the crit. My players have the uncanny ability to just barely crit after getting bonuses from other people helping, which always ends up as a magic and memorable moment
It's not a TTRPG, but rather a LARP system, but By Night Studios' Vampire LARP also has a system of degrees of success that seems to work pretty well (for LARP). First off, the base mechanic is Rock-Paper-Scissors, modified by compared ability between combatants, as well as a re-test system that any PC (and some NPCs) can use in the case of a loss. In an outright loss (e.g., rock vs paper) the losing character can spend one of their 7 Willpower to re-initiate the test. In a tie (rock vs. rock) the two combatants compare their pool (attribute+skill), and the one with the higher total wins the exchange. In an outright win (rock vs. scissors), they also compare their pool: if the attacker who has outright won the test ALSO has a higher pool, they score an Exceptional Success, which does additional damage. This system carries over to other sorts of tests as well.
oh. my. god i've been hammering the point at 24:28 sooooo long (i first wrote it up in a bg2 gamefaqs guide when discussing the wild mage), and have been using it to criticize some other game mechanis (e.g. the deadfire version of the wild mage). i'm so happy to hear another (more prominent) voice making this same point
I agree that degrees of success not only make for good mechanics but also storytelling. It's a bit different, but forged in the dark games (and apocalypse world in general) have failures, partial successes, full successes, and critical successes that really drive the game forward. I think that approach is especially important for narrative rolls, and less so combat rolls. I've adopted something similar with D&D and Pathfinder based on a rolls proximity to the DC of whatever (noncombat) thing they're doing. A houserule that's consistently gone over super well for Pathfinder, either when I've suggested it as a player or a GM, is starting with 1 hero point, getting hero points on critical failures, and buffing the hero points so that instead of a reroll (that often fails anyways and creates a feels bad moment, especially if you spent multiple hero points on it) it just turns a critical failure into a failure, a failure into a success, or a success into a critical success. Leads to some very heroic moments!
3:00 I know that technically, the rules state that a Critical Failure occurs if you "fail by 10 or more", but I instead prefer to use the rule "fail by more than 10", the reason being that it makes results more symmetrical. It seems nonsensical to me that the probability of a regular success tops out at 50%, but the probability of a regular failure tops out at 45% (and thus makes critical failure more likely).
I think the 5% discrepancy is a fine price to pay for the rules being symmetrical even if the numbers aren't - at least for the official rules. Players learning the system don't have to worry about "was it 10 or more, or only over 10?" or "which way was 10 or more again?", it's the same application of "10 or more" in either direction.
The 1st system I played that used degrees of success was Mutants and Masterminds 3E, and I like the degrees in that system. So when I saw during playtest that PF2 was going to have degrees of success I was very happy.
As another crooked glasses wearer, I feel you. Keep those glasses crooked. Every pair of glasses I've owned has started slanting to the left. I have no idea why, but it's gotta be something with my ears.
You mentioned that encounters run longer in PF2e than in most other systems, but we haven't had this experience at our home table. Admittedly we've got a little more than half of the Abomination Vaults and only a couple of levels in Outlaws of Alkenstar to refer to. So I'm wondering if we're running things "wrong", if Abomination Vaults particularly has short fights, or if maybe just our players are particularly adept at combat. Anyways, loved the video! Thanks for the breakdown on the "every plus 1 matters". We're gonna show this to our friends and new commers too PF2e!
When I speak to combat length, I'm speaking purely about the number of rounds compared to other D&D and Pathfinder editions (with the exception of D&D 4e probably). Actual playtime would be different, which I don't know if you're addressing?
Hi Ronald! Will you continue this series? I've recently got into Pathfinder 2e coming from many different other games, and this series has helped me put into focus a lot of the game and to correct my perception of it. It's been super helpful!
I would like a lot to know what you think about RPGs with mana systems. D&D 5E has an optional rule of Spell Points, which is pretty much Mana. There is also a Brazilian system called "Tormenta 20", which has the best magic system I've ever played. I'm not sure there is an English translation though 😢
After a quick google, there is an English translation. I'm going to have to spend some time looking at that magic system because it does sound very much like what I want from a magic system.
My first experience with a system that had 4 degrees of success like this was the Pillars of Eternity games, where they have something very similar to PF2. I wonder what came first between it and PF2, or whether it was parallel thinking.
Hey Ronald, love your content! You mentioned PWL early in the video and as someone that generally prefers lower fantasy settings as a GM, it very much interests me. However, the general consensus I see online about PWL is that it's much more difficult to balance encounters and some feats really start to fall off and as a newer player to the system, I don't feel comfortable trying to run a campaign with the usual tools for GMs becoming much less reliable. Would you be willing to put out a video in the near future going over PWL, how it works, and what GMs less knowledgeable about the system can do to make it work more?
The general consensus is to at least try the default rules first. I haven't heard that it's harder to balance (the system gives an alternative XP chart for building encounters), but the issues I've heard are that (1) there isn't support for how to deal with set DCs (e.g., the different DCs for Treating Wounds) so you have to homebrew a solution, and (2) a general feeling of "samey-ness" to the math as there aren't big divergences once you remove Level. "A 12 might always hit" for example. I find that most of the desire to flatten the math comes from GMs who want to have a more sandboxy campaign. But it not only makes weakens bosses; it also strengthens "mooks." One issue at low levels is that Level 1 parties don't really find creatures that are much weaker than they are, which already is a problem in the default rules. I don't think I'd put out a video unless I tried it myself first tho
Chronicles of Darkness uses Dramatic Success, Success, Failure, and Dramatic Failure. Generally you apply bonuses or penalties as a change in the number of D10s you throw above or below your base Ability+Skill pool. Rolling 8-10 on a die is a Success, and a 10 normally also lets you roll one more die per 10. 1-4 successes on a roll is a normal Success at the action, while 5+ is a Dramatic Success. No successes is an ordinary Failure. If penalties would reduce your pool to zero dice, you can choose to roll a Chance Die, where 10 is an ordinary success and 1 is a Dramatic Failure. The system uses what are called Beats, or 1/5th of an experience point, as the primary reward for advancement, and there's also the option to intentionally turn an ordinary failure into a dramatic for a Beat. Unlike in combat-focused games like DnD/PF where Bad Stuff happening to your character can hurt the party's ability to operate, the goal is interesting drama, so it rewards completing goals, taking on negative Conditions then resolving them, and having failures just as much as achieving goals.
probably the first place i saw degrees of success was in Eclipse Phase 1e it's a skill-based blackjack d100 system, which means that you have a skill rated from 0-100 and you might get modifiers (each +/-10-30, but they don't stack past +/-60), which when added together leaves a Target Number you want to roll equal to or under (the d100 is read as 00-99 though, so an abysmal TN of 5 has a 6% chance to succeed), your Margin of Success is just the number on the d100 though, so rolling closer to your TN is better as long as you're still under many things in EP1 give bonuses for every full 30 points of MoS, which are still smaller than crits while are any doubles that succeed (like 22 on a TN of 40, this is why reading it as 00 instead of 100 is important), so like an attack roll of 44 would be a crit that also qualifies for one stack of bonus damage from, but since a crit is already doubling the damage you ignore the >30 MoS
I have found that hero points tend to be spent when needed, because oddly you can have more than one, even when it's the last one, people seem to be more willing to use it whereas inspiration gets forgotten or kept for the worse possible case ... which the current situation is never quite bad enough ... Advantage/Disadvantage is far far better than the many stacking bonuses of D&D 3/4/ PF1e simply because it's simpler, but the bonuses in PF2e are simple enough and rarely stack so not causing many issues The four degrees of success seems really good ... I am still early days in playing PF2e ...what happens to low level monsters, do they become irrelevant or do they still pose a small threat ?
They still pose a threat commensurate to their XP value, which lowers when you level up beyond them. Six Level X-2 monsters will be a Severe threat to a Level X party. Some might argue that they are weaker than the number suggests, but I don't know if that's always true.
4 degrees of success is awesome, but my impression is that other rules you end up hating it. Spellcasters are obviously set up to expect to fail with their spells (whixh even Paizo acknowledged when they gave NPC rules with higher spell DCs than is possible for PCs on same level), rather than regular success, so their play is just a series of nothing or minor effects and just getting a success feels like you critted. With your limited resource expenditure. Meanwhile, even martials feel bad because they mainly get the improved crit chance versus lower level creatures (most of the time you don't care, they would've died). While against higher level creatures where you want crits, you get stuck with only critting on 20 while they get more crits against you. Especially on the break levels when creatures have extra+2 on top of their higher level.
I'd say these are the results of a working encounter balancing system. Your negative examples all involve higher-level creatures, and the fact that a higher level creature than a party member. If a table doesn't want to feel like they're fighting a stone wall, the GM can adjust the encounters using the same working system.
I noticed the bottom text about the glasses, and I want to leave a non-rude comment encouraging this behavior and requesting you extend the crooked glasses by 1 week. Nothing wrong with trolling the glasses-lawyers in your audience :D
Call of Cthulhu has degrees of success. Your ability in a skill ranges from 1 to 99 and when you do a check you roll two D10s and you're aiming to roll UNDER your skill. But if you roll under half your skill level you get a Hard Success and if you roll under a fifth of your skill you get an Extreme Success.
Okay I have issue with the feeble mind would completely disable Vecna... He is a literal god of magic, a single 3rd level spell isn't going to do anything to him, even if it did make it through his Divine and Arcane defenses. Similarly, a Lich, which is at least a 13th Level Arcane Caster, with Undead Traits, and Spell Resistance to bolter his defenses, a Feeblemind is very unlikely to even make it through, if the Lich doesn't outright Counterspell it himself, which he is likely to do.
More rolls does not make the bonuses more worthwhile, it makes the game less swingy, since the more rolls are made the more likely the average outcome What it does mean, is that the +1s *feel* more impactful
Hey, I know this is an older video at this point and this might not be the best forum to ask, but I've been binging your videos and this comment is a question reacting to what you say here, so I may as well try. The idea of leveling past creatures where before they were bosses and now they are mooks seems to work fairly okay at the very low levels, with a level 1 fighter challenged to his limits by the Xulgath Leader, then at level 5 being able to easily carve through his 44 HP in a round or two, but later you have an image of 12 Adult Red Dragons, representing them now being mooks. Now, this may be merely a visual joke more than an actual representation, but to take it seriously instead, each Adult Red Dragon has 305 HP. Are you really able to hack through 3,500+ HP in a reasonable length of time in high level Pathfinder, even if you're critting on 15+? I have played only one PF2e game, and in it, our ranger was critting fairly often, but even so, enemies felt very durable, able to take attacks from the entire party several rounds in a row before buckling. The questions: 1: Is this a feature, not bug situation. 2: Is this typical, IE did we just build or play our party bad? / Did the GM not build encounters appropriately? 3: As levels increase, does this impression reinforce, with enormous HP totals and just 12+ round combat, or does it mitigate, and damage scales as fast or faster than HP?
Pf2e keeps ruining other games for me. Only having one action in most ttrpgs feels ridiculous. And not actually worrying about the total to a roll is so wierd. Why is a 24 and a 32 the same for my attack roll?
+1 is just a +1, still. It counts just 5% to your success rate. For me a +1 does not feel good, when I try to enhance my chances. That it boosts my crit chance does not help to get a sucess at all. I play PF2E and i am tired of these small boosts, while your level progression makes checks harder and needs every small boost. So if you not have at this level that striking rune you become worse at what you do for your level. I wanted to play a character which uses Aid to boost allies. Well, I re-trained a lot of the feats to boost it, because it does so little. Actions and reactions are wasted on it - I could two cooler things with it. I write a hombrew system, which took more and more from PF2E design ideas (to introduce the three action system had a big impact), but the sucess systems feld gamy and less like roleplay. Everything has rules. Nothing/less to improvise/express yourself creativly.
You are supposed to use it when you need it, and have a good chance to succeed. using it on your first attack rather than hoping your second one hits and then perhaps rerolling is therefore a valid strat
Usually use it on my critical fail saving throws and usually still get a critical fail. I only use it on a first attack if it's essential that I hit to finish the creature before it attacks a team mate that is in dire straights. I really hate Hero Points.@@mr.cauliflower3536
In dnd I know that in the worst situation my fireball will deal half of the damage In pf2 I know that my fireball will deal half of the damage and in the worst situation 0 damage
So why at 13:30 did you say that by reducing the number the xulgath needed to make a crit from a 17 to a 20 makes the xulgath chance to crit reduced by 75%? Wouldn’t it only be a 15% difference? I know 3/4 (17,18,19,20) is 75% but isn’t wording like that not really a true representation of the facts? While it’s “true” it’s not really indicative of the real odds since players will only see a 15% change in crit chance?
Welcome to the hellscape that is talking about maths accurately! The probability of a crit decreases by "75 percent" or "15 percentage points". AFAIK, it was used correctly in the video. You can see people getting tripped up by these things all the time when talking about elections. Unfortunately, humans are really bad at probability and our languages reflect that. Source: I am teaching an undergrad-level probability and statistics class.
When what matters is avoiding a crit (as it often does), then yes you have reduced the chances of the xulgath rolling it from 4 to 1: a 75% reduction. Meanwhile the chance of it regular-hitting you is the same (50%), and the chance of it missing you has gone up from 30% to 45%.
Not a rude comment, I promise, but ... like me, the tops of your ears aren't even. This means your glasses will be at an angle, and while the arms and temples can be adjusted on some makes, yours are plastic and a particular shape that fits your features well -- you can probably get away with it if you don't have astigmatism, but it will damage your vision over time if you do. If you're truly dedicated to having your glasses at an angle to tweak people, please get a prescription that will correct your vision safely at the jaunty angle you're using.
Doesn't everyone play 5e like this anyways? I like Pathfinder 2e... but seriously. EDIT: Nevermind, the being off by 10 or more thing isn't used in 5e a lot, but I use it.
Can I still make a rude comment about you needing to straighten your glasses to extend it by another week just so you keep doing it lol? If so then *insert rude comment here*
1) Arguable, I don't find it does for me, but ymmv, 2) I'd say forces support roles on people, but again ymmv 3) One shotting the BBEG is fantastic fun, grinding tedium as laid out by this system is...well boring, 4) Not really, against equal level foes you are looking at basically the same rolls 1-20, with some opponents being harder or easier to hit/crit (this was a stated goal), and they achieved it, I never feel more powerful, that joy of shredding with multi attack while crit fishing that 1e had is gone, and swing twice and move is basically the default for the entire level range now (with some swings replaced with for instance trips), but again, 2 attack equivalent and a move being the overwhelming majority of combat. Your example for progression is flat dishonest, we are supposed to mainly be fighting equal level opponents, your example should always be an equal level to said fighter.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG which is why I said equivalent, doing your chores to inflict statuses for the tiny bonuses just isn't all that interesting, if they were actual choices, then they probably would be, but they aren't they are the basic things you have to do to not suck, and they also tend to demote characters to 'also starring' type roles, necessary for the mechanics of the system, but stuck in support roles, inflicting those statuses/adding those buffs....Save or Suck one shotting things was better than this, at least that had the merit of being quick.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-Commenter Kirinboy39 makes a good point: the system gives GMs who want to reward natural 20s/high rolls in other systems a ready way to reward them.
-In the "mitigating luck" section, I probably should have mentioned that PF2e departs from D&D and PF1e in making ALMOST all knockouts result in you just gaining the Dying condition. (No instant death at 0 or at negative X hit points) Of course, there is the Massive Damage rule, but it comes up much more rarely than in those systems.
-I appreciate the name-dropping of other systems that have degrees of success, but it's only minimally useful without knowing how the systems rewarded and punished exceptional successes and failures.
Discord link in the description expired
@@Leonardo-fv4vu Will get on it.
Use this for now: discord.gg/YEXajaxdgq
PF2e's 4 degrees of success have helped my table immensely in the best way-- the way that they don't always notice but in a way that they feel.
One small note: Degrees of Success pop up in some random places of Pathfinder 1e. For instance Trip, the combat ability:
- Success: Target is prone.
- Fail: Nothing happens.
- Fail by 10 or more: You are prone instead.
Bull Rush (aka Shove; or a Shove with a running start):
- Fail: Nothing happens.
- Success: Target is pushed back 5 ft.
- Success by 5 or more: Target is pushed back 10 ft.
- Success by 10 or more: Target is pushed back 15 ft.
- Success by 15 or more: Target is pushed back 20 ft.
- Etc. ad infinitum
So the Degrees of Success is not new for Pathfinder 2e. The fact that it is consolidated to 10 or less/10 or more however is, as is the fact that it's standardized for most abilities to use them, rather than just a few random abilities here and there.
And a Mark Seifter fun fact: why is balanced around 10 or more? Why not 5 or more? Or 8 or more? Simply because adding or subtracting 10 is easier: you just have to change the digit in the tens place rather than make a whole calculation.
Instead of removing hero points for hardcore - Add villian points! The GM gets a limited amount of rerolls to spend on enemies.
I love them!
The fantasy flight Star wars rpg had a system called "destiny points"
There was a pool of coins with dark and light side on them, usually 5-6 (amount of players plus one, iirc). At the start of the session you'd roll to see which side faced up for each coin.
Whenever a player wanted to do the equivalent of a reroll or similar, they'd flip a coin in the pool from light to dark. The catch was that the DM could do the same for monsters by flipping from dark to light.
As such there was a constant ebb and flow of what was essentially hero/villain points.
P.S They also used the flipping off these coins to activate certain abilities, or certain abilities counted the amount of light/dark in the pool for their effects. But that's less relevant to the discussion.
Edit: typo, "certain" instead of "vision". Autocorrect you rascal.
Mm. I think Savage Worlds gives the GM bennies to use on specific NPC wildcards (I forget if they're per character or a fixed pool for the whole session)
Side note - I hate the term bennies.
The four degrees of success also work really well with monsters even a level higher than your players.
The monster seems incredibly strong, but with a stroke of luck, that gunslinger of yours just blows its head off with a gun or the wizard's massive spell blew a hole into its body.
You still get that "feel" of a crit, when someone announces a high number and the DM tells that is a critical hit.
This even applies to negative effects who's "failure" applies a lesser version of the debuff they were trying to apply, getting completely unaffected by crits and everything.
The crit system just feels so good both as players and DM I love it so much.
It's hard to go back to other systems, where you can beat a DC by 15, 20, even more, and yet the system doesn't reward you for it!
Levels of success and failure is actually probably my favorite part of PF2e. I do agree it is one of the most important aspects not just for balance, but play feel as well. If you cast a spell in success for failure games, if the enemy makes the save, you might feel bad or think you wasted your turn/action. But with degrees of success, if they succeed but still get some effect, you feel good about it and something goes well.
It is a GREAT rule for improving play feel, which is ever so critical in play. Make players feel good in their choices and decisions. Make them feel relevant.
Another thing I want to share is that the way Paizo actually think about criticals make it easier for the GM.
I had a few occasions when I was GMing DnD and I frankly have no idea how to reward/punish players when they hit that rare crit, because most occasions that they occur, there's no proper resolution or ideas on how to resolve them, adding a bit more work to the DM's already complicated role.
Now with PF2, I can easily find a reference or idea on how to reward/punish them just by looking at some trap or ability and add something there.
Good point! Adding to my pinned comment
Someone's probably already mentioned it, but a few big systems incorporate degrees of success into their core design and have them as a universal mechanic:
The FATE system has four degrees of success: failure, tie, success, and "success with style" (essentially critical success). Even within these definitions, many actions also place importance on the specific amount you beat (or fail to beat) the target by, using that to determine how much damage you do or how much progress you make.
The Powered By The Apocalypse systems, such as Monster of the Week or Dungeon World, all have three degrees of success: Failure, Mixed Success, and Complete Success. Because this engine has only the players roll dice, the player's rolls also determine the success of monsters or other hazards in harming or hindering the players; when players fail, they don't achieve what they want and the GM takes a "move" to oppose them, and on a mixed success often they get a lesser version of what they were trying to do, or get what they want but with consequences.
Blades in the Dark works similarly (including only the players rolling dice, outside of "luck rolls") but separates it out into "effect" and "consequences". On a full success, the player gets the effect of their actions and avoids the consequences, on a mixed success they get the effect but take the consequences, and on a failure they take consequences with nothing to show for it. There is also the possibility of "Critical Successes" as well, which is just Success but... More. Greater effect, however the GM chooses to interpret it.
To be fair, these are all much simpler systems which consolidate what might be multiple turns' worth of rolls in Pathfinder into a single check; a single roll determining both whether you hit and whether the monster hits you back, for example, so having more degrees of success allows for at least a wider range of the reasonably expectable results, rather than a binary "you succeed and are awesome and nothing goes wrong" or "you screw up badly and everything is on fire now and it's all your fault", while still avoiding the focused, tactical-minded gameplay that Pathfinder focuses on.
My fav part of 4 degrees of success is when your facing the same group that was a boss monster but now are fodder ergo orge is a boss at low levels. At mid levels you can fight like 10 at once and have a massive fireball crit just feels so epic.
The Crit System makes playing a bard really fun
thanks for the new vid, such a good resource for me to send to newer players who are also really invested in mechanics
Been playing pathfinder 2e. Only 2 sessions in and my combats have been way more faster then 5e. The crit system is so fun too! Someone crit failed and fell. Other person crit succeed and went to take out the enemy. It brought alot of excitement to the table
I loved PF2 4 degrees of success. Here are some others im aware of:
You should look at mutants and masterminds. It was a superhero game, technically d20 based, but it went so far away from d20 that it didnt feel like d&d at all.
But they had levels of success and levels of failure.
Technically you could have 3 levels of success and 3 levels of failure.
Every 5 aabove the DC was a level of success, so if the DC was 20: 20-24 was a success, 25-29 was 2 levels, etc...
Dont get me wrong, I love PF2e levels of success its simpler, but its definitely an interesting system.
Another ones is another superhero game that goes back to the 80s. Marvel/TSR's "FASERIP" game (named after the stats).
You had white (failure), green (success), Yellow (one step above), and Red (2 steps above). (I havent played it in nearly 40 years, but i dont think it had opposed, the numbers needed were entirely based on your stats not a DC style check)
You could also have things that required a yellow or red. (it was a column shift, back then more things were table based and it was a d100 system.
For another example, check out the Fate RPG system. Your dice are effectively 4d3 for every roll, and each d3 has a minus, blank, and plus face. That gives a bell curve between +4 and - 4, and your character's skills are between +0 and +4.
If you meet a DC, you succeed, but if you get two more than it, you "succeed with style" and can create some kind of benefit in addition to your stated intention.
Extra degrees of success is super useful for the reasons presented in the video, and I'm glad pf2e exists to show us that.
What's an example of the effects of these different degrees?
@@KiaulenSimilar question: what is an example of "succeeding with style"? Is it purely GM fiat?
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I can field the FATE question. FATE is often a more narrative-driven system, meaning it's a lot softer on the mechanics side and does, often, rely on GM Fiat, but there are certain actions that have concrete effects depending on whether it's a success or success with style.
For example, when you roll to "Create an Advantage", on a success you create something called an Aspect, which a mechanical abstraction representing some nebulous "trait" about the environment or a character (like "Blinded" or "Hidden" or "Knocked Over Boxes") that players can spend a resource called "Fate Points" to invoke for a bonus on their roll. If you fail the roll, you just don't make the aspect. If you tie the roll (roll exactly the difficulty value of the check), you create a "temporary aspect" that you can invoke, but it goes away once you use it. If you succeed, you make the aspect and you can invoke it for free once without spending a fate point, meaning you get one free bonus on a future roll, on top of defining this trait that anyone can use with that resource until it's no longer relevant. If you succeed with style, you still create the aspect, and there is a GM Fiat in the respect that the GM can allow the aspect to be "more severe" than it would be on a normal success, but you also get two free invokes on the aspect, essentially allowing you to get that bonus twice without having to spend your points. You can even spend both free invokes on the same roll, allowing you to set up a *huge* roll (which is valuable in combat for a reason I'm about to explain).
The other big one is when you roll to attempt to harm someone in combat. When you roll to attack someone, you don't roll separately for the hit and for damage, you make one attack roll which determines whether you hit, and if you hit, how much you succeed by is how much damage you deal (with potentially extra damage if you have a strong weapon or a "stunt" that says you deal more damage / "stress" on a hit). So if you hit your enemy but only beat their defense by 1, you deal 1 damage, but if you beat it by 5, you deal 5 damage, which with the scaling the game intends, is easily enough to take out most normal threats and usually force a major NPC to either take an injury or spend fate points to reduce your roll. This is why stacking up a bunch of free invokes to spend on one roll is useful in combat; it's generally better, at least against tough enemies, to set up a really good hit for later than try an unassisted attack that might only do 1 damage, if it hits at all. I believe attack rolls also have a success with style effect where you have the option to give up one point of damage to apply a temporary aspect, like tying on the roll to Create an Advantage, which then grants a +2 on a future roll; so give up one point of damage now to potentially gain 2 points later, or prevent 2 points to someone on your side when the enemy attacks; this is a more minor benefit than usual since the main effectiveness of an attack is already governed by how much you succeed, so the main benefit of succeeding with style is you're doing a lot of damage in one go.
I hope this helps a little bit in giving a sense of scale; a success with style isn't usually quite "double" the effect, but when the effect can be measured in numbers it is usually about equivalent to a +2 bonus on a future roll, which means it's about value neutral to spend a fate point to turn a success into a success with style. (A +2 is also a huge bonus in Fate, since the rolls range from -4 to +4 and are *heavily* weighted towards the center, since it's essentially 4d3 as the other guy mentioned; I'd equate it to probably more like a +5 in a d20 system, though the probability distribution is so different it's hard to compare.)
@@AdamX222 thank you! I was having trouble explaining it, I've only played a little Fate
The crooked glasses both bother and amuse me to no end, lets keep it going!
I love the 4 degrees of success. Especially for debuff spells. With even a failure giving a debuff for a round, a well timed debuff spell can still set up a good round for the party even if the enemy gets a normal success on a save.
And multitarget debuff spells can really disable groups of enemies. A multitarget slow or fear spell can severely nerve multiple enemies. 1 or 2 enemies crit failing a saving throw is pretty likely if dealing with groups of lower level enemies.
I definitely enjoy degrees of success systems, and Pathfinder's is a good example for crunchier systems.
Great video! Thank you for the breakdown.
Love the video and channel!
On whether previous systems have universally used degrees of success before, I've not played but seen it in the 5th ed. of Talislanta using 5 degrees (mishap, failure, partial, full, critical) for everything in increments of 5 rather than 10 on d20. Not seen other editions
What are the results on those degrees of success? And how do they apply to attack rolls if they do?
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG The results are described so:
"Mishap: not only does the attempted action fail, but it fails miserably and may have additional negative consequences (accidental damage to the character attempting the action, opposite of the intended effect, etc.). It’s the GM’s job to determine the actual results of any Mishap, based on the circumstances surrounding the attempted action.
Failure: the action fails to achieve the intended result.
Partial Success: the action is only moderately successful, achieving part but not all of the in tended effect (such as half-damage from an at tack or partial effect from a spell, for example).
Full Success: the action achieves the intended result.
Critical Success: the action is even more successful than intended, achieving the player’s stat ed intent and also yielding additional benefits of some sort (attack causes a Critical Wound that disables the opponent, increased effect from a spell, etc.). It’s the GM’s job to determine the actual results and extent of any Critical Success, based on prevailing circumstances."
Difficulty is a modifier from -10 to +10 which a skill or attribute is added to and then to the d20. A total of 0 or less being a mishap, 20 or more a crit.
Agreeing before I even finish the video since I literally just finished GMing my weekly game of Pathfinder! My favorite part of the Crit system is that I can walk my players back through the math and show them that because this person cast a spell, and this ally gave the aid action, that resulted in the crit. My players have the uncanny ability to just barely crit after getting bonuses from other people helping, which always ends up as a magic and memorable moment
It's not a TTRPG, but rather a LARP system, but By Night Studios' Vampire LARP also has a system of degrees of success that seems to work pretty well (for LARP). First off, the base mechanic is Rock-Paper-Scissors, modified by compared ability between combatants, as well as a re-test system that any PC (and some NPCs) can use in the case of a loss. In an outright loss (e.g., rock vs paper) the losing character can spend one of their 7 Willpower to re-initiate the test. In a tie (rock vs. rock) the two combatants compare their pool (attribute+skill), and the one with the higher total wins the exchange. In an outright win (rock vs. scissors), they also compare their pool: if the attacker who has outright won the test ALSO has a higher pool, they score an Exceptional Success, which does additional damage. This system carries over to other sorts of tests as well.
oh. my. god
i've been hammering the point at 24:28 sooooo long (i first wrote it up in a bg2 gamefaqs guide when discussing the wild mage), and have been using it to criticize some other game mechanis (e.g. the deadfire version of the wild mage). i'm so happy to hear another (more prominent) voice making this same point
I just found this video series and binged the whole thing. I'm so happy to see this was uploaded 10 days ago ❤
I agree that degrees of success not only make for good mechanics but also storytelling. It's a bit different, but forged in the dark games (and apocalypse world in general) have failures, partial successes, full successes, and critical successes that really drive the game forward. I think that approach is especially important for narrative rolls, and less so combat rolls. I've adopted something similar with D&D and Pathfinder based on a rolls proximity to the DC of whatever (noncombat) thing they're doing. A houserule that's consistently gone over super well for Pathfinder, either when I've suggested it as a player or a GM, is starting with 1 hero point, getting hero points on critical failures, and buffing the hero points so that instead of a reroll (that often fails anyways and creates a feels bad moment, especially if you spent multiple hero points on it) it just turns a critical failure into a failure, a failure into a success, or a success into a critical success. Leads to some very heroic moments!
Ronald! Thank you so much for doing what you do! You are appreciated! Love your style & approach!
3:00 I know that technically, the rules state that a Critical Failure occurs if you "fail by 10 or more", but I instead prefer to use the rule "fail by more than 10", the reason being that it makes results more symmetrical. It seems nonsensical to me that the probability of a regular success tops out at 50%, but the probability of a regular failure tops out at 45% (and thus makes critical failure more likely).
I think the 5% discrepancy is a fine price to pay for the rules being symmetrical even if the numbers aren't - at least for the official rules. Players learning the system don't have to worry about "was it 10 or more, or only over 10?" or "which way was 10 or more again?", it's the same application of "10 or more" in either direction.
Either way, it’s easy enough to modify to make it forgiving, while still maintaining the fun outcomes
The 1st system I played that used degrees of success was Mutants and Masterminds 3E, and I like the degrees in that system. So when I saw during playtest that PF2 was going to have degrees of success I was very happy.
As another crooked glasses wearer, I feel you. Keep those glasses crooked.
Every pair of glasses I've owned has started slanting to the left. I have no idea why, but it's gotta be something with my ears.
You mentioned that encounters run longer in PF2e than in most other systems, but we haven't had this experience at our home table. Admittedly we've got a little more than half of the Abomination Vaults and only a couple of levels in Outlaws of Alkenstar to refer to. So I'm wondering if we're running things "wrong", if Abomination Vaults particularly has short fights, or if maybe just our players are particularly adept at combat.
Anyways, loved the video! Thanks for the breakdown on the "every plus 1 matters". We're gonna show this to our friends and new commers too PF2e!
When I speak to combat length, I'm speaking purely about the number of rounds compared to other D&D and Pathfinder editions (with the exception of D&D 4e probably). Actual playtime would be different, which I don't know if you're addressing?
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG OH actual rounds. Usually for us they've been running 1.5-2.5 rounds.
Hi Ronald! Will you continue this series? I've recently got into Pathfinder 2e coming from many different other games, and this series has helped me put into focus a lot of the game and to correct my perception of it. It's been super helpful!
I would like a lot to know what you think about RPGs with mana systems. D&D 5E has an optional rule of Spell Points, which is pretty much Mana. There is also a Brazilian system called "Tormenta 20", which has the best magic system I've ever played. I'm not sure there is an English translation though 😢
After a quick google, there is an English translation. I'm going to have to spend some time looking at that magic system because it does sound very much like what I want from a magic system.
My first experience with a system that had 4 degrees of success like this was the Pillars of Eternity games, where they have something very similar to PF2. I wonder what came first between it and PF2, or whether it was parallel thinking.
What happens on the different degrees? And do they work on regular attack rolls?
Hey Ronald, love your content! You mentioned PWL early in the video and as someone that generally prefers lower fantasy settings as a GM, it very much interests me. However, the general consensus I see online about PWL is that it's much more difficult to balance encounters and some feats really start to fall off and as a newer player to the system, I don't feel comfortable trying to run a campaign with the usual tools for GMs becoming much less reliable. Would you be willing to put out a video in the near future going over PWL, how it works, and what GMs less knowledgeable about the system can do to make it work more?
The general consensus is to at least try the default rules first. I haven't heard that it's harder to balance (the system gives an alternative XP chart for building encounters), but the issues I've heard are that (1) there isn't support for how to deal with set DCs (e.g., the different DCs for Treating Wounds) so you have to homebrew a solution, and (2) a general feeling of "samey-ness" to the math as there aren't big divergences once you remove Level. "A 12 might always hit" for example.
I find that most of the desire to flatten the math comes from GMs who want to have a more sandboxy campaign. But it not only makes weakens bosses; it also strengthens "mooks." One issue at low levels is that Level 1 parties don't really find creatures that are much weaker than they are, which already is a problem in the default rules.
I don't think I'd put out a video unless I tried it myself first tho
Chronicles of Darkness uses Dramatic Success, Success, Failure, and Dramatic Failure. Generally you apply bonuses or penalties as a change in the number of D10s you throw above or below your base Ability+Skill pool. Rolling 8-10 on a die is a Success, and a 10 normally also lets you roll one more die per 10. 1-4 successes on a roll is a normal Success at the action, while 5+ is a Dramatic Success. No successes is an ordinary Failure. If penalties would reduce your pool to zero dice, you can choose to roll a Chance Die, where 10 is an ordinary success and 1 is a Dramatic Failure.
The system uses what are called Beats, or 1/5th of an experience point, as the primary reward for advancement, and there's also the option to intentionally turn an ordinary failure into a dramatic for a Beat. Unlike in combat-focused games like DnD/PF where Bad Stuff happening to your character can hurt the party's ability to operate, the goal is interesting drama, so it rewards completing goals, taking on negative Conditions then resolving them, and having failures just as much as achieving goals.
Hero Points are a scam, Me after rerolling a 2 into a 1 3 times in row.
probably the first place i saw degrees of success was in Eclipse Phase 1e
it's a skill-based blackjack d100 system, which means that you have a skill rated from 0-100 and you might get modifiers (each +/-10-30, but they don't stack past +/-60), which when added together leaves a Target Number you want to roll equal to or under (the d100 is read as 00-99 though, so an abysmal TN of 5 has a 6% chance to succeed), your Margin of Success is just the number on the d100 though, so rolling closer to your TN is better as long as you're still under
many things in EP1 give bonuses for every full 30 points of MoS, which are still smaller than crits while are any doubles that succeed (like 22 on a TN of 40, this is why reading it as 00 instead of 100 is important), so like an attack roll of 44 would be a crit that also qualifies for one stack of bonus damage from, but since a crit is already doubling the damage you ignore the >30 MoS
In fairness about liches, it's also much easier for players to make powerful liches, too. Lol
I have found that hero points tend to be spent when needed, because oddly you can have more than one, even when it's the last one, people seem to be more willing to use it whereas inspiration gets forgotten or kept for the worse possible case ... which the current situation is never quite bad enough ...
Advantage/Disadvantage is far far better than the many stacking bonuses of D&D 3/4/ PF1e simply because it's simpler, but the bonuses in PF2e are simple enough and rarely stack so not causing many issues
The four degrees of success seems really good ... I am still early days in playing PF2e ...what happens to low level monsters, do they become irrelevant or do they still pose a small threat ?
They still pose a threat commensurate to their XP value, which lowers when you level up beyond them. Six Level X-2 monsters will be a Severe threat to a Level X party. Some might argue that they are weaker than the number suggests, but I don't know if that's always true.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Thanks
4 degrees of success is awesome, but my impression is that other rules you end up hating it.
Spellcasters are obviously set up to expect to fail with their spells (whixh even Paizo acknowledged when they gave NPC rules with higher spell DCs than is possible for PCs on same level), rather than regular success, so their play is just a series of nothing or minor effects and just getting a success feels like you critted. With your limited resource expenditure.
Meanwhile, even martials feel bad because they mainly get the improved crit chance versus lower level creatures (most of the time you don't care, they would've died). While against higher level creatures where you want crits, you get stuck with only critting on 20 while they get more crits against you. Especially on the break levels when creatures have extra+2 on top of their higher level.
I'd say these are the results of a working encounter balancing system. Your negative examples all involve higher-level creatures, and the fact that a higher level creature than a party member. If a table doesn't want to feel like they're fighting a stone wall, the GM can adjust the encounters using the same working system.
Never mind us such a funny rename
I love it
rubber banding is more often used to refer to the player instantly appearing much further than they were after a lag spike happens
I watched your video for the first time and your crooked glasses looks charming, I would keep them.
I noticed the bottom text about the glasses, and I want to leave a non-rude comment encouraging this behavior and requesting you extend the crooked glasses by 1 week.
Nothing wrong with trolling the glasses-lawyers in your audience :D
It will not take effect, as I'm sticking to every proviso of the Resolution!
The levels of success principle is definitely the biggest change from standard D20, and makes combat a lot more dangerous.
At least in my local gaming community (chicagoland area), pf2 has a reputation as the most TPK likely of D20 systems.
Ive never played PF2 but as a Mathematician it appears that +2 Level enemies are much more deadly because of much higher chance of crit successes
Keep those glasses crooked. Scrape in the hate, and feed on it. Great video love the content.
We all enjoy it.
Take a look at Harnmaster, which has had these four degrees of success since 1983.
Call of Cthulhu has degrees of success. Your ability in a skill ranges from 1 to 99 and when you do a check you roll two D10s and you're aiming to roll UNDER your skill. But if you roll under half your skill level you get a Hard Success and if you roll under a fifth of your skill you get an Extreme Success.
Okay I have issue with the feeble mind would completely disable Vecna... He is a literal god of magic, a single 3rd level spell isn't going to do anything to him, even if it did make it through his Divine and Arcane defenses. Similarly, a Lich, which is at least a 13th Level Arcane Caster, with Undead Traits, and Spell Resistance to bolter his defenses, a Feeblemind is very unlikely to even make it through, if the Lich doesn't outright Counterspell it himself, which he is likely to do.
Mathfinder like having good math is a bad thing
It can't be swingy and balanced at the same time 😊
More rolls does not make the bonuses more worthwhile, it makes the game less swingy, since the more rolls are made the more likely the average outcome
What it does mean, is that the +1s *feel* more impactful
You state that +1 can stack but failed to mention not if they are same type. Circumstance, Status or Item.
So multiple attacks also increase the odds of critical failure?
Strikes have no critical failure effect. However, a small minority of targets have a reaction that triggers on a critical failure. But very small
Hey, I know this is an older video at this point and this might not be the best forum to ask, but I've been binging your videos and this comment is a question reacting to what you say here, so I may as well try.
The idea of leveling past creatures where before they were bosses and now they are mooks seems to work fairly okay at the very low levels, with a level 1 fighter challenged to his limits by the Xulgath Leader, then at level 5 being able to easily carve through his 44 HP in a round or two, but later you have an image of 12 Adult Red Dragons, representing them now being mooks. Now, this may be merely a visual joke more than an actual representation, but to take it seriously instead, each Adult Red Dragon has 305 HP. Are you really able to hack through 3,500+ HP in a reasonable length of time in high level Pathfinder, even if you're critting on 15+?
I have played only one PF2e game, and in it, our ranger was critting fairly often, but even so, enemies felt very durable, able to take attacks from the entire party several rounds in a row before buckling. The questions: 1: Is this a feature, not bug situation. 2: Is this typical, IE did we just build or play our party bad? / Did the GM not build encounters appropriately? 3: As levels increase, does this impression reinforce, with enormous HP totals and just 12+ round combat, or does it mitigate, and damage scales as fast or faster than HP?
Pf2e keeps ruining other games for me. Only having one action in most ttrpgs feels ridiculous. And not actually worrying about the total to a roll is so wierd. Why is a 24 and a 32 the same for my attack roll?
+1 is just a +1, still. It counts just 5% to your success rate. For me a +1 does not feel good, when I try to enhance my chances. That it boosts my crit chance does not help to get a sucess at all.
I play PF2E and i am tired of these small boosts, while your level progression makes checks harder and needs every small boost. So if you not have at this level that striking rune you become worse at what you do for your level. I wanted to play a character which uses Aid to boost allies. Well, I re-trained a lot of the feats to boost it, because it does so little. Actions and reactions are wasted on it - I could two cooler things with it.
I write a hombrew system, which took more and more from PF2E design ideas (to introduce the three action system had a big impact), but the sucess systems feld gamy and less like roleplay. Everything has rules. Nothing/less to improvise/express yourself creativly.
As a player, I'm not too fond of the Hero Point System of PF2e. More often than not, the re-roll is worse than the initial roll.
You are supposed to use it when you need it, and have a good chance to succeed. using it on your first attack rather than hoping your second one hits and then perhaps rerolling is therefore a valid strat
Usually use it on my critical fail saving throws and usually still get a critical fail. I only use it on a first attack if it's essential that I hit to finish the creature before it attacks a team mate that is in dire straights. I really hate Hero Points.@@mr.cauliflower3536
In dnd I know that in the worst situation my fireball will deal half of the damage
In pf2 I know that my fireball will deal half of the damage and in the worst situation 0 damage
So why at 13:30 did you say that by reducing the number the xulgath needed to make a crit from a 17 to a 20 makes the xulgath chance to crit reduced by 75%? Wouldn’t it only be a 15% difference?
I know 3/4 (17,18,19,20) is 75% but isn’t wording like that not really a true representation of the facts? While it’s “true” it’s not really indicative of the real odds since players will only see a 15% change in crit chance?
Welcome to the hellscape that is talking about maths accurately! The probability of a crit decreases by "75 percent" or "15 percentage points". AFAIK, it was used correctly in the video. You can see people getting tripped up by these things all the time when talking about elections. Unfortunately, humans are really bad at probability and our languages reflect that.
Source: I am teaching an undergrad-level probability and statistics class.
When what matters is avoiding a crit (as it often does), then yes you have reduced the chances of the xulgath rolling it from 4 to 1: a 75% reduction.
Meanwhile the chance of it regular-hitting you is the same (50%), and the chance of it missing you has gone up from 30% to 45%.
Not a rude comment, I promise, but ... like me, the tops of your ears aren't even. This means your glasses will be at an angle, and while the arms and temples can be adjusted on some makes, yours are plastic and a particular shape that fits your features well -- you can probably get away with it if you don't have astigmatism, but it will damage your vision over time if you do.
If you're truly dedicated to having your glasses at an angle to tweak people, please get a prescription that will correct your vision safely at the jaunty angle you're using.
In every video where you say “drop-in organized play system”, it sounds like you’re saying “drop in organized play system”, as in it’s been falling.
Doesn't everyone play 5e like this anyways? I like Pathfinder 2e... but seriously.
EDIT: Nevermind, the being off by 10 or more thing isn't used in 5e a lot, but I use it.
I'd like there were 4 degrees of incapacitation
Can I still make a rude comment about you needing to straighten your glasses to extend it by another week just so you keep doing it lol? If so then *insert rude comment here*
1) Arguable, I don't find it does for me, but ymmv, 2) I'd say forces support roles on people, but again ymmv 3) One shotting the BBEG is fantastic fun, grinding tedium as laid out by this system is...well boring, 4) Not really, against equal level foes you are looking at basically the same rolls 1-20, with some opponents being harder or easier to hit/crit (this was a stated goal), and they achieved it, I never feel more powerful, that joy of shredding with multi attack while crit fishing that 1e had is gone, and swing twice and move is basically the default for the entire level range now (with some swings replaced with for instance trips), but again, 2 attack equivalent and a move being the overwhelming majority of combat.
Your example for progression is flat dishonest, we are supposed to mainly be fighting equal level opponents, your example should always be an equal level to said fighter.
I think if all you do by Level 20 is move and Strike twice, you're not engaging with the system for what it is.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG which is why I said equivalent, doing your chores to inflict statuses for the tiny bonuses just isn't all that interesting, if they were actual choices, then they probably would be, but they aren't they are the basic things you have to do to not suck, and they also tend to demote characters to 'also starring' type roles, necessary for the mechanics of the system, but stuck in support roles, inflicting those statuses/adding those buffs....Save or Suck one shotting things was better than this, at least that had the merit of being quick.
could... could you not raise - or, or, or lower (not showing favouritism!!) - one ear? 😯
🙂
Pregnant with possibility’s
it says invite invalid for discord link
Will get on it.
Use this for now: discord.gg/YEXajaxdgq
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG ♥