Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InUsing 3d6 instead of d20 for D&D NextBuying Automatic Successes In World of DarknessCan one circumstance give both Advantage and Disadvantage?Does advantage negate disadvantage (for things such as sneak attack)?How do these mass advantage/disadvantage rolls work out statistically?When granted advantage on an attack, are spells that cause saving throws rolled with disadvantage?How would changing critical hits like this affect my game?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?Can you use Lucky (feat) followed by Portent to replace a roll that's already been made?What issues could arise with this Advantage/Disadvantage Variant?
Building a conditional check constraint
Have you ever entered Singapore using a different passport or name?
Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?
What does "fetching by region is not available for SAM files" means?
How technical should a Scrum Master be to effectively remove impediments?
What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?
How to save as into a customized destination on macOS?
Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)
Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?
Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?
Is there a symbol for a right arrow with a square in the middle?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
How come people say “Would of”?
Apparent duplicates between Haynes service instructions and MOT
Write faster on AT24C32
Why did Acorn's A3000 have red function keys?
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure
Is a "Democratic" Feudal System Possible?
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
Delete all lines which don't have n characters before delimiter
Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?
"as much details as you can remember"
Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?
Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InUsing 3d6 instead of d20 for D&D NextBuying Automatic Successes In World of DarknessCan one circumstance give both Advantage and Disadvantage?Does advantage negate disadvantage (for things such as sneak attack)?How do these mass advantage/disadvantage rolls work out statistically?When granted advantage on an attack, are spells that cause saving throws rolled with disadvantage?How would changing critical hits like this affect my game?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?Can you use Lucky (feat) followed by Portent to replace a roll that's already been made?What issues could arise with this Advantage/Disadvantage Variant?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I'm thinking about implementing the following houserules at my table to try to bring back the concept of "Critical Successes" by piggybacking off the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Critical Success
Whenever a creature makes a d20 roll with advantage, if both dice in the advantage roll result in a natural 20, then something especially good will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean increased damage on the critical hit, or for a Saving Throw, it might mean avoiding all damage from a spell that normally only reduces to half.
Conversely, when a creature makes a d20 roll with disadvantage, if both dice in the disadvantage roll result in a natural 1, then something especially bad will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean dropping their weapon or causing a self-inflicted injury. For a Saving Throw, it might mean suffering an additional effect contextual to the spell/source.
Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible (like a creature with +3 to Charisma making a check with Advantage against a DC of 24), a "Critical Success" should not result in the check succeeding; but it should confer some kind of nominal benefit that reduces the penalty of failure or offers a different path forwards. Conversely, "Critical Failures" should not cause a check to fail if the total still matches the DC (like a +9 check with Disadvantage against a DC of 10) but should confer some nominal penalty to the result.
There's a few things I'm trying to do with this rule:
- I like the idea of "Critical Successes"/"Critical Failures" as a ludonarrative mechanism for especially unusual outcomes to gameplay situations,
- But I don't like the high frequency of these outcomes when using traditional "Critical Success on 20, Critical Failure on 1" rules
- I also like the idea of Advantage giving a small chance of an especially good outcome occurring, with a reflective chance for Disadvantage for something especially bad occurring.
Has anyone attempted to use a rule like this in their games? If so, have players enjoyed this adjustment to the d20 rules? I worry that as-written the rule might be too insignificant to really affect gameplay, is that a potential issue? Should I flesh out the potential outcomes that can occur when following this rule?
dnd-5e house-rules
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm thinking about implementing the following houserules at my table to try to bring back the concept of "Critical Successes" by piggybacking off the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Critical Success
Whenever a creature makes a d20 roll with advantage, if both dice in the advantage roll result in a natural 20, then something especially good will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean increased damage on the critical hit, or for a Saving Throw, it might mean avoiding all damage from a spell that normally only reduces to half.
Conversely, when a creature makes a d20 roll with disadvantage, if both dice in the disadvantage roll result in a natural 1, then something especially bad will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean dropping their weapon or causing a self-inflicted injury. For a Saving Throw, it might mean suffering an additional effect contextual to the spell/source.
Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible (like a creature with +3 to Charisma making a check with Advantage against a DC of 24), a "Critical Success" should not result in the check succeeding; but it should confer some kind of nominal benefit that reduces the penalty of failure or offers a different path forwards. Conversely, "Critical Failures" should not cause a check to fail if the total still matches the DC (like a +9 check with Disadvantage against a DC of 10) but should confer some nominal penalty to the result.
There's a few things I'm trying to do with this rule:
- I like the idea of "Critical Successes"/"Critical Failures" as a ludonarrative mechanism for especially unusual outcomes to gameplay situations,
- But I don't like the high frequency of these outcomes when using traditional "Critical Success on 20, Critical Failure on 1" rules
- I also like the idea of Advantage giving a small chance of an especially good outcome occurring, with a reflective chance for Disadvantage for something especially bad occurring.
Has anyone attempted to use a rule like this in their games? If so, have players enjoyed this adjustment to the d20 rules? I worry that as-written the rule might be too insignificant to really affect gameplay, is that a potential issue? Should I flesh out the potential outcomes that can occur when following this rule?
dnd-5e house-rules
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm thinking about implementing the following houserules at my table to try to bring back the concept of "Critical Successes" by piggybacking off the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Critical Success
Whenever a creature makes a d20 roll with advantage, if both dice in the advantage roll result in a natural 20, then something especially good will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean increased damage on the critical hit, or for a Saving Throw, it might mean avoiding all damage from a spell that normally only reduces to half.
Conversely, when a creature makes a d20 roll with disadvantage, if both dice in the disadvantage roll result in a natural 1, then something especially bad will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean dropping their weapon or causing a self-inflicted injury. For a Saving Throw, it might mean suffering an additional effect contextual to the spell/source.
Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible (like a creature with +3 to Charisma making a check with Advantage against a DC of 24), a "Critical Success" should not result in the check succeeding; but it should confer some kind of nominal benefit that reduces the penalty of failure or offers a different path forwards. Conversely, "Critical Failures" should not cause a check to fail if the total still matches the DC (like a +9 check with Disadvantage against a DC of 10) but should confer some nominal penalty to the result.
There's a few things I'm trying to do with this rule:
- I like the idea of "Critical Successes"/"Critical Failures" as a ludonarrative mechanism for especially unusual outcomes to gameplay situations,
- But I don't like the high frequency of these outcomes when using traditional "Critical Success on 20, Critical Failure on 1" rules
- I also like the idea of Advantage giving a small chance of an especially good outcome occurring, with a reflective chance for Disadvantage for something especially bad occurring.
Has anyone attempted to use a rule like this in their games? If so, have players enjoyed this adjustment to the d20 rules? I worry that as-written the rule might be too insignificant to really affect gameplay, is that a potential issue? Should I flesh out the potential outcomes that can occur when following this rule?
dnd-5e house-rules
$endgroup$
I'm thinking about implementing the following houserules at my table to try to bring back the concept of "Critical Successes" by piggybacking off the Advantage/Disadvantage system.
Critical Success
Whenever a creature makes a d20 roll with advantage, if both dice in the advantage roll result in a natural 20, then something especially good will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean increased damage on the critical hit, or for a Saving Throw, it might mean avoiding all damage from a spell that normally only reduces to half.
Conversely, when a creature makes a d20 roll with disadvantage, if both dice in the disadvantage roll result in a natural 1, then something especially bad will happen as a consequence, determined at the DM's discretion. For an attack roll, this might mean dropping their weapon or causing a self-inflicted injury. For a Saving Throw, it might mean suffering an additional effect contextual to the spell/source.
Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible (like a creature with +3 to Charisma making a check with Advantage against a DC of 24), a "Critical Success" should not result in the check succeeding; but it should confer some kind of nominal benefit that reduces the penalty of failure or offers a different path forwards. Conversely, "Critical Failures" should not cause a check to fail if the total still matches the DC (like a +9 check with Disadvantage against a DC of 10) but should confer some nominal penalty to the result.
There's a few things I'm trying to do with this rule:
- I like the idea of "Critical Successes"/"Critical Failures" as a ludonarrative mechanism for especially unusual outcomes to gameplay situations,
- But I don't like the high frequency of these outcomes when using traditional "Critical Success on 20, Critical Failure on 1" rules
- I also like the idea of Advantage giving a small chance of an especially good outcome occurring, with a reflective chance for Disadvantage for something especially bad occurring.
Has anyone attempted to use a rule like this in their games? If so, have players enjoyed this adjustment to the d20 rules? I worry that as-written the rule might be too insignificant to really affect gameplay, is that a potential issue? Should I flesh out the potential outcomes that can occur when following this rule?
dnd-5e house-rules
dnd-5e house-rules
asked 4 hours ago
XiremaXirema
23.8k268140
23.8k268140
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's probably fair, but also spectacularly unlikely to ever matter.
I've played dozens of sessions of 5e in the past year, and this has literally come up never.
Plus, if it ever does come up that someone rolls a double 20 or double 1, I'll probably just narrate awesomeness anyway, house-rule or no. You're probably just wasting your time preemptively coming up with things that might happen when this really unlikely thing occurs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My group uses Critical Hits Revisited for improved critical effects. It sounds like it's very similar to what you're asking about (thought limited to combat, not ability checks/saves) because, once the player rolls a 20, they roll a second d20 to determine the nature of the critical. It would be straightforward to do the opposite with failures.
We really like the way it allows for a "severity curve" and isn't just a simple procedure of "you do double damage." For example, if a player crits with slashing damage, the result can be adding a bleed effect (in addition to whatever additional damge is one). But if a player/creature rolls particularly well, the target might accrue various wounds that have both narrative and mechanical ramifications.
In the case that a player rolls a pair of 20s with a slashing weapon, the result is an outright, hands (heads?) down beheading. This actually occurred with a one-shot my group ran a couple weeks ago. A brand new player ended up decapitating Rivalen Tanthul in an encounter.
One thing that makes it really enjoyable is that it makes a sort of mini-game out of the crit/failure. Once the first die is rolled, you know something good or bad is going to happen but you don't know how good or bad or the nature of the effect.
Then, you have the narrative implications. Things like lasting scars, limps, eyepatches for missing eyes, to say nothing of the sanity effects. We've found that a system like this really adds a lot to the game.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144978%2fdo-these-rules-for-critical-successes-and-critical-failures-seem-fair%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's probably fair, but also spectacularly unlikely to ever matter.
I've played dozens of sessions of 5e in the past year, and this has literally come up never.
Plus, if it ever does come up that someone rolls a double 20 or double 1, I'll probably just narrate awesomeness anyway, house-rule or no. You're probably just wasting your time preemptively coming up with things that might happen when this really unlikely thing occurs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's probably fair, but also spectacularly unlikely to ever matter.
I've played dozens of sessions of 5e in the past year, and this has literally come up never.
Plus, if it ever does come up that someone rolls a double 20 or double 1, I'll probably just narrate awesomeness anyway, house-rule or no. You're probably just wasting your time preemptively coming up with things that might happen when this really unlikely thing occurs.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's probably fair, but also spectacularly unlikely to ever matter.
I've played dozens of sessions of 5e in the past year, and this has literally come up never.
Plus, if it ever does come up that someone rolls a double 20 or double 1, I'll probably just narrate awesomeness anyway, house-rule or no. You're probably just wasting your time preemptively coming up with things that might happen when this really unlikely thing occurs.
$endgroup$
It's probably fair, but also spectacularly unlikely to ever matter.
I've played dozens of sessions of 5e in the past year, and this has literally come up never.
Plus, if it ever does come up that someone rolls a double 20 or double 1, I'll probably just narrate awesomeness anyway, house-rule or no. You're probably just wasting your time preemptively coming up with things that might happen when this really unlikely thing occurs.
answered 4 hours ago
ErikErik
48.6k14180246
48.6k14180246
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I disagree with the assertion that it's a waste of time. I do agree that it's ill-advised to expect this to come up frequently enough to warrant depending on it or expecting it.
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is really up to chance - In the past 40 sessions this has come up at least a half dozen times in my campaign.
$endgroup$
– Joshu's Mu
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Mathematically, it's a 0.25% chance (so one in 400) that rolling two d20's will result in the exact same number, including 1's and 20's. Beyond that, the roller would also have the Advantage or Disadvantage, as appropriate to that roll. It could be estimated that that would halve the chance, but I don't think that's an appropriate approximation. Instead I'd look at it as 1 in 400 Advantage rolls will result in a double 20 and 1 in 400 Disadvantage rolls would result in snake eyes. It's hard to say if this is statistically insignificant for a given table.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
It largely depends on how often players and the GM roll for things, and how liberal the GM is with Dis/Advantage (in cases where it's not clear-cut). I've seen games where there are 400 rolls, and ones that there are 10.
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My group uses Critical Hits Revisited for improved critical effects. It sounds like it's very similar to what you're asking about (thought limited to combat, not ability checks/saves) because, once the player rolls a 20, they roll a second d20 to determine the nature of the critical. It would be straightforward to do the opposite with failures.
We really like the way it allows for a "severity curve" and isn't just a simple procedure of "you do double damage." For example, if a player crits with slashing damage, the result can be adding a bleed effect (in addition to whatever additional damge is one). But if a player/creature rolls particularly well, the target might accrue various wounds that have both narrative and mechanical ramifications.
In the case that a player rolls a pair of 20s with a slashing weapon, the result is an outright, hands (heads?) down beheading. This actually occurred with a one-shot my group ran a couple weeks ago. A brand new player ended up decapitating Rivalen Tanthul in an encounter.
One thing that makes it really enjoyable is that it makes a sort of mini-game out of the crit/failure. Once the first die is rolled, you know something good or bad is going to happen but you don't know how good or bad or the nature of the effect.
Then, you have the narrative implications. Things like lasting scars, limps, eyepatches for missing eyes, to say nothing of the sanity effects. We've found that a system like this really adds a lot to the game.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My group uses Critical Hits Revisited for improved critical effects. It sounds like it's very similar to what you're asking about (thought limited to combat, not ability checks/saves) because, once the player rolls a 20, they roll a second d20 to determine the nature of the critical. It would be straightforward to do the opposite with failures.
We really like the way it allows for a "severity curve" and isn't just a simple procedure of "you do double damage." For example, if a player crits with slashing damage, the result can be adding a bleed effect (in addition to whatever additional damge is one). But if a player/creature rolls particularly well, the target might accrue various wounds that have both narrative and mechanical ramifications.
In the case that a player rolls a pair of 20s with a slashing weapon, the result is an outright, hands (heads?) down beheading. This actually occurred with a one-shot my group ran a couple weeks ago. A brand new player ended up decapitating Rivalen Tanthul in an encounter.
One thing that makes it really enjoyable is that it makes a sort of mini-game out of the crit/failure. Once the first die is rolled, you know something good or bad is going to happen but you don't know how good or bad or the nature of the effect.
Then, you have the narrative implications. Things like lasting scars, limps, eyepatches for missing eyes, to say nothing of the sanity effects. We've found that a system like this really adds a lot to the game.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My group uses Critical Hits Revisited for improved critical effects. It sounds like it's very similar to what you're asking about (thought limited to combat, not ability checks/saves) because, once the player rolls a 20, they roll a second d20 to determine the nature of the critical. It would be straightforward to do the opposite with failures.
We really like the way it allows for a "severity curve" and isn't just a simple procedure of "you do double damage." For example, if a player crits with slashing damage, the result can be adding a bleed effect (in addition to whatever additional damge is one). But if a player/creature rolls particularly well, the target might accrue various wounds that have both narrative and mechanical ramifications.
In the case that a player rolls a pair of 20s with a slashing weapon, the result is an outright, hands (heads?) down beheading. This actually occurred with a one-shot my group ran a couple weeks ago. A brand new player ended up decapitating Rivalen Tanthul in an encounter.
One thing that makes it really enjoyable is that it makes a sort of mini-game out of the crit/failure. Once the first die is rolled, you know something good or bad is going to happen but you don't know how good or bad or the nature of the effect.
Then, you have the narrative implications. Things like lasting scars, limps, eyepatches for missing eyes, to say nothing of the sanity effects. We've found that a system like this really adds a lot to the game.
$endgroup$
My group uses Critical Hits Revisited for improved critical effects. It sounds like it's very similar to what you're asking about (thought limited to combat, not ability checks/saves) because, once the player rolls a 20, they roll a second d20 to determine the nature of the critical. It would be straightforward to do the opposite with failures.
We really like the way it allows for a "severity curve" and isn't just a simple procedure of "you do double damage." For example, if a player crits with slashing damage, the result can be adding a bleed effect (in addition to whatever additional damge is one). But if a player/creature rolls particularly well, the target might accrue various wounds that have both narrative and mechanical ramifications.
In the case that a player rolls a pair of 20s with a slashing weapon, the result is an outright, hands (heads?) down beheading. This actually occurred with a one-shot my group ran a couple weeks ago. A brand new player ended up decapitating Rivalen Tanthul in an encounter.
One thing that makes it really enjoyable is that it makes a sort of mini-game out of the crit/failure. Once the first die is rolled, you know something good or bad is going to happen but you don't know how good or bad or the nature of the effect.
Then, you have the narrative implications. Things like lasting scars, limps, eyepatches for missing eyes, to say nothing of the sanity effects. We've found that a system like this really adds a lot to the game.
answered 3 hours ago
RykaraRykara
5,5081544
5,5081544
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144978%2fdo-these-rules-for-critical-successes-and-critical-failures-seem-fair%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Is this just applying to ability checks?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So does that extend to critical hits in combat?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Olson
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Under this system is 20 on an attack still an auto-hit, but not a critical?
$endgroup$
– GcL
3 hours ago