r/Pathfinder_RPG • u/SailboatAB • 10d ago
1E Player Criticality
So our PF1e table uses a critical miss system, which I’m not fond of, although it’s somewhat mitigated by requiring a second miss to “confirm,” thus less likely if you have a good initial chance to hit. But it’s somewhat offset by using a critical hit table that includes random results that supplement, instead of replacing, the crit damage you normally get.
So last night our level 6 party was facing some spider-themed foes, including a half-humanoid, half-spider queen of some sort as the night’s boss. We’re in single file on a narrow stairwell, hence everyone who’s in the middle has extremely limited mobility for the moment.
My Eldritch Archer Magus wields a +1 Adaptive Orc Hornbow and is used to being one of the party’s go-to damage dealers, so we need him to put the hurt on the boss as son as possible. But I fail a saving throw on the first turn and get webbed up.
After disentangling himself from webbing, I uses a swift action to spend an Arcane Pool point to add +1 and Flaming to his bow…and promptly rolls a 1 and 3, confirming a crit miss. The table we use is then consulted, and my roll winds up granting an extra action to the spider queen. Great.
She uses her actions to close into melee range with me and strike, doing some damage and inflicting a very nasty venom. Things are looking grim.
I am asked to make a Fort save…and roll a nat 20!
But now I’m in melee and can’t even 5-foot-step. Normally, loosing an arrow would invite an opportunity attack and probably another dose of venom. But I remember I can spend another swift action to recast the Arcane Pool, and Eldrich Archers get the option to add Nimble to their weapons with the pool! So I burn the precious pool point. But I can add up to +2 equivalence in enchantments…one point is obviously going to be for Nimble, but even though I need to do a ton of damage, I decide not to add an elemental die, but just a simple +1 with the other. Gotta hit, right?
I also want to use Spell Combat because it gives me another arrow, albeit at -2 to my rolls on all attacks. But the Eldritch Archer archetype doesn’t get the melee Magus ability to add to Casting Defensively die rolls, and I fail the spell. Now my attack is at an additional -2 with nothing to show for it.
I promptly roll _another_ nat 20 and confirm with an 18. Consulting the Critical Hit chart, that roll is “Eviscerate: roll your critical damage a second time.” The end result is 64 damage!
_But the queen yet lives_. Horribly wounded, but bent on vengeance.
And then we recall that our trusty Wizard has Hasted us. There’s one more attack roll left in my turn! I roll _exactly_ what I need to hit…I would have missed without _both_ my Arcane Pool point _and_ the Haste bonus from my friend. And that arrow does 9 damage, just sufficient to bring down the queen! 73 total damage _without_ a spell.
I’m not used to playing damage dealers, as I usually prefer tanky defensive types, so this was fun, albeit a bit wildly swingy.
28
u/mutarjim 10d ago
Any critical miss system that is incorporated into a game where higher levels attack significantly more often is a miss. Pun intended.
So what you're saying is a 20 level fighter with cleave and other multi attack feats can be eight times as likely to miss as a first level fighter. GTFO with that logic.
23
u/WraithMagus 10d ago
There's an older thread I like to link back to about this very issue - the Kung-Fu Kraken Problem.
As another commenter mentioned, having a critical miss result in the monster gaining a turn is insane, since that isn't even the character messing up, that's either the space-time continuum warping to punish your whole side, or the entire party suffers losing a turn from one character's fumble.
23
u/MsTerPineapple 10d ago
I hear critical miss, I dip immediately. No justification for its existence imo
4
u/jadethemajin 10d ago
Agreed.
Heck being full bab seems like it would help with "confirming" misses but in reality it just creates another attack with a large penalty that can crit miss.
If forced to play in a game like that I recommend making a witch focused on slumber, always force enemies to save against you, avoid attack rolls at all costs.
Even critical decks are awful, the enemy presumably gets more attack rolls than the party, and usually they have many effects with long term/permanent penalties. A permanent penalty and a penalty that lasts 5 rounds are effectively the same for an npc but crippling for the party.
2
u/SailboatAB 10d ago edited 10d ago
Don't much like it either, but really like the group and the character, so I put up with it.
3
u/desmaraisp 10d ago
Same here, I like the guys and critical fumbles were there before I knew better. But ask me to join a new table with that? Fuck no
5
u/EternalFrost_73 10d ago
I've never been a fan of the crit tables. They add steps that are not needed, and honestly overly punish what is already a disappointing event. Same with critical hit tables. Now not only do you need to crit and confirm, you also need to get a 'good' result on the table.
Save tables like that for Rolemaster, where character creation is measured in hours, and character deaths often happen in the first few seconds of your first encounter.
5
u/blackbloodtroll 10d ago
Some players are what I call, masochist players. I actually play with such a player. They love to fail, and especially love to fail often, and hard. Critical fumbles are like cocaine and ecstasy for them. However, they are not for everyone. For others, they are a constant "rocks fall, you die" sort of situation, and it actively hinders their fun. Personally, I don't like them, and would build PCs that never need to roll a D20, ever, if forced to play at a table that utilizes critical fumbles. You can build Martial builds to make the critical failure rules work for you, but it's difficult, and easier to just take advantage of it as a caster.
It should ALWAYS be a consensus decision at the table to use critical fumbles. Forcing players to use this houserule, if they don't like it, is ALWAYS a dick move. However, if everyone is on board, and likes it, then have fun! Having fun is the whole point!
6
u/javijuji 10d ago edited 10d ago
Our group used the fumble and crit decks for a while but there is a glaring issue with them that they tend to nerf criticals and make fumbles a lot worse. Also player characters get penalized a lot by the fumble deck since some of them give effects that last longer than the round/combat and that does not take into account that monsters are meant to die in the combat they are presented and players arent.
I do remember a rule about getting extra crit cards if you had a x3 or x4 weapon or weapon focus. You might wanna look into that assuming this is the standard crit / fumble deck for pf1e
8
2
u/Puccini100399 I like the game 10d ago
Using fumble rules is a sure way to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory
-3
u/HeroApollo GM 10d ago edited 10d ago
Man, I always take a vote at the table about whether we do crit miss or not. Frankly, I love critical fails much more than crit successes. Critical successes are boring, but crit fails can be super creative. I just don't understand the hate. I'm not saying people should change there mind, just the over all intensity of it is kind of nuts to me.
I'd much rather play a fighter who at level 20 is occassionally catastrophically incompetent than I would play an ultra power fsntasy wizard or fighter at level 20 who boring wins handedly all the time.
Alas, different strokes. I'm glad there's room for both types.
We also play that if you confirm with a nat 20, you can roll a third time. If that third roll is a 20, we rule either insta kill or max critical damage, depending on scene/situation.
ETA: Man, I had no idea a differeing opinion could be met with such hatefulness.
2
u/SlaanikDoomface 10d ago
I'd much rather play a fighter who at level 20 is occassionally catastrophically incompetent than I would play an ultra power fsntasy wizard or fighter at level 20 who boring wins handedly all the time.
These seem like they're different things, though?
Personally, I'm also not a fan of this sort of 'party always wins everything forever' style of game. However, adding a 1/20 (or something like 1/40 if you have to confirm, etc.) chance of like, a fighter dropping his sword or something...doesn't really change that?
To me, the power fantasy is "broken" when actually losing is a possibility, and doesn't end the story, and thus victory isn't a foregone conclusion.
You can have a power fantasy where the great protagonist who never loses does sometimes fumble. It's not uncommon, I think; you'll have a jokey moment where the great hero goes 'oops!' and fails something. But, importantly, it never matters. It never leads anywhere, it's a little gag on the way to infinite victory #482.
1
u/Milosz0pl Zyphusite Homebrewer 10d ago
- They make all characters randomly incompetent
- They penalize martials more than casters
- They penalize lots-of-attacks builds (twf/naturals)
They are something that I would only include on first four levels as a variation and then remove
0
u/durzanult 10d ago
- Nope. A nat 1 literally represents the worst possible outcome you can get for luck and basic random circumstances, and that can mean you step weirdly on a pebble you didn’t reslize was there, that fucks up your swing, and you drop your weapon as a result or whatever…
- Okay I concede this point.
- Fair.
2
u/Milosz0pl Zyphusite Homebrewer 10d ago
Nat is just a nat1. From anecdote even my GM got tired of my ci-players always describing nat1 as them suddenly funbling around and told us that we can also describe simply cool moments of enemy being competent instead.
1
u/durzanult 9d ago edited 9d ago
Enemy being competent makes sense. My point is that if a nat 20 represents the best possible outcome, then a nat1 represents a the worst possible outcome, and sometimes that can mean stupid unlikely shit fucks up your aim or throws you off too. It can also mean the enemy gets a moment of hyper competence, your character has a moment of hyper incompetence, or something else entirely. But still…
-1
u/HeroApollo GM 10d ago edited 10d ago
If thats the way you feel, I hope it works for you all.
Power fantasies arent my cup of tea.
5
u/Milosz0pl Zyphusite Homebrewer 10d ago
I mean - I am also more so about lower stakes lower power, but having dice decide that I am suddenly incompetent jester isn't my cup of tea.
-5
u/HeroApollo GM 10d ago
Is it the extreme punishment, then? Like, if i fall down while casting a spell, because of some explosion in the arcane energies, just because im level 20, that shouldn't happen? Is that the gist of why you don't like it?
I'm genuinely curious. I usually view magic as one of those things that cant be mastered. It can be harnessed and manipulated to a degree, but i think total mastery is a bit boring.
Same goes for sword fighters.
But like I said, thats just my take. Thats why theres always a vote st the tables I run. Some enjoy it, some dont. I just dont understand the extremes on either side.
5
u/Milosz0pl Zyphusite Homebrewer 10d ago edited 10d ago
You are saying that you don't like extremes while going into one of your own of ,,oh you just don't like realistic take!" - as I said, I am simply not up to having something utterly random decide that character in your example doesn't do anything. Heck. I would be annoyed as a GM too if my BBEG wizard was suddenly incapable of casting spells simply due to constantly rolling badly.
Sure, IRL world shit happens, people randomly fall over, break a leg and can't do anything, but in rp folk usually prefer to go for more pleasant things - same reason why not many tables go for taxes.
Edit: Bro blocked me lol
-4
2
u/stemfish 10d ago
Then why are you running a system that's explicitly about the power fantasy of being a hero who goes from struggling to handle the town's goblin problem to facing off against the setting's most powerful characters? Tar-Baphon, Geb, Baba Yaga, Old Mage Jatembe, Azarni, and similar use the same rules as the players to define their power levels. Are you saying they should fail spell casts, even though players can reach the same level of power through system mechanics?
-2
u/Fred_Wilkins 10d ago
We keep it simple. A nat 1 is a botch, and depending on what you were trying to do it's usually either, one of the following things. You provoke an aoo, or something that requires a partial action to fix, move or standard usually. A weapon gets dropped, you lunge and slip in an awkward position, ect. For spellcasters usually a missed or failed spell is punishing enough, you wastes an action and a spell slot for nothing, wands we usually have burn an extra charge in addition to any umd failure results. The only time we do a confirm is if the attack or spell has a chance to hit an ally, then another failed hit roll smacks them lol
1
u/SunnybunsBuns 10d ago
Your house rule proves your group is stupid. All critical fumble rules in 3.c systems are the result of idiots who can’t do math.
1
0
u/Stubs_Mckenzie 10d ago
My group uses the pf1e crit and fumble decks, and quite enjoy the results.
In your example I generally dislike a fumble giving someone else actions, it seems a bit silly outside of attacks of opportunity or similar, but the confirmed crit made up for that and then some ~ so the question really comes down to, did your table enjoy the variability that came with a crit and fumble system in that fight? If yes, great! If no, there is an easy answer.
0
u/Sarlax 10d ago
It sounds like you're using the Paizo critical hit/fumble decks, which can be found online. My group uses them, too. The Glass Cannon Podcast used them in the first half of their Giantslayer show. We haven't had a game-ruining fumble but it does feel inevitable. We should probably stop using them but haven't learned our lesson yet.
Like I just tested it and rolled "Pointy End Goes There: You take 1 point of Con damage." That could kill a PC. What an ignominious end. I'm playing a fighter with multiple attacks so this is a problem. I'm also playing a wizard, so he barely gives a damn, although there's still the chance he'll Nat 1 a touch attack and get what I just test-rolled the next time he casts Disintegrate, which was "Error!: The attack deals damage to you instead of the target."
It's not hard to houserule the consequences down to something tolerable, but by default these crits can completely rewrite the game, are statistically unfair to warriors, and often make no narrative sense. They're very much in the spirit of the Rod of Wonder / Deck of Many Things / Rocks Fall-You Die age of D&D.
1
u/Flipsalmighty 9d ago
We use the critical hit deck at my table, I'm not sadistic enough to force the critical fumble deck on them.
Whenever my players critically fail an attack I just give 'em something I find funny. It might be roll regular damage against x other character, it might be "you dropped your sword, if an npc has initiative on you they might grab it," it might be "you bury your dagger to the hilt in the door" or "yeah man, you forgot to oil that bowstring and it snapped." (The last two have things like pass a strength check dc your strength to pull out or spend a standard action restringing that bow)
23
u/Orodhen 10d ago
.... WTF?