Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem fair? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Cortex rules: critical failuresUsing 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)?Do auto-fail/auto-success rules apply to critical confirmations?Advantage on damage rolls - is it still balanced?How would changing critical hits like this affect my game?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?What issues could arise with this Advantage/Disadvantage Variant?
How to write the following sign?
How to tell that you are a giant?
Disembodied hand growing fangs
ArcGIS Pro Python arcpy.CreatePersonalGDB_management
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
Trademark violation for app?
Can anything be seen from the center of the Boötes void? How dark would it be?
How to react to hostile behavior from a senior developer?
How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?
What is the difference between globalisation and imperialism?
Project Euler #1 in C++
Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?
How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?
Why doesn't SQL Optimizer use my constraint?
Sum letters are not two different
How to write this math term? with cases it isn't working
How to compare two different files line by line in unix?
Selecting user stories during sprint planning
What is the topology associated with the algebras for the ultrafilter monad?
Drawing without replacement: why is the order of draw irrelevant?
Why do we need to use the builder design pattern when we can do the same thing with setters?
Why does the remaining Rebel fleet at the end of Rogue One seem dramatically larger than the one in A New Hope?
Question about debouncing - delay of state change
AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network
Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem fair?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Cortex rules: critical failuresUsing 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)?Do auto-fail/auto-success rules apply to critical confirmations?Advantage on damage rolls - is it still balanced?How would changing critical hits like this affect my game?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?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 critical-hit advantage-and-disadvantage critical-fail
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
$endgroup$
|
show 3 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 critical-hit advantage-and-disadvantage critical-fail
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
2
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
4
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
2
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01
|
show 3 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 critical-hit advantage-and-disadvantage critical-fail
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
$endgroup$
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 critical-hit advantage-and-disadvantage critical-fail
dnd-5e house-rules critical-hit advantage-and-disadvantage critical-fail
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
edited Apr 11 at 3:48
V2Blast
27.5k597167
27.5k597167
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
asked Apr 10 at 18:29
XiremaXirema
24.4k269144
24.4k269144
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
2
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
4
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
2
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01
|
show 3 more comments
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
2
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
4
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
2
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01
2
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
2
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
2
2
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
4
4
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
2
2
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01
|
show 3 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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
|
show 1 more 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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
|
show 1 more 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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
|
show 1 more 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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
$endgroup$
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 Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
answered Apr 10 at 18:41
ErikErik
49k14183247
49k14183247
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
3
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 19:38
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:53
4
4
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
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
Apr 10 at 20:55
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
$begingroup$
@Ifusaso - "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." This is incorrect. The chance of double 1s is 0.25%, and the chance of double 20s is also (a separate) 0.25%. The chance of rolling doubles at all is 5% (1 in 20). Proof: Roll the two dice sequentially. Whatever number the first die rolls, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the second die will roll the same number, resulting in doubles.
$endgroup$
– Dave Sherohman
Apr 12 at 9:31
|
show 1 more 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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
$endgroup$
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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
$endgroup$
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.
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
$endgroup$
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 Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
answered Apr 10 at 18:52
RykaraRykara
5,6011647
5,6011647
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
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson As I tried to show with the examples, it would apply to any d20 check that has Advantage or Disadvantage.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:43
2
$begingroup$
@BenjaminOlson See the examples. I specifically called out a Critical hit on an attack roll as one scenario where it might apply.
$endgroup$
– Xirema
Apr 10 at 18:48
2
$begingroup$
Can you clarify whether this replaces or is in addition to the "normal" critical rule (i.e. nat 20 and 1s on attack rolls)?
$endgroup$
– Someone_Evil
Apr 10 at 20:15
4
$begingroup$
Why are you rolling checks in cases where success is normally impossible?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
Apr 10 at 20:19
2
$begingroup$
"Although unlikely, if a "Critical Success" occurs in a scenario where success is normally impossible " - If it is impossible to succeed, why are you rolling? Also, it's worth noting that outside of attack rolls a natural 1 is just a 1, I don't believe there is such a thing as a critical failure for anything other than attacks. Which also raises the question of why a character should have to roll if even their lowest roll succeeds. A player should only roll if success is possible, failure is possible, and difference between the two matters.
$endgroup$
– James Otter
Apr 11 at 5:01