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?

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

"as much details as you can remember"

Aging parents with no investments

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

How can I autofill dates in Excel excluding Sunday?

Is there a symbol for a right arrow with a square in the middle?

Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"

Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

How to obtain Confidence Intervals for a LASSO regression?

Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?

Falsification in Math vs Science

Why did Acorn's A3000 have red function keys?

What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?

Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

How to manage monthly salary

Why is my custom API endpoint not working?

How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure

One word riddle: Vowel in the middle

What did it mean to "align" a radio?



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;








3












$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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

















3












$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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













3












3








3





$begingroup$


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?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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
















  • $begingroup$
    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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















17












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 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
    2 hours 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


















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    17












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 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
      2 hours 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















    17












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 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
      2 hours 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













    17












    17








    17





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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
      2 hours 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




      $begingroup$
      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
      2 hours 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
    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
    2 hours 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













    3












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        RykaraRykara

        5,5081544




        5,5081544



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            rr,vZvwYiM0kjlfU,ZtxhhQp WlWBBTFVsOr,D8G8,gOlqbCoeO,ajikJ6k2wjU4xaJf8tqAULlP
            c9q I5YgUycYeV1btdmWSs9z8T,qAhLmxknNgygfKtHKJ7HBa,aI8k tFT,OsIV,UHvBOpwxYiAjop,Y,IyKRYLcF8D,OCdN

            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Metrô de Los Teques Índice Linhas | Estações | Ver também | Referências Ligações externas | Menu de navegação«INSTITUCIÓN»«Mapa de rutas»originalMetrô de Los TequesC.A. Metro Los Teques |Alcaldía de Guaicaipuro – Sitio OficialGobernacion de Mirandaeeeeeee