Crit success/failure chance increase

[dfinlay]

I'm trying to price the following traits:

If you are one off from a crit fail/success, you still crit. These are not mutually exclusive traits.

My first thought was that both together should be [-5], as this gives a measure of unpredictability and I would place them at somewhere like [20] and [-25], though I have no real justification other than gut feel.

On the other hand, one of my players pointed out that this'll generally increase crit fail less than crit and felt that [10] and [-10] was more fair. What do people here think?

[Leynok]

One of my GMs allowed a Perk to allow a skill's Crit cap to go from 6 to 7, so long as it wasn't a combat skill.
Scoring a critical hit in combat on a 7 or less seems way to good to price at 25 point, let alone less.
The difference between Klutz and Total Klutz is that total causes all failed DX rolls to crit fail. Cutting the cost of Klutz out means that the system seems to think any failed roll of any specific attribute becoming a crit fail is worth [-10]. Using this as a benchmark, a mere 1 number more likely to crit fail all rolls seems closer to [-5]. Maybe [-10] is a bit more right since I think Total Klutz is underpriced.

In any case, I think the end result of having both will be advantageous, and by a decent degree. Usually, the rolls that matter are the ones that you have high skill in anyway. So what if that 17 is a crit fail again? You can hit past all of an opponents defenses on a roll of 7 or less.
If you my GM and told me I could have both for 10 points or less, I wouldn't even think twice about buying these. If you told me I could have both as a 0 point feature or even as a net disadvantage, I would be triple checking to make sure you were really okay with that call.
Of course, this assumes any game of a decent power level, if most players don't have skills much beyond 12, then it might not be so unbalanced, but you should price advantages under the assumption that someone will be using all of it's benefits where they matter, while avoiding the downsides.

*Edit: caught and fixed 2 problems with this post within a minute of posting, sorry if how I formatted this came out unclear. I really should sleep more.

[Celti]

I have a trait Enhanced Criticals [15], made as a variation of/alternative to Daredevil. In one broad category of action (The “risky behaviour” of Daredevil being only one, but all should be about that broad), you have a one point higher chance of critical success (as long as your effective skill exceeds the required number by ten) and you may reroll critical failures once.

I allow at most three levels of it to be purchased, allowing critical success on a 9 or less with skill 19+, and three rerolls of critical failures for those REALLY low chances of success.

It's been fairly balanced in play; one of the party mages has Enhanced Criticals (Spellcasting), which has worked out in play to be about as fair as the Stable Casting enhancement, and another has Enhanced Criticals (Single Combat) which has actually not really been worth the points.

I've priced (though no-one has taken it and it hasn't been playtested) "All Rolls" as a +300% enhancement, for a cost of [60/level].

[DangerousThing]

In one campaign I reduced critical failures for high skill, but didn't touch crit success. It seemed to work fine and I'll probably use it again.

At 20, 17 is only a crit failure 50% of the time
At 25, only 18 is a crit failure
At 30, 18 is a crit failure 50% of the time
At 35, 18 is a crit failure only 1 out of 6 times

I never had a character get to 30 in a skill, thoug she was close before the campaign ended due to surgery (RL).

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

At 20, 17 is only a crit failure 50% of the time
At 25, only 18 is a crit failure

These are much harsher than GURPS RAW. Normally, effective skill 16+ gives you critical failures only on an 18.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

In one campaign I reduced critical failures for high skill, but didn't touch crit success. It seemed to work fine and I'll probably use it again.

At 20, 17 is only a crit failure 50% of the time
At 25, only 18 is a crit failure
At 30, 18 is a crit failure 50% of the time
At 35, 18 is a crit failure only 1 out of 6 times

I never had a character get to 30 in a skill, thoug she was close before the campaign ended due to surgery (RL).

Do note that you are increasing the probability of Critical Failures below skill 25, and you don't see a decrease until you hit skill 30. RAW is that at skill 16+, 17 is always a Failure (but not a Critical Failure) and 18 is always a Critical Failure.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by johndallman

These are much harsher than GURPS RAW. Normally, effective skill 16+ gives you critical failures only on an 18.

You are correct. Obviously I haven't looked at my notes in a few months, doh!

I did remove 17 as a failure (50% at 20, and totally at 25). Then the parts of 18 that weren't crit failures became nomal failures at 30 and 35.

Sorry about the confusion.