08-09-2019, 02:42 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: The Wired
|
Alternative Critical Failure Rules
By RAW, a critical failure is any of the following:
This seems inelegant to me, particularly the second bit. I understand why it's like that -- if there weren't a special exception for rolls with TNs of 16 and above, then for any such roll, the only possible failure would be a critical failure. Still, the inconsistency of this rule drives my self-diagnosed OCD absolutely bonkers, so I came up with an alternative, similar to the "crit-confirm" rule for games with otherwise static probability of critical success and failure (e.g. only on natural 1s and 20s).
I wrote a script to calculate the probability of critical failure both under RAW and under my proposed house rule, and received the following results: Code:
TN | RAW | House ---+--------+------- 3 | 25.92% | 25.44% 4 | 16.2% | 15.9% 5 | 9.25% | 9.08% 6 | 4.62% | 4.54% 7 | 1.85% | 1.81% 8 | 1.85% | 1.81% 9 | 1.85% | 1.81% 10 | 1.85% | 1.76% 11 | 1.85% | 1.68% 12 | 1.85% | 1.55% 13 | 1.85% | 1.37% 14 | 1.85% | 1.15% 15 | 1.85% | 0.92% 16 | 0.46% | 0.69% 17 | 0.46% | 0.48% 18 | 0.46% | 0.3% 19 | 0.46% | 0.17% 20 | 0.46% | 0.08% 21 | 0.46% | 0.03% 22 | 0.46% | 0.03% 23 | 0.46% | 0.03% ... This house rule does require you to make more success rolls, but on average only about 1.85% more. In short, the house rule simplifies the rules for critical hits and makes it so that increasing the TN usually makes critical failure less likely rather than only doing so as an edge case, yet keeps all probabilities in the ordinary range of target numbers mostly the same as they were before. Thoughts? |
Tags |
house rules |
|
|