Feats: they always cause me a headache. If my PC has 12+ INT I usually go for another skill, lately I took Acrobatic Performance to broaden things that my PC can do.
Medicine/Battle Medicine is always a good choice. Especially that it is 1 action so for casters who are well-positioned they can cast and patch someone in the same round.
There is a whole guide on assurance but yea, I only take it on PCs with low WIS for medicine, and on my battle priest with low INT for crafting to fix the shield.
Besides that, I always look for RP flavors in feats like root magic etc.
Anywho, so it seems that from this table only Avonatha is interested in Quest 9. If that is the case I will not run it. It felt like a good continuation of this scenario. But I understand that people prefer to play scenarios.
I will leave this thread open till Friday and then close the campaign.
|
I've seen Assurance (Athletics) used as a third action Trip on low-level, low-Reflex enemies in combat, and climbing walls and stuff outside of combat. I've not seen, but imagine, that Assurance (Intimidation) could be used similarly on low-level, low-Will enemies.
Assurance (Survival) might be worth a feat in a foraging-heavy campaign, because I think those are static DCs. Probably not for PFS, though.
Assurance (any skill) will hit an Easy Level-based DC, or a normal Level-minus-2-based DC. I think Assurance (recall skills) and Automatic Knowledge might be fun as long as you don't get pissed off when it fails against APL-1 monsters.
I took Assurance (allll the recall skills) and Automatic Knowledge with one of my home game characters, but my kids refused to GM "wimpy" monsters (every fight must be an EPIC BATTLE FOR THE UNIVERSE) so that was like 8 feats wasted ... :S
|
Assurance (any skill) will hit an Easy Level-based DC, or a normal Level-minus-2-based DC. I think Assurance (recall skills) and Automatic Knowledge might be fun as long as you don't get pissed off when it fails against APL-1 monsters.
lol
I took Assurance (allll the recall skills) and Automatic Knowledge with one of my home game characters, but my kids refused to GM "wimpy" monsters (every fight must be an EPIC BATTLE FOR THE UNIVERSE) so that was like 8 feats wasted ... :S
Yeah, I think Assurance is a bad mechanic. Paizo tries to do an end-run on Take 10. But, IMO, they screwed it up. Take 10 was about competency and it was actually a great tool for GMs. But because of the stacking in PF1, GMs would complain that it was an "I Win" button. Well, GMs were doing it wrong, but that's beside the point.
So Paizo deletes Take 10, failing to realize that with the tight math of PF2, Take 10 would no longer be the "I Win" button it was in PF1. Assurance was supposed to be better than Take 10 in that it can be used in Combat. Only problem is that if you don't optimize its use, it tends to be worthless or, worse than rolling. IMO, Assurance compels a level of meta-gaming beyond Take 10. You really want to know the DCs before using/taking Assurance. What's more, with the introduction of the Crit Success mechanic, Assurance becomes a less attractive fun/exciting option than rolling.
In a way, Assurance is now like a feat tax so that you can use an ability at a fixed level without having to roll
Assurance (Survival) might be worth a feat in a foraging-heavy campaign, because I think those are static DCs.
For me, Forager is one of those facepalming feats. Nobody wants to spend any significant time "foraging," players or GMs. So while it kind of sounds neat to play the game with that type of granularity in the abstract, in reality, it's like tracking how many arrows the archer has left in the quiver, or how much weight all the gold you are carrying adds up to. Nobody thinks that's fun as part of nominal game play.
In the 10 years of playing PF1, I've never had a scenario expects us to forage for food, or anything like it. Not even in home campaigns has a GM'd ever tried to ask spend real-time feeding ourselves. LOL....I've never had to eat a meal in PFS or otherwise.
I know these desgners play their game, but some of the design choices do not make sense in the context of how the game is actually played.
|
|
I am not really all that impressed with some of the feats that are offered in PF2E.
This is especially true if you're coming from PF1. The thing with PF2, is that Paizo made a specific design decision to nerf the benefit of any player having system mastery. In other words, PF2 is the most idiot-proof version of D&D that's ever been released.
What does that mean? It means that Paizo went out of its way to try and make sure all feats had very minimal impact on your characters efficacy. This way, if a player makes a lot of bad choices the impact of the character versus a player who made all the right choices is negligible. How do you accomplish this? Make sure nothing is "good."
Now, defenders of the system will say that it allows you to pursue concept more. Since you are less burden by making the "right" choice, you can pursue concepts that seem more fun. Personally, being effective is part of the fun equation (TM). Having feats that impactfully improve my character is fun. So having a bunch of "concept" feats that don't really do anything is, for me, rather underwhelming.
TL;DR - I agree, PF2 feats are very underwhelming, and it's by design.
|
|
Basically, as long as you don't get weird with your initial stat array and maximize your main "attack" stat, then every character is going to have about the same numerical bonuses as anyone else at that level. PF1 has a lot of feats that give you a +1, +2 or +3 bonus to some roll. There's virtually none of that in PF2. Uncanny Acumen is basically it.
The idea of PFS 2 feats is to give your character new options or new ways to use your feats. Instead of Power Attack gives you a numerical bonus, now it's a different type of action you can chose to take.
This means a lot of feats tend to be situational. General feats are usually the most commonly applicable, followed by class feats then ancestry feats. And then you have the skill feats, which are the feats that players get the most of but they also tend to be super situational. Like Underwater Marauder would be an awesome feat if you're caught in the water; but out of playing and GMing twenty different PFS 2e games I think I've it seen a water combat happen three times.
There are a few diamonds in the rough, like Battlefield Medicine or Intimidating Glare that you might get to use every session, but most are so situational that you may never see a situation where you're going to need it.
|
|
I've probably seen more situations where I wish I had Underwater Marauder than situations I wish I had Cat Fall. :)
In PF1, in 60+ scenarios, I think I've had one fight in the water. Or rather we fell out of a rowboat and had to make some attacks, or simply swim to shore.
There might have been a 2nd Season scenario where one could happen if someone falls out of a boat.
I've only fallen in a pit once.
But the one that's been unexpectedly useful? Glad-Hand. Immediate Make an Impression check with no penalty? Yes, please.
You know...there actually is a "penalty" for using Glad-Hand. You take the roll at -5. That means you are unlikely to crit succeed by getting +10 and if you Succeed, this precludes you from rolling again to get a crit success. You only get a second normal attempt if you don't success.
So if you're likely to Succeed with a -5 penalty, you probably have a good chance of crit succeeding, but using Glad-Hand, you're kind of giving up a crit success unless you roll a 20. The real downside is that if you needed two steps of improvement, Glad-Hand makes it a lot harder.
DM, thank you for offering to run the bounty. Do you have any scenarios that you might be running soon since it looks like this will not pan out?
At the moment no. I have other games that I want to finish first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know...there actually is a "penalty" for using Glad-Hand. You take the roll at -5. That means you are unlikely to crit succeed by getting +10 and if you Succeed, this precludes you from rolling again to get a crit success. You only get a second normal attempt if you don't success.
So if you're likely to Succeed with a -5 penalty, you probably have a good chance of crit succeeding, but using Glad-Hand, you're kind of giving up a crit success unless you roll a 20. The real downside is that if you needed two steps of improvement, Glad-Hand makes it a lot harder.
That's mostly wrong.
nat = the DC of the check minus the modifier, and corresponds to the "natural" number you need to roll to hit.
R1 = the expected number of successes if you just rolled, straight up, in a typical {CS = +2, S = +1, F = 0, CF = -1} point scheme
GH+R1 = the expected number of success if you rolled at -5, then rerolled as usual on a failure
nat R1 GH+R1
20 -0.40 -0.33
19 -0.35 -0.28
18 -0.25 -0.13
17 -0.15 +0.02
16 -0.05 +0.16 <-- Very Hard
15 +0.05 +0.29 <--
14 +0.15 +0.41 <--
13 +0.25 +0.51 <-- Hard
12 +0.35 +0.61 <--
11 +0.45 +0.70 <-- Level based DC
10 +0.50 +0.75 <--
09 +0.55 +0.80 <-- Easy
08 +0.65 +0.86 <--
07 +0.75 +0.91 <--
06 +0.85 +0.96 <-- Very Easy
05 +0.95 +0.99
04 +1.05 +1.01
03 +1.15 +1.02
02 +1.25 +1.03
01 +1.35 +1.02
So you are correct, in that when the DC is so easy that you'd only need a natural 4 to hit it, you're better off rolling straight up. But the Level-based DC is essentially benchmarking at DC-mod = 11, with the range being 6 > DC-mod > 16.
It'd be the equivalent of a DC 11 check in this 3-6 game.
---
For two successes, it's no different, with one exception - the exception being if the GM disallows the Glad-Hander from making any further checks ever after Succeeding the first, which is absurd.
I think you've confused some of the Influence mechanics (repeated checks) with Make an Impression. Glad-Hand can't be used with Influence - it specifically augments Make an Impression. There is a Season 1 scenario in which repeated Make an Impression checks are required, but I'm pretty sure if they wrote that scenario now they'd use Influence.
But, for S&G, I decided to see how bad that scenario would be.
nat R2 GH + R2
20 -0.80 -0.71
19 -0.70 -0.62
18 -0.50 -0.35
17 -0.30 -0.11
16 -0.10 +0.12 <-- Very Hard
15 +0.10 +0.33 <--
14 +0.30 +0.51 <--
13 +0.50 +0.68 <-- Hard
12 +0.70 +0.82 <--
11 +0.90 +0.95 <-- Level-based DC
10 +1.00 +1.00 <--
09 +1.10 +1.05 <-- Easy
08 +1.30 +1.12 <--
07 +1.50 +1.18 <--
06 +1.70 +1.21 <-- Very Easy
05 +1.90 +1.23
04 +2.10 +1.22
03 +2.30 +1.20
02 +2.50 +1.15
01 +2.70 +1.09
Even in that case, Glad-Handing is still better than rolling twice for a Level-Based DC.
So, yeah, I guess if you ever come across a scenario where you need two Make an Impression successes with Diplomacy, and the DC is easier than an Easy Level-based DC, and your GM won't let you make the second check if you use Glad-Hand, then, you're right.
Otherwise, Glad-Hand is fantastic.
|
|
That's mostly wrong.
I think you interpreted my statement incorrectly, or rather I stated it incorrect.I diidn't say it gives you a better chance at succeeding in general. I'm saying that if you can succeed at -5, you're going to have a better chance of crit succeeding by rolling.
I am not sure your calculation is modeling the problem correctly. Using CF -1, is going to show the value of GH in plain success, because you're avoiding the F and CF outocmes the first time around. GH is definitely better if you just need to succeed. My point, again, is that if you're regularly succeeding at -5, you're not going to get as many crit successes using it.
Of course, you can always elect not to use it, but that's probably not going to happen.
For two successes, it's no different, with one exception - the exception being if the GM disallows the Glad-Hander from making any further checks ever after Succeeding the first, which is absurd.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ever" but the rules state:
Good impressions (or bad impressions, on a critical failure) last for only the current social interaction unless the GM decides otherwise.
So reading that in reverse, you normally only get one check for the encounter. If you Succeed using GH, you can't make another check for that encounter. GH only authorizes a reroll if you F or CF.
I think you've confused some of the Influence mechanics (repeated checks) with Make an Impression. Glad-Hand can't be used with Influence - it specifically augments Make an Impression.
There's no confusion on my part. I'm not talking about Influence encounters.
So, yeah, I guess if you ever come across a scenario where you need two Make an Impression successes with Diplomacy
No, I'm talking about a social encounter where a crit success yields more benefit. And because GH reduced your Crit success to a normal success, you can't try again because you succeeded.
GH, like many of the feats and abilities in PF2, is some benefit balanced by a trade off. Either a loss in action economy, low frequency of application, or some narrowing in the range of success. Now, since no one is perfect, there are some feats/abilities that aren't as well balanced and tip the scale on the good side, just as there are some that are decidedly poor.
If your GM is allowing you to use GH like a "Make an impression and roll twice, if you don't like the first roll," then yes, it would be "fantastic," but my understanding of PF2 is that this type of straight up benefit is of the type that they specifically tried to avoid.
I do think that class abilities tend to have fewer trade-offs, but a higher opportunity cost. Nevetheless, Avona was mainly looking at skills, iIrc.
|
|
Skill feats are definitely the weakest feats and I don't think there's a lot of amazing ones. But I think there are a lot of solid ones and very few if any that wouldn't be useful to *somebody*.
For example, PCs are rich and generally don't have to worry about finding food, but a hermit living out in the woods might get a lot of use out of Forager. But if it's only a going to be useful option for an NPC, why offer it at all to PCs I guess you could ask? I say because it establishes a mechanical way for you to make your PC be the kind of ranger who is really good at being self-sufficient. Most players won't take it because they can buy food (and eventually make it with spells or magic items) but it is an option for those that want it.
|
|
I think Gladhand sounds pretty good, because while you have a lower chance of critically succeeding, you get a lower chance of not only failing but critically failing. It is a little bit of a trade off, but I think a greater chance of not failing at the expense of a slightly lower chance of critically succeeding (as you'll still probably crit on a 20, but maybe not on a 19 or less) is a good trade.
This reminds me of how envoys in Starfinder have abilities that let you reroll a check at the cost of losing your inspiration die. I feel like there is a lot of things in that game that were basically experiments for 2e and I wonder if that was one of them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a greater chance of not failing at the expense of a slightly lower chance of critically succeeding (as you'll still probably crit on a 20, but maybe not on a 19 or less) is a good trade.
There are two math reasons why this is true.
1. The DCs are more tightly clustered in PF2. In PF1, there were absurd "nat"s on both ends - DCs 25 over the modifiers, modifiers higher than the DCs ("nat" -5). It led to really difficult design (10% of characters would succeed on a nat 1, 90% of characters would fail on a nat 20) - and avoiding those situations was one of the stated design criteria for PF2.
In PF2, there's a greater emphasis on group successes. Less often is an obstacle overcome by taking the highest roll, and more often is an obstacle overcome by enough characters succeeding. Critical failures hurt the team, but so do failures (and abstentions are failures). Critical successes cover one failure, but even at DC minus modifiers of 6 (Very Easy), you're critting 25% of the time so expecting a crit is generally irrational.
2. There's a large utility jump between failure and success, and only a minor jump between success and critical success. 100% success is almost always better than 50% critical success, 50% failure. There's one Treasure Bundle in one scenario which I think is the exception to that rule.
|
|
Ya, the only Skill Feat (sometimes they cross over into other categories correct) that I am impressed with are battle medicine and skill training, at least for this character.
I am happy that in a few levels, since I don't see any other class feats that are nice, that she can get a fairy dragon familiar.