Potentially stronger, in one light. Depends on how many saves you're going to make in the day.
But you didn't withdraw anything.
Even still, rerolling one saving throw per day isn't necessarily better than a static bonus to every time you roll a saving throw. Especially if you need to take the lower result of a reroll.
Interestingly, even if that trait only applied to one type of saves, it would still be better than the improved versions of Iron Will, Great Fortitude, and Lightning Reflexes.
Those feats give you the option to reroll before the result is revealed, but you must take the second result even if it's worse. Meanwhile, the trait offers you a reroll after you know you've failed, which is far more powerful.
what went wrong?
The trait is published in a Pathfinder Player Companion book (Faiths of Purity). It is known that these books do not receive nearly the same level of scrutiny (if any, at all) from the main designers who publish the core rulebooks. (This is the reason that the main designers kept telling people to compare the advanced class guide only to core options as they are "the baseline for power.") Additionally, I'm not certain they get any play testing at all.
Sure there are some things in the core rulebook line that are objectively "too good". But I would wager a significant amount of money that the percentage of items in the Golarion settings books that are objectively "too good" is much higher than in the core rulebook line. (Of course, "objectively" is nearly impossible to get people to agree upon, but I think I've made my point regardless.)
I don't know that they can be compared? Second Chance is a combat feat that I've never seen taken. And the improved saving throw feats are nearly never taken. I don't think any of them come off as too good.
Second chance is a trait, not a feat. Makes it much better for the price.
Second chance is a trait, not a feat. Makes it much better for the price.
No second chance is a feat from the APG.
Lessons of Chaldira is the trait you are discussing from Faiths of Purity, which d20pfsrd changed the name of.
Ahh, I stand corrected on the proper name of the trait. But we were clearly discussing the linked trait which d20pfsrd.org has taken to calling "Second Chance".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a problem with the trait. It's a trait available to halflings who worship their racial god, Chaldira Zuzaristan. Halflings are lucky, halflings need the extra oomph (being so small) and it's simply not generally available to all PCs as would be Improved This or That. Of course, I guess you could convince your GM that your Dwarf Fighter worships the Halfling racial god in order to get this trait, but that would be a bit of a stretch in most cases.
When choosing feats and traits from d20PFSRD, you need to remember that Golarion is copyrighted material, so d20PFSRD makes alot of feats that are otherwise restricted into generic ones. The clues are the copyright notices below the feat/trait. If it lists a regional book, an organization book or a religion book, it's likely restricted in some way (regional, organization or religion) and not generally available to anyone who simply wants to take the feat/trait.
You want Wayang Spellhunter... then explain to the GM how your character derives from Minata. Alot of GMs will be accommodating, particularly if you have a decent story-line, but there are some who won't be. You can't simply go to d20PFSRD, look at "Metamagic Master" and declare that anyone can simply take the trait without the regional restrictions (well, you can, but you shouldn't).
A little from column A, a little from column B.
A little from column A, a little from column B.
I agree with this. The improved feats are rarely taken and could probably use an improvement but that doesn't mean that this trait being better than those feats is ok.
It's a trait for worshipers of a minor halfing deity, not something easily worked into many characters.
To answer the OP's question, the improved iron will etc. need a boost.
They're both fine. Once per day rolls, while nice, are once per day, can often only be done before results are known, and are also often forgotten about in the heat of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought the feats were a little weak personally. What always really bothered me was that they were boring.
I would say the improved feats are too weak. They don't even improve your saves, thus failing on the face of thing.
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.
Why can't you reroll nat 1s?
I think they should have given another +2 to saves. I would say 2 rerolls a day, but for NPC monsters who are only expected to survive one encounter anyway that might be too good. Well it would be ok in my games, but I dont know how other players would feel about it.
Another option would be adding a +2 and 1 reroll/day.
With that aside I think those feats just need to be stronger. 1 reroll a day is not all that great. I give it to my NPC's but I have never taken it for a PC.
I hope this helps. ;)
If improved Iron will just increased the bonus by 2, I wouldn't need the ability to re-roll a save once per day.
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?
You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.
You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
I think they should have given another +2 to saves. I would say 2 rerolls a day, but for NPC monsters who are only expected to survive one encounter anyway that might be too good. Well it would be ok in my games, but I dont know how other players would feel about it.
You can always artificially create an encounter based mechanic. Say you can use it again after a certain amount of meditation, rest, time passed, etc. Even a full minute of time passed means you probably won't use it twice in the same encounter.
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.
You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
Wow no. We don't run it that way. That would be dumb. Although I must admit it is "RAW"
Wow no. We don't run it that way. That would be dumb. Although I must admit it is "RAW"You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
This is one of the problems of those feats. If you're rerolling before you know the result and you take the second roll even if it's worse, then there is no point in rolling 2 dice.
Since only the last die counts, and you don't know if your initial roll was successful or not. It's like rolling a die with no mechanical effects, just for the hell of it, before actually rolling your saving throw. It doesn't change anything.
Personally, I simply rule that Iron Will and its brothers already include the Improved version, and the character gets an extra reroll every 8 character levels (up to 3 rerolls at 16th level).
The player can use his reroll after he knows if his save was successful, but before he knows what the effects of the failed save would be (although he may know that already through other means, such as successfully identifying the spell being cast or simply knowing what the enemy's abilities are).
The reroll feats are best in major fights where you know the difficulty is above normal and you roll between, say, a 2 to a 5. That's likely not going to cut it. Statistically, on a reroll you're likely to get much higher.
They shouldn't be thought of as general options in CR = APL fights or even CR = APL + 1 fights, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.
You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
"Revealed" does not equal "known". "Revealed" means "the GM tells you whether you passed or failed." "Known" just means "I know whether I passed or failed".
Consider this situation:
Round 1: Dragon breathes on me. GM calls for a saving throw. I roll a 10, bonus is +6, so my total roll is 16. The GM says "You fail."
Round 2: Dragon breathes on me again. This time, I roll a 9 for a total of 15. I know that I have failed, because this roll is lower than the previous one. The GM has not yet said anything.
Can I use my reroll?
By your argument, no, I can't, because the results are "known".
But what if there's something different about this breath attack than the previous one (say, the dragon has a circumstance bonus to increase the DC of one breath weapon per day or something)? Now the results are not "known", and I can use my reroll. But that also requires the GM to give me more information about the enemy than I should know.
What if the GM was wrong about the first breath weapon save and has just realized his mistake? Now can I reroll?
Or what if, back in round 1, the player next to me happens to know the dragon's save DC from a previous game that I wasn't present for, and says, "Oh, a 16 isn't good enough"? Can I reroll or not?
If I am new and don't know that a 1 auto-fails, I can totally reroll a natural 1, right?
The permutations of that are total insane.
"Reveal" is a specific, obvious action taken by the GM. If the text had the active voice to begin with--"Before the GM reveals the results"-- few people would even question whether you could reroll a natural 1.
This is one of the problems of those feats. If you're rerolling before you know the result and you take the second roll even if it's worse, then there is no point in rolling 2 dice.Wow no. We don't run it that way. That would be dumb. Although I must admit it is "RAW"You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
Actually, I have no problem guessing that I want to re-roll a 2, but I don't want to re-roll a 19.
Meh. No one takes Improved Blank anyways. Plus reading the thread on banning it tells me that no one uses the trait anyways which is hilarious.
"Revealed" does not equal "known". "Revealed" means "the GM tells you whether you passed or failed." "Known" just means "I know whether I passed or failed".
Consider this situation:
Round 1: Dragon breathes on me. GM calls for a saving throw. I roll a 10, bonus is +6, so my total roll is 16. The GM says "You fail."Round 2: Dragon breathes on me again. This time, I roll a 9 for a total of 15. I know that I have failed, because this roll is lower than the previous one. The GM has not yet said anything.
Can I use my reroll?
By your argument, no, I can't, because the results are "known".But what if there's something different about this breath attack than the previous one (say, the dragon has a circumstance bonus to increase the DC of one breath weapon per day or something)? Now the results are not "known", and I can use my reroll. But that also requires the GM to give me more information about the enemy than I should know.
What if the GM was wrong about the first breath weapon save and has just realized his mistake? Now can I reroll?
Or what if, back in round 1, the player next to me happens to know the dragon's save DC from a previous game that I wasn't present for, and says, "Oh, a 16 isn't good enough"? Can I reroll or not?
If I am new and don't know that a 1 auto-fails, I can totally reroll a natural 1, right?
The permutations of that are total insane.
"Reveal" is a specific, obvious action taken by the GM. If the text had the...
The result in a natural 1 situation is always going to be revealed to be a failure. However, you could potentially succeed with a 2. Your modifiers and character knowledge of the enemy doesn't matter. 1 is a failure. Always.
When you roll a save, the interaction between GM and player is the players rolls and the GM declares what happens. By your take you could reroll so long as the GM didn't see your dice and call you on it. I'm not sure about your experience, but playing "hide the die" games with GMs never works well even if you suppose upon only momentary ignorance so you can evaluate your own options. It creates a very childish "no, you can't see it yet!" interaction.
1s are always failures. 20s are always successes. That's just how saves work. Whether the GM reveals something or not the outcome is a known quantity each and every time. So, congrats, you just revealed the result to yourself. Or, the book reveals to you the result because is prescribes what happens on those rolls. Either way, the result is revealed and known the moment you roll a 1 or 20 thanks to the CRB. You can't really skirt around it with mind-games with either yourself or the GM. Newness to the rules wouldn't save you from suffering a critical hit or even character death. Why would it save you from a natural 1 on a save?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree they're weak in the sense you can't reroll 1s. Critical failures are always failures even with the feats.Why can't you reroll nat 1s?You have to decide to reroll before results are known. For 1s, that's an automatic failure. The result is immediate. Anyone who's played just a couple sessions knows this so it's not like it's hidden gem of how saves work either.
You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed.
See Gwen's argument below.
Furthermore, that language is conspicuously NOT present in the trait we are discussing.
See my response?
So, the trait doesn't have that limitation. And? With 3 feats you get 3 rerolls. With 1 trait you a single reroll across 3 saves. Seems about in line with the 1 trait = 1/2 a feat thing. They even rounded down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to understand your math.
You need to take 2 feats, iron will+ Improved Iron Will, to get a once/day reroll on Will saves which doesn't allow a reroll on a 1 (if we buy your interpretation, which I don't). You need 6 feats to get a reroll on each.
The way I see it, the trait is worth approximately 2 feats, since you never know what kind of save you're going to fail.
3 feats = 3 rolls. 1 trait = 1 roll across 3 saves. The ratio of roll to save is 1.5 which is 1/2 the effect of the 3 feats. So, okay, it's a "super trait." It doesn't make it better than the feats, though. It's benefit to two saves is gone once it is used. With the feats you can save once again to each. That consistency is ultimately better, even though, yes, having a single wild card in your hand is useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But having those "3" feats consumes 6 feats to get, instead of a trait. Heck, you could take Extra Traits and pick it up AND something else that's useful. Furthermore, I'll reiterate, with your own interpretation, being able to reroll a natural 1 vs. not is a bigger deal the higher your saves get.
I hope this helps. ;)
I was going to post this also.
My summary after reading that thread:
Those feats are kind of weak and except for the occasional Iron Will, no one ever takes them except as a prereq. Yes the trait is nice, but the fact that it makes you worship a halfling goddess (something you can't see on PFSRD) is a major drawback for many people. Also, the longer your days, the more the Improved Saves pay off compared to Lessons of Chalandria.
Bad trait, no biscuit.
Improved Blah feats are probably a little weak, but not to the extent I would worry about fixing them. As a houserule, maybe make them a reroll with a +2 bonus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 feats = 3 rolls. 1 trait = 1 roll across 3 saves. The ratio of roll to save is 1.5 which is 1/2 the effect of the 3 feats. So, okay, it's a "super trait." It doesn't make it better than the feats, though. It's benefit to two saves is gone once it is used. With the feats you can save once again to each. That consistency is ultimately better, even though, yes, having a single wild card in your hand is useful.
I'm not seeing this math.
A potion of cure light wounds is worth 50 gp.
A potion of endure elements is worth 50 gp.
A potion of enlarge person is worth 50 gp.
A potion that lets you do any one of the three should be worth more than any of them; it's a potion of CLW with additional situational options. Yes, once you use it as an enlarge person spell, you can't use it for CLW, but that doesn't make it worth any less than an enlarge person spell.
A more fair comparison would be to compare a potion that could do one of those three things once a day to a potion that could do one of those things as many times as you need to in one day. Even that isn't perfect, due to not choosing when you need to make a save, but at least it is a bit closer to the mark.
"Revealed" does not equal "known". "Revealed" means "the GM tells you whether you passed or failed." "Known" just means "I know whether I passed or failed".
The result in a natural 1 situation is always going to be revealed to be a failure. However, you could potentially succeed with a 2. Your modifiers and character knowledge of the enemy doesn't matter. 1 is a failure. Always.
Yes, the result of a natural 1 "is always going to be revealed to fail", however until it is revealed, you can still use a reroll. That's the distinction between "I know I failed" and "the GM announced I failed."
If you allow the definition of "the results are revealed" become anything other than "the GM makes his announcement," then you are inviting all the possibilities I described earlier. Suddenly, the GM now has to guess whether or not the player "knows" he failed before allowing a reroll. The implications are staggering.
Here's another thought: I know GMs who randomly ask players for fake saving throws just to keep them off balance. In this case, a 1 is not technically "a failure" because there is not actually anything to fail. By your argument, GMs who ask for fake saving throws must allow players to reroll a natural 1, but GMs who never ask for fake saving throws must never allow rerolls on a natural 1.
When you roll a save, the interaction between GM and player is the players rolls and the GM declares what happens.
Exactly. And between those two events is when the reroll window happens. That same window is also applicable to other effects that allow you to boost another player's roll "before the results are revealed". This is what forces some support characters to shout "Wait-wait! Don't tell us!" every time someone rolls, and they have to interrupt the GM before he says anything.
By your take you could reroll so long as the GM didn't see your dice and call you on it. I'm not sure about your experience, but playing "hide the die" games...
Now that's just spurious. "Hide the die" is cheating, not a rules interpretation.
But the example you gave isn't even "hiding the die." When you announce "I'm using a reroll," you are openly acknowledging that you rolled the dice and that the roll was bad, and you are now electing to use a 1/day feat to redo the roll. Where is the hiding there? It's only "hide the die" when you scoop the dice up and pretend you haven't rolled yet.
Experience wise, I've been playing variants of D&D for well over 30 years. I'm also a GM in PFS, where we deal with 6-8 rerolls every single session.
I'm not convinced. What you said didn't invalidate my argument at all. All players of the game know a 1 is a failure. There is less than a planck unit of time between resolving a 1 to a failure. As I said, the CRB prescribes what happens on a 1. The reveal is automatic. It doesn't matter if the GM has or hasn't declared anything. The reveal doesn't have to come from the GM. You can know yourself without the GM needing to say anything. It's no different than automatic hits with a 20. It doesn't matter what the GM says. Barring miss chance, you hit every single time. I've never seen someone not immediately roll damage after a 20 when miss chance wasn't a possibility. Why? They automatically know because the rules provide the result for all to know.
Knowing a 1 is a failure, and knowing the results are different things.
If you roll a 1 on a reflex save what happened? Did you take 10 damage, or 1,000. Did you just fall prone or were you teleported to the bottom of the ocean?
Its the results not the failure or success of a save that the GM is suppose to keep hidden, far more than number of the die.
Ah now that tickles my RAW.
Knowing a 1 is a failure, and knowing the results are different things.
If you roll a 1 on a reflex save what happened? Did you take 10 damage, or 1,000. Did you just fall prone or were you teleported to the bottom of the ocean?
Its the results not the failure or success of a save that the GM is suppose to keep hidden, far more than number of the die.
Nice.
I'm not convinced. What you said didn't invalidate my argument at all. All players of the game know a 1 is a failure. There is less than a planck unit of time between resolving a 1 to a failure.
But you admit there is an amount of time between the two, regardless of how tiny it is. What if a player says beforehand, "If this comes up a 1, I will use my feat to reroll"? Since he's already declared his reroll before the 1 comes up, does that count? Or is he now in the trap of "you have to wait until after you roll"?
As I said, the CRB prescribes what happens on a 1. The reveal is automatic. It doesn't matter if the GM has or hasn't declared anything. The reveal doesn't have to come from the GM. You can know yourself without the GM needing to say anything.
This terminology issue is my entire argument. Either the term "the results are revealed" has a known, consistent definition in the game or it doesn't.
My argument is that phrase in question means exactly "the GM tells you whether you pass or fail" and nothing else. This definition can be applied consistently across every die roll in every situation in every game and be guaranteed to have the exact same effect, every single time: after you roll the die, you can choose to reroll up until the point where the GM says "You failed": after those words leave the GMs lips, it's too late. It's clearly defined, easily explained, and consistently applied. In organized play, it's vital that we have this consistency across GMs, in every region.
Your argument is that that the phrase in question does not have a specific definition in the mechanics of the game, that the definition is dependent on current circumstances. If "the results are revealed" does not require the GM to say anything, then it only matters that player "knows" whether he passed or failed. Clearly, the player knows he failed on a natural 1. However, there are many, many other circumstances where the player knows he failed without the GM needing to say anything. That's when you start falling down the rabbit hole of "what did the player know and when did he know it". With that approach, you can easily end up with each player and each GM having a different opinion of whether or not "the results are revealed", and you can have that argument each time you roll the die.
I accept that I'm not going to convince you, and obviously you're free to rule however you choose. But unless you can give me a different definition of "the results are revealed" that will consistently generate the same ruling from all GMs, you're not going to convince me, either. And since I'm not free to rule however I want, I have to go with the consistency.