Assurance as a feat is terrible


Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I hate in RPGs is when absolutely everything has to depend on the dice. People with a reasonable degree of competence don't fail 5% of the time at every task. In 1e, we had "take 10" to combat that, and it worked very well. Now, that's gone to be replaced with Assurance, which only helps with one skill at a time.

I don't mind Assurance, in general. It lets you pick one very narrow area where you can take a mediocre result as a gimme. That's fine. It's not as good as taking 10, but it's reasonable.

However, it consumes a skill feat to have it for just one skill. That forces you to give up something interesting for it, and it's just not interesting.

I would much rather see Assurance become a default mechanic. Allow it for any trained skill with the listed benefits with the "not in combat" stipulation of last edition. Make the feat the ability to use Assurance in combat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Assurance is worse than 'take 10.' Assurance lets you not roll to get a modified 10 as the result.

Example. 1st level rogue with 18 dex and training in stealth. Average roll is 15.5 (10.5+5).
If the rogue uses assurance then the roll becomes 10. Not 15, but 10.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

All the more reason why it shouldn't be a feat.


There is no taking 10 or taking 20, so assurance is likely it’s replacement. Even if there still were a taking 10 or 20, it does have the advantage of being able to be used at any time, even in the heat of an encounter, so there is that, plus it was designed in conjunction with the new DC tables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ebfi3e wrote:

Assurance is worse than 'take 10.' Assurance lets you not roll to get a modified 10 as the result.

Example. 1st level rogue with 18 dex and training in stealth. Average roll is 15.5 (10.5+5).
If the rogue uses assurance then the roll becomes 10. Not 15, but 10.

Conversely, if the rogue is suffering from penalties totaling -10, with Take 10 they'd end up with a 5, with Assurance they still get a 10.

Silver Crusade

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:


Conversely, if the rogue is suffering from penalties totaling -10, with Take 10 they'd end up with a 5, with Assurance they still get a 10.

I hadn't noticed that. That makes it a lot more powerful.

It also helps to significantly differentiate levels of expertise which is probably a good thing.

I think it is still a bit too expensive. Right now a skill feat is a hefty cost (except for a rogue).

One thing about the system that I'm not sure about is that you can only be REALLY good in a couple of skills. It could just be that I'm used to my bards rocking at several skills and 2 is enough. But, at the moment, it FEELS limiting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other thing to keep in mind, is Assurance cannot be powerful enough to make other feats essentially broken. Look at Battle Medic (on the same page and the first I noticed.

Battle Medic when you get is lets you attempt a DC 20 medicine check for more than you could get out of medicine normally. If Assurance wasn't capped at a flat end number, you could easily build an auto-success character fairly early.

Master Assurance becomes 20 which is a free success on the original Battle Medic ability, but it's master ability DC is 25. So you can't auto succeed the healing. At Legendary however, you can do all of them with 30 from Assurance and DC 30 for the advanced healing.

There is a critical success, so there is still roll incentive at that max rank, but that's the tradeoff. 5% failure rate (minimum, from rolling nat 1) for the minimum 5% chance of critical success. Or, assurance gives you the happy auto-success, depending on the rank you are and are going for.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You can also spend General feats to get Skill Feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
ebfi3e wrote:

Assurance is worse than 'take 10.' Assurance lets you not roll to get a modified 10 as the result.

Example. 1st level rogue with 18 dex and training in stealth. Average roll is 15.5 (10.5+5).
If the rogue uses assurance then the roll becomes 10. Not 15, but 10.

Conversely, if the rogue is suffering from penalties totaling -10, with Take 10 they'd end up with a 5, with Assurance they still get a 10.

In theory, yes, but my initial impression is that the rulebook suggest handling difficult tasks by raising the DC, not by applying a penalty to a lower DC. And most combat penalties wear off fast, so I think right now that it's unlikely you'll face really severe penalties on many "do or die" skill attempts where Assurance is useful.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't mind that the results of Assurance are inferior to "take 10" in most cases. The set results seem to track fairly well with the Trivial DC scale (though legendary is better than that), which is really where it should be. It lets someone that is good at something not fall on their face once every twenty times. The problem is the feat cost and the per-skill nature of it.

Which is why I'd like it to just be a base mechanic. Have a feat that improves Assurance for a skill and it'd be worthwhile (a +1/+3/+5 by proficiency level would make some sense).


swordchucks wrote:

I really don't mind that the results of Assurance are inferior to "take 10" in most cases. The set results seem to track fairly well with the Trivial DC scale (though legendary is better than that), which is really where it should be. It lets someone that is good at something not fall on their face once every twenty times. The problem is the feat cost and the per-skill nature of it.

Which is why I'd like it to just be a base mechanic. Have a feat that improves Assurance for a skill and it'd be worthwhile (a +1/+3/+5 by proficiency level would make some sense).

I'd have to see how things actually play out. I'm still in the "raeding everything" phase (and book errors are really taking me out of it). My game will start in September so I'll see then how Assurance feels.

There are other anti-failure feats too, one in particular is for Performance. If they made Assurance as-is a base mechanic it would de-value those skills, and if it worked for every skill on take (of which there are only 18 anyway) it would not only de-value them but also could get out of hand considering universal skill growth. You would be assured with all skills, including untrained, which are always hovering level-2. It would allow even entirely uninvested skills to "take a ten" and negate half of the skill system.

I understand your arguement, but already not all skills have critical fail prevention. Just considering Assurance as the catch all option for those skills already gives it significantly more value for those skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arakhor wrote:
All the more reason why it shouldn't be a feat.

Your Right it doesn't seem like a very good Feat. It's only possible uses as a feat are to select it on a skill which you plan to be trained in, but absolute garbage at. The guaranteed result ignores Armor penalty and all conditional penalties (curses, ailments, so on).

I think it would possibly neat if it simple came automatically for every skill with being Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.

Silver Crusade

"Isaac Zephyr" wrote:

There are other anti-failure feats too, one in particular is for Performance. .

I wasn't able to find this, even with a search. What feat are you referring to here?


pauljathome wrote:
"Isaac Zephyr" wrote:

There are other anti-failure feats too, one in particular is for Performance. .

I wasn't able to find this, even with a search. What feat are you referring to here?

I made a mistake. Performance was not one (just the skill that was at the forefront of my mind).

An example is Shameless Request from the Diplomacy line which makes all critical failures flat failures, or Unmistakable Lore for Lore skills. There are also for Survival there's Forager, though only for specific uses.

Assurance can be applied to any as a catch-all type feat, which would include for Performance (though I'm still sure I saw something for it somewhere. It does not help I'm trying to binge this book in a day).


swordchucks wrote:

I really don't mind that the results of Assurance are inferior to "take 10" in most cases. The set results seem to track fairly well with the Trivial DC scale (though legendary is better than that), which is really where it should be. It lets someone that is good at something not fall on their face once every twenty times. The problem is the feat cost and the per-skill nature of it.

Which is why I'd like it to just be a base mechanic. Have a feat that improves Assurance for a skill and it'd be worthwhile (a +1/+3/+5 by proficiency level would make some sense).

I'd probably house rule it as baseline as well. Though obviously not in playtest. I just think that if the replacement for take 10 is strictly worse than take 10 (yes, there will be edge cases like someone having a negative ability score, but not often in this system), it should be baseline like take 10.

Edit: Just realized Assurance works in combat so it isn't strictly worse, but it's still pretty bad. And it's just plain garbage if you don't plan to upgrade the skill it's in to Legendary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
...my initial impression is that the rulebook suggest handling difficult tasks by raising the DC, not by applying a penalty to a lower DC.

This is a very important point, and one that makes a huge difference. Under any other circumstance it wouldn't matter, as the maths would wash out. And similarly, bonuses would be equivalent to a lower DC. But it doesn't work for Assurance.

Never mind that Assurance is a bad feat (by 6th level you'll probably get at least 10 in anything you care about), it's a bad rule. Personally, I'd bring back Take 10 but with the caveat that it can't achieve a critical success (though it can critically fail).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally more concerned about the value. As a feat, I can appreciate the use... IF THERE IS A USE.
For several levels (see p.337), Assurance can barely hit a Trivial DC.
Assuming you have Assurance on a signature skill and max it as soon as possible, you get a 15 from lv2 to 6 (Trivial DCs range from 11 to 15), a 20 from 7 to 14 (Trivial DCs range from 16 to 23, which means between lv12-14 you'll miss even these), and a 30 from 15 to 20 (Trivial DCs range from 24 to 29).

If you have to attempt a Low DC, your Assurance will automatically fail from level 4 onwards, with the only exception of level 7 if you are Master.

High DCs and harder are clearly not an option for Assurance, and THAT is fine, but... I mean, really? Can't Assurance make me vaguely reliable at doing easy stuff on my best skill? What if I'm not maxing it straight away?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I can't help but feel that at 1 feat per skill, assurance would be far more tempting to take if it was retroactive. I roll my stealth, I nat 1, my assurance takes over as a minimum value of 10 so I know I probably won't sneak past the captain of the guard but even on my worst days I'll get past the half asleep drunkard at the gate.


I agree with Ediwir on that.

I'm fine with Assurance costing a skill feat (and we must not forget that there are fewer feats than before, so Athletics, for example, is worth so much more). I like Assurance because it does not make every roll trivial to a properly built character like take 10 does in first edition, and it has its uses for avoiding critical failures and some situations with penalties (although I doubt we will ever get very big penalties rather than harder DCs).

However, if we want the fantasy of the feat to work, it should at least be able to guarantee you succeed on the most trivial tasks. I see two ways of fixing this. One is to slightly increase the results it gives. The other, while it does give a little more maths to do, I think would be elegant and allow decent results and incentive to take Assurance in skills your character is actually good at: Simply state that you get this result, to which you add only your stat modifier, not your proficiency modifier.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

The only checks that Assurance can reliably succeed at are Trivial ones for that level... which the book recommends not making players roll for anyway. So the feat actually doesn't do anything.

Taking 10 existed for a reason. It was so players and GMs didn't waste time rolling meaningless checks that were well within their ability, out of combat, which are neither dramatic nor interesting. Removing it from the game will slow things down with a lot of pointless rolling for basic tasks and result in players constantly getting screwed over by bad luck. That may be how Gygax liked to run his games, but that's not how I like to run mine.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

mathematically, assurance lets you take a 5 on skill checks. I'm not sure why I would spend a feat to take 5 on something instead of just rolling. Is avoiding a result of 1-4 really worth a feat?

The master and legendary options look nice on paper, until you remember that your level gets added to skill checks and so you're already looking at a +10 or +15 from proficiency alone and if it's a skill that you care about enough to take assurance in, you probably have at least another +5 or +10 (respectively) from stats, feats and gear.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:

The only checks that Assurance can reliably succeed at are Trivial ones for that level... which the book recommends not making players roll for anyway. So the feat actually doesn't do anything.

Taking 10 existed for a reason. It was so players and GMs didn't waste time rolling meaningless checks that were well within their ability, out of combat, which are neither dramatic nor interesting. Removing it from the game will slow things down with a lot of pointless rolling for basic tasks and result in players constantly getting screwed over by bad luck. That may be how Gygax liked to run his games, but that's not how I like to run mine.

Agreed. And this is why I keep recommending that Assurance be baked into skill proficiency. I'm okay if an untrained character can't "take 10," but Assurance is so weak that it should just come with proficiency. At the very least, it should just come with Expert+ levels of proficiency.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Does seem like if Assurance was an automatic part of T/E/M/L, that would go a long way towards more inherently distinguishing the proficiency levels. Maybe with the feat allowing you to add modifiers to your Assured result?


That does seem like a better way to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Assurance being a part of TEML. Makes the different training levels more distinct from each other as well and that helps the current feeling of the point spread not being distinct enough from each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JackieLane wrote:

I agree with Ediwir on that.

I'm fine with Assurance costing a skill feat (and we must not forget that there are fewer feats than before, so Athletics, for example, is worth so much more). I like Assurance because it does not make every roll trivial to a properly built character like take 10 does in first edition, and it has its uses for avoiding critical failures and some situations with penalties (although I doubt we will ever get very big penalties rather than harder DCs).

However, if we want the fantasy of the feat to work, it should at least be able to guarantee you succeed on the most trivial tasks. I see two ways of fixing this. One is to slightly increase the results it gives. The other, while it does give a little more maths to do, I think would be elegant and allow decent results and incentive to take Assurance in skills your character is actually good at: Simply state that you get this result, to which you add only your stat modifier, not your proficiency modifier.

I tried running some numbers and they end up feeling a bit odd, so instead, I thought... How about an Expert requirement and "You automatically succeed at all tasks with a Low DC for your level, and all tasks with a lower DC than that. If you are Legendary, you also automatically succeed at all tasks with a High DC or lower."

Now, that's a feat one could select, and it scales with proficiency (even if it takes a while) while still being usable at low ranks.
Honestly, being able to fail tasks that other people don't need to roll for is really not a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't played enough to make a definitive statement about assurance but it's pretty useful for a fighter who is trained in athletics but eats a lot of armor check penalties from heavy armor. Not sure about its general usefulness though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, this runs into problems with contested rolls (or rolls against another NPC/PCs DC). Assurance doesn't scale with level, so you can't use it on your opponent reliably at 1st level let alone even succeed at 5th level. Perhaps this was only meant to be used on static skill checks, but it doesn't feel like that at all. I want to be able to get a result of 10 and it to mean that I'm going to succeed at a particular task.

I like take 10 much better than Assurance. I love Fuzzy's idea that you can only take 10 on a trained or better skill. which is incentive to become trained in Athletics so you can take 10 in climbing a wall.

Get rid of level bonus and Assurance, return "take 10", and skill checks will be better off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think there are contested rolls anymore. You should always be rolling against a Skill DC (10 + the target's skill bonus).


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo got really excited about Fighters in full plate still being able to climb ropes with this feat and forgot that it literally doesn't do anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Kulak wrote:
I don't think there are contested rolls anymore. You should always be rolling against a Skill DC (10 + the target's skill bonus).

Attacking from stealth and initiative.

You roll stealth, they roll perception. He who rolls higher goes first.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I think Paizo got really excited about Fighters in full plate still being able to climb ropes with this feat and forgot that it literally doesn't do anything else.

Funny.

However, I think we can guess at what Paizo was thinking:

1) They've eliminated the "I Win" button from anyone who was/is able to tack on huge boosts to any specific skill check. I've been in plenty of adventures where one PC's Take 10 was so high, nobody else even bothered to roll, despite having invested in said skill;

2) They've eliminated the GM fiat in denying Take 10/20. Now, you can take the feat and get it regardless.

But this has downsides as has been mentioned. Also, the problem is that GMs who want to stop Assurance from auto-succeeding will simply raise the DC without telling the players, be it in or out of combat. So really this just screws the players and acts as another sort of feat tax. NPCs aren't having to burn feats for Assurance.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
1) They've eliminated the "I Win" button from anyone who was/is able to tack on huge boosts to any specific skill check. I've been in plenty of adventures where one PC's Take 10 was so high, nobody else even bothered to roll, despite having invested in said skill

While this is predominantly fine, I think they went too far. There are now virtually no scenarios where a player can build a character that can say "I probably win" with any degree of confidence. The best I've seen--for any check of any kind--is the dwarven monk with ancient blood that has a +12 or +13 on saving throws at 5th level (where the comparatively well-built wizard is going to have a save DC of 19)


18 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I did a thing.
I playtested Assurance.
I created by GM-fiat a character with every skill at max rank for his level and gave him Assurance on everything, then had him check every skill DC in Doomsday Dawn to see what he could do. I speed-read fairly well but it's possible I skipped one or two.

Now, I am not posting specifically which checks are because spoilers, but this is how many he passed:

-one in The Lost Star, but most players will give you the answer before you ask for the check. Hell, my group hasn't encountered the hint or the check yet and they already know it.
-four in Pale Mountain, all requiring Expert Assurance.
-none in Sombrefell Hall (did I miss one? it's possible)
-none in Mirrored Moon (Or maybe I didn't?)
-none in Heroes of Undarin (then again, there's not that many here)
-four in Red Flags, all Master level (so many skill checks!)
-one in When Stars go Dark, Legendary level, no spoilers

Note that almost all of these checks are either things you can mostly skip (crossing a calm river, sneaking into an unprotected area, identifying an obvious goddess), some are outright pointless (cracking a lock to an empty room, remembering that the very obvious big thing was also in one of the previous sessions) and some are probably not the greatest of ideas (spend your whole turn during combat to lower a skill check you could easily pass to start with).

Two of these 9 checks could have (reasonably) been affected by armour penalties. More would fit the bill, but I doubt the rogue will wear heavy armour.

I'd say the playtest isn't looking good on Assurance.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Based purely on the skill DCs by level and difficulty, this feat is just awful. DC 10 is below trivial for a level 2 character (first level you can take it if you're not human), meaning that it literally cannot pass anything that the GM ought to otherwise be asking for a roll on. The few things with fixed DCs naturally all have DCs much higher than 10. For any skill you only intend to have trained, this feat is utterly worthless.

At level 2, however, you can become an expert in a skill. DC 15 is a high DC at level 2, and doesn't become trivial until level 6. At this point, however, is the skill is not a signature skill, you might as well retrain it. At level 7, 20 is already a low DC, and becomes trivial at level 11. At level 15, 30 is below the threshold for low, but never goes below the threshold for trivial.

As such, I might recommend this feat for a skill you plan to be an expert in, but then retrain it around level 6-7, or possibly for a skill you plan to be legendary at (with the understanding that between levels 11 and 14 it will be utterly useless); but only if you don't have something much, much better to spend your skill feat on (which you almost certainly do).

Ultimately, I'd much rather keep the old take 10/20 systems. As a GM, I generally just assume they're being done whenever they're an option, and only ask for a roll when one of them isn't an option. If you really have to feat lock it to a specific skill, then fine, but Assurance in its current form is almost always a waste of a perfectly good feat.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing Assurance is really useful for is Athletics for climbing once you hit expert, since a playtest blog mentioned that the DC for climbing a cliff with a rope is a static 14 or 12 if you have a wall to brace against.

Part of the reason it's so poor is because it scales so slowly, but the bigger issue imo is that so many things that had set/known DCs in PF1 are now complete GM Fiat.

For example, in part 1 of Doomsday Dawn there is a door described as being made of ancient wood. We didn't have anyone to pick the lock, so I decided to force it open with Athletics. The GM decided that my roll of 19 wasn't enough on this "ancient wooden door" because the DC to pick it's lock was higher. His logic being that clearly the door must be meant to be an equally hard challenge to pass regardless of the skill used or any logical sense.

Dark Archive

Is its use for Recall Knowledge in tandem with Automatic Knowledge at all useful? I've been looking at that for spellcasters, but if it often fails to give any information, then I can't think of a single other use for Assurance.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Adding to the ways Assurance doesn't work:

There are a number of very basic checks that are inexplicably DC 20, such as picking a standard lock or using the Battle Medic feat. If you have Assurance you will not only fail, you will critical fail.

If you have Assurance (Thievery), you will not only not pick any locks, you will break your pick. If you have Assurance (Medicine), you cannot perform First Aid to stabilize a dying teammate, and if you try to use Battle Medic you will actually make them worse.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I think Paizo got really excited about Fighters in full plate still being able to climb ropes with this feat and forgot that it literally doesn't do anything else.

If they wanted some way for Fighters to not suffer the (massive) Armor Check Penalty from heavy armor when climbing, they could have just given them some sort of option for reducing ACP. Maybe have proficiency actually reduce the penalties in some way? Some sort of "Armor Training," if you will. :-P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
plus it was designed in conjunction with the new DC tables.

lol.

So someone looked the new DC table, and though "it would be exciting to spend a feat to succeed at tasks that were trivial 3 levels ago". Because that's what the feat does at level 14.

Succeeding at trivial stiff isn't a feat, for any reasonable definition of "feat". But PC need to spend a feat to do that at level 1...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like neither Assurance (especially its lame mechanics) nor the loss of taking 10 as an option.

If the intent is really to replace taking 10 with the Assurance feat, then I suggest this: Replace the d20 die roll, which has a flat probability distribution, with 2d10.

You end up with a result from 2-20 that clusters around the mid values from 8-14. And you can only critically fail now if you get a result of DC-10 (optional: or roll all 1's).

At master level, maybe take this idea farther and replace the d20 roll with 5d4. You'd get 5-20 with heavy clustering around 11-14. If you don't like 5d4, then make it 3d6+2 (same range but slightly different bell curve, and a crit fail is more likely).

This approaches the effect of taking 10 in the old system, only with some variability without a flat probability of one of the extremes. The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to just get average.

Isn't this kinda what we want? The ability to say "I am really good at this" so that you generally succeed at your core skills, rarely bomb out, and don't just auto-succeed like in 1st edition?


ug... changing die types for different skill levels is not a good idea. The 2d10 idea is very good, but it won't be adopted by almost anyone. That's just an extra number to add, so now you have 3 to add instead of just 2. Not many people will want to do that. Really, there should be a d100 that goes up to 20 and acts like 2d10 so you don't need to add 3 numbers together. Of course, a d100 doesn't roll very well.

Or they can put back Take 10.


While I certainly appreciate the simplicity of the d20 approach, at the end of the day the basic problem is probability. Every roll from 1 to 20 has a 5% chance of occurring, which means no matter how good you are there is always a 5% chance of failure (and potentially critical failure to boot) and a really, really wide range of likely results.

Math isn't that hard. We've been rolling 4d6-drop-the-lowest for years for a reason, and that reason is called "probability distribution". The game should embrace it, not iron it out so that dumb luck is always a thing. If every craft check on Golarion failed 5% of the time then the global economy would crash.

I agree that taking 10 is reasonable. But obviously the game designers disagree. So I am suggesting a middle ground isn't as bad as what's currently offered. Maybe make it only for the Assurance Feat. Maybe make it different dice for different training levels. Either way works.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think take 10 should just come back, at this point. Not having it is making a lot of stuff much more complicated than it should be.

The first old problem with "take 10" is that people would get crazy-high skill results without needing to roll. Those are pretty much gone and the bounded numbers mean that you're still going to have roll for anything difficult.

The second old problem with "take 10" is that it was unevenly applied because some GMs were very, very harsh about what "not in immediate danger or distracted" meant. Drop the restriction entirely and just give every action you take with "take 10" the "manipulate" trait (which would trigger AoOs and make it disruptable).

I say this having seen how hard it was for a dex-based monk to climb a wall in the playtest.

Silver Crusade

swordchucks wrote:

I think take 10 should just come back, at this point. Not having it is making a lot of stuff much more complicated than it should be.

with the new tightly constrained math I can see taking 10 being a little too good.

so let people take 8 instead. Or have assurance give you a minimum of 5 on the die roll


This is why it's good to check before you make a new post to give your feedback. Yes to what most of these folks have said: a flat 10 on a roll is nearly always a failure and it's weird to make people have to take a skill feat for that.

If you want to make it worthwhile there's a few ways to go.

Auto succeed on rolls of low difficulty or less.

or

Any time you fail on this skill, roll a d6 (or d4, d8...not sure what gauge die would be best here) and add it to the total.

I think either of these would give the effect you want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Assurance purely sucks. Aside from very low levels you cannot use it to pass even low DC level appropriate tasks.

Not counting trivial tasks the breakdown is as follows:

Trained: Fail at all levels.
Critically fail at low 7, high 5, severe 4.

Expert: Fail at low 4, high 3, severe 2.
Critically fail at low 11, high 9, severe 8

Master: Fail at low 8, high 5, severe 5.
Critically fail at low 14, high 12, severe 11.

Legendary: Fail at low 15, high 13, severe 12.
Critically fail at low 21, high 19, severe 17.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimcleaver wrote:
This is why it's good to check before you make a new post to give your feedback. Yes to what most of these folks have said: a flat 10 on a roll is nearly always a failure and it's weird to make people have to take a skill feat for that.

Actually, most of the time it's a critical failure! Assurance-10 on Medicine will crit-fail the DC for Battle Medic (and Natural Healing), harming the target rather than healing them. For that same level of failure on my 4th level character I'd need to roll a three or lower.


If we made Assurance work like that Monk near-capstone where it sets the floor of the result you can get but you can still roll higher, would that be too good?

Like if I have assurance in and am trained in athletics, I still roll to climb but I can't get less than a 10 no matter what.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we made Assurance work like that Monk near-capstone where it sets the floor of the result you can get but you can still roll higher, would that be too good?

Not really. As a result of 10 is already a crit-fail in most situations, preventing the player from rolling lower has no benefit.


I think assurance is made just to work with lower level easy skill checks that people feel they shouldn't have to roll.

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells / Assurance as a feat is terrible All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.