Pathfinder agent dedication vs clever improviser

[Zwordsman]

Pathfinder Agent dedication. This lets you use untrained prof bonus of your le vel, not 0. Which is nice! But I realized something as I read the Human feat Clever Improviser is more effective.

pathfinder agent lacks the languge Untrained Improviser has denying that you can use trained actions untrained.. but it also does not include a line about letting you do so.
P.Agent doesn't let you attempt trained actions untrained. Where as clever improviser nets you that ability. And nets you the feat to give 1/2 lv to prof, and later level to prof. Granted Agent also helps get to Expert in one skill.

Is there a compelling reason why the ancestry feat gives better than the dedication?

Pathfinder agent
"Your Pathfinder training has broadened your horizons and made you more flexible at various skills, since you never know when you might need an obscure skill to complete your mission. You become trained in one skill of your choice, or expert in a skill of your choice in which you were trained. You also become trained in Pathfinder Lore, or an expert if you were already trained. When using a skill untrained, your proficiency bonus is equal to your level instead of 0. You gain access to wayfinders.

Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the Pathfinder Agent archetype."

Clever improviser
You’ve learned how to handle situations when you’re out of your depth. You gain the Untrained Improvisation general feat. In addition, you can attempt skill actions that normally require you to be trained, even if you are untrained.

Untrained Improviser
You’ve learned how to handle situations when you’re out of your depth. Your proficiency bonus to untrained skill checks is equal to half your level instead of +0. If you’re 7th level or higher, the bonus increases to your full level instead. This doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.

[Mellored]

Zwordsman wrote:

Is there a compelling reason why the ancestry feat gives better than the dedication?

Is there a compelling reason why ancestry feats should be weaker?

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Seeing as you only get a total of five Ancestry Feats, six if you sacrifice a General Feat for it, they should be pretty darn potent.

[Zwordsman]

Makes sense.

It just feels weird I suppose? Is there another archetype example that has a simliar "ancestry makes this dedication do almost nothing" ?

Probably is I just don't know it so it feels odd.

I'm also probably biased because it feels like I need to be a human to get a lot I suppose.

[Mellored]

Zwordsman wrote:

Makes sense.

It just feels weird I suppose? Is there another archetype example that has a simliar "ancestry makes this dedication do almost nothing" ?

weapon familiarity and fighter.

Pretty much all the racial weapons are a bit better than what a fighter gives you.

[Paradozen]

Pathfinder dedication is a level 2 feat and already stronger than the level 3 untrained improviser feat, should it really be as good as the level 5 clever improviser feat? It means humans can probably skip a 5th level ancestry feat and pick a different one and nonhumans don't have to be adopted by humans to pick up the better feat, can do it earlier, and can do it with a class feat rather than a general feat.

[Zwordsman]

That too~

Yup nevermind. My brain was just tired and I didn't notice the level thought it was 3 for some reason.

Though I feel like I'd probably still be inclined to take it on my pathfinder Adept.
Lv to untrainedi s nice for aiding, but if you can't take trained actions its not as useful.

and interestingly, you can't gain benefits of the Aid Skill feat (forget its name at midnight) since you won't be able to take the same action when aiding. But you still add in the same nice aid bonus to others. You just might not get the self bonus on it I guess. Which is a corner case.

-----
I wonder if Pathfinder Agent was meant to have the wording disallowing trained actions or allowing it. THe other feats have them. Or if its just a case of "doesnt' say you can so you can't" I assume the latter since its the norm