| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and I am suggesting that your numbers do not represent "actual play". If your experience playing PF2 is a party of 4 facing a single on level enemy in an encounter, your experience is not representative of the game. In such an encounter, it literally doesn't matter what you do.A Level + 2 encounter is considered Moderate, and should be expected. So an Animated Statue is a reasonable encounter for a Level 1 party of 4.Party Level +1 60 Low- or moderate-threat boss
Party Level +2 80 Moderate- or severe-threat bossAnd Aratorin is correct. A Level 1 Assurance Athletics will fail even though Reflex is the weak save of an Animated Statue.Framing Assurance in the context of level 1 when that's literally only possible with a specific Background or choosing a Rogue (and before Expert proficiency) is not only reductionist but deliberately frames the argument in a way that's just not representative of actual play at all...
And the title of the thread has actual play in the title, so, forgive me if I don't consider a CR + 2 at level 1 and PCs have Assurance Athletics at level 1 as some kind of smoking gun.
Why would there be a single on level enemy?
A moderate encounter has an XP budget of 80. A standard fight would be two Party Level enemies, or a mix of more lower level enemies. The suggested role table shows how you should use enemies of different levels, and they do not suggest using higher level enemies as anything but bosses.
So groups of Party Level - 2 to Party Level are going to be common, in which case there are many opportunities where a third action might be best spent on denying one of them some of their turn.
So groups of Party Level - 2 to Party Level are going to be common, in which case there are many opportunities where a third action might be best spent on denying one of them some of their turn.
Heck, you could deny them nearly their whole turn if you use it as your second action to Grapple/Trip and then follow up with the other (if they're subject to both).
Nothing says you can't both be Grabbed and Prone from what I can tell, and that means they have to shake off the Grabbed condition before they can even use the Stand action.
As far as my actual play experience:
I started out with a softball group of encounters against -2 and -1 enemies. Against these foes, my party who was new to 2e were flipping through their sheets for *anything* to do with their third action besides missing again.
None of them tried the assurance trick, but that kind of thing is definitely on their radar now that they've basically given up on the -10 attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So groups of Party Level - 2 to Party Level are going to be common, in which case there are many opportunities where a third action might be best spent on denying one of them some of their turn.
Heck, you could deny them nearly their whole turn if you use it as your second action to Grapple/Trip and then follow up with the other (if they're subject to both).
Nothing says you can't both be Grabbed and Prone from what I can tell, and that means they have to shake off the Grabbed condition before they can even use the Stand action.
Why would they waste an action Escaping? If their goal is to stab you in the face, the grabbed condition does exactly nothing. They are already where they want to be.
You are missing the point. Even if the numbers say you could Assurance an on level Dragon, you are never going to face an on level Dragon, so that is meaningless. You have to take into account which kinds of monsters you are actually going to face on level.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they waste an action Escaping? If their goal is to stab you in the face, the grabbed condition does exactly nothing. They are already where they want to be.
The whole "You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls."
You know, where the attack is less likely to hit, they can't take any action with the Move trait, and they receive a -2 to AC and to attack rolls. You can't use any action with the Manipulate trait while grabbed either without a 25% chance to waste the action.
I'd say that's a pretty big disadvantage.
You are missing the point. Even if the numbers say you could Assurance an on level Dragon, you are never going to face an on level Dragon, so that is meaningless. You have to take into account which kinds of monsters you are actually going to face on level.
You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters, etc. that saying "Assurance sucks because CR +2 can never be affected" is like saying "Fire spells suck, every enemy my GM uses has Fire Resistance".
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention how it isn't your job to handle mooks one by one. Just shrug and let the Wizard fireball 'em; that's what the spell is for.
This is funny, I can just imagine a group of PCs arguing with each other about whose responsibility it is to kill the mooks while the mooks wail on them.
"Why should I use a spell slot on a low risk enemy? Just stab them!"
"I did, twice, but my third attack keeps missing!"
"Then use it to trip them or something!"
"Why would I do that when you could just fireball them?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And also a Fireball won't kill a Mook in PF2. Level 3 creatures (a mook for lvl 5 casters) have around 50 hp, which is twice the average damage of a fireball.
Seriously guys, mooks hold their own better in PF2
You mean I can't one-shot the CR 2 creatures with 35HP!?!?
But my Fireball does 6d6 damage! How can this be!? You mean I'd have to be level 10 and heighten it to level 5 to achieve avg 35 damage?
It's almost like these arguments for why mooks don't matter is not from actual play...
|
You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
It was written while the rules were still being formed. Pretty sure they've talked about how intense it was to try to write both at the same time, and how the adventure came out over tuned.
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
Without looking too much, this text indicates it with building encounters appropriate to the party:
It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters to add more enemies or hazards, and the XP decrease from fewer characters to subtract enemies and hazards, rather than making one enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.
I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to challenge players, as they are more snowball-y encounters that can result in unwanted outcomes (as players go down to attacks, more players are likely to lose as opposed to an even CR situation, where level appropriate enemies don't have elevated saves/rolls/etc).
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
I haven't played FoP specifically, but many here have and if I remember one specific quote, there were only 3/28 enemies in the first book that were "Incapatition" level enemies.
The rules aren't "never use CR + X" they are "CR + X is not the normal encounter".
But that's pretty obvious in the below table anyways, which clearly indicates anything above CR (and even CR in some cases) is a "boss":
Party Level -4 10 Low-threat lackey
Party Level -3 15 Low- or moderate-threat lackey
Party Level -2 20 Any lackey or standard creature
Party Level -1 30 Any standard creature
Party Level 40 Any standard creature or low-threat boss
Party Level +1 60 Low- or moderate-threat boss
Party Level +2 80 Moderate- or severe-threat boss
Party Level +3 120 Severe- or extreme-threat boss
Party Level +4 160 Extreme-threat solo boss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they waste an action Escaping? If their goal is to stab you in the face, the grabbed condition does exactly nothing. They are already where they want to be.
The whole "You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls."
You know, where the attack is less likely to hit, they can't take any action with the Move trait, and they receive a -2 to AC and to attack rolls. You can't use any action with the Manipulate trait while grabbed either without a 25% chance to waste the action.
I'd say that's a pretty big disadvantage.
You are missing the point. Even if the numbers say you could Assurance an on level Dragon, you are never going to face an on level Dragon, so that is meaningless. You have to take into account which kinds of monsters you are actually going to face on level.You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters, etc. that saying "Assurance sucks because CR +2 can never be affected" is like saying "Fire spells suck, every enemy my GM uses has Fire Resistance".
You are still missing the point that I am trying to make. I never said that you will not fight on level enemies. I said that you need to take into account which enemies you will fight on level. Will you fight Kobolds on level? Sure. Will you fight a Vampire on level? Probably not. Therefore the numbers vs an on level Vampire are meaningless.
Some monsters are inherently boss mosters due to their iconic status, and their design. You will basically never fight them as an on level encounter.
If a certain percentage of monsters at each level are essentially boss monsters that nobody is ever going to encounter on level, then the fact that you could succeed vs them with Assurance on level is meaningless.
So if you say that Assurance works against 50% of level 7 monsters, but 75% of that 50% are monsters that you are never going to fight on level, then Assurance is not 50% effective on level, it's only 37.5% effective.
I wasn't really trying to start an argument with you, I was just suggesting that for the numbers you want to run to have meaning, you have to take this factor into account.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are still missing the point that I am trying to make. I never said that you will not fight on level enemies. I said that you need to take into account which enemies you will fight on level. Will you fight Kobolds on level? Sure. Will you fight a Vampire on level? Probably not. Therefore the numbers vs an on level Vampire are meaningless.
???
I don't buy this argument at all. Why wouldn't a Vampire Lord have minion Vampires? Why wouldn't young captured dragons be used as minions by giants?
I've seen much, much weirder things than that. The only ones I can really see following your claim might be one of a kind monsters, like the Tarrasque.
Your "point" is that all monsters that aren't bosses are "meaningless", and therefore assurance is garbage.
Multiple people in this thread alone do not agree that non-boss monsters are "meaningless".
when you state stuff like this:
So if you say that Assurance works against 50% of level 7 monsters, but 75% of that 50% are monsters that you are never going to fight on level, then Assurance is not 50% effective on level, it's only 37.5% effective.
It indicates to me that you do not play in games that are similar to my games, many other's games, the recommended encounter building rules in the actual book, etc.
I could just as easily say "Yeah, but you're missing the point. My GM always makes me fight monsters with Fire resistance, so therefore Fire spells are terrible!"
It doesn't make the latter argument that "fire spells are terrible!" true just because the table doesn't play by the standard ruleset and acting like those experiences (which are contrary to literal standard play) is evident of such statements is kinda... idk... a weird thing to do on a forum with people that do not experience that as a norm.
If the GM doesn't throw CR appropriate enemies at you or doesn't know how to maximize the value of those CR appropriate enemies to make them an actual challenge for the PCs, that has no bearing on Assurance's value in general, just at that specific table it is not valuable because of the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never mind. You do you. I made a typo in the statement you quoted, it was supposed to be "if 75% of that 50%". I just used easy to calculate numbers for an example. My bad.
The OP got what he wanted out of this thread.
You don't like what I intended to be helpful advice on your number crunching quest.
That's the end of it.
|
|
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?Without looking too much, this text indicates it with building encounters appropriate to the party:
It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters to add more enemies or hazards, and the XP decrease from fewer characters to subtract enemies and hazards, rather than making one enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to challenge players, as they are more snowball-y encounters that can result in unwanted outcomes (as players go down to attacks, more players are likely to lose as opposed to an even CR situation, where level appropriate enemies don't have elevated saves/rolls/etc).
The book section you quoted is under the 'Different Party Sizes' section on page 489. It recommends adjusting difficulty for extra players by adding extra monsters. It does not recommend against challenging a party of 4 PCs with 'Level +' monsters.
This bears repeating: Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it say to avoid challenging players with enemies higher level than the party.
The "unwanted outcomes" you mentioned are part of the intended experience. If you want to make combats easier, just lower the encounter's threat level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, I think it's kind of weird there is SOOOO many posts "refuting" it's viability for "maneuvers" vs above-level foes. I've never seen that promoted, so it doesn't seem like an actual part of the "theory" of Assurance usage for Athletics. OK, some foes with low Reflex, or Flanked and Debuffed could push that up the viability window a bit, but that's not the core usage anybody is envisioning. Perhaps
It's also weird to see the entire value of Assurance:Athletics judged on usage with "maneuvers", when it also covers all the normal usages VS "environmental" challenges etc. You get those AND "maneuver" viability vs Mooks/Debuffed/Flanked enemies. Just because it's convenient to focus on a single area yielding a simple, "concrete" judgement, doesn't give that judgement ultimate relevance. I don't see a conflict in saying Assuranace:Athletics can be viable and useful and saying many characters have higher priorities than it.
I'm also surprised the entire discussion is focused on Trip. I would say Shove is also very situationally useful (besides the proverbial cliff, for saving an ally a stride action to get into reach of enemy, or forcing enemy to stride back into reach possibly provoking AoO etc). Maybe Fort is less commonly poor than Reflex, but between Mooks, Debuffs, and Flanking, it should still be viable part of "package" that Assurance:Athletics offers.
Hm, I think it's kind of weird there is SOOOO many posts "refuting" it's viability for "maneuvers" vs above-level foes.
There is a difference between viability of maneuvers and viability of maneuvers using only your level + proficiency +10.
It's also weird to see the entire value of Assurance:Athletics judged on usage with "maneuvers", when it also covers all the normal usages VS "environmental" challenges etc.
Because it might be 100% useless as a DM might either raise the dc of the check or give a penalty to your roll and the first means assurance doesn't do a thing for it. So it all depends on how your dm does things, making it hard to say it's a universally plus for the feat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, graystone, most of us are not in your situation. Usually "GM variance" is a footnote rather than a strict negative.
Regarding my play experience with Assurance:
Assurance (Medicine) is one of the best feats in the game. I would take it over Assurance (Athletics) every time. My players mostly consider it a mandatory feat for healers, and it's hard to argue with them.
However, two members of my party have Assurance (Athletics) and they both use it regularly. At least in Age of Ashes, enemies lower level than the party are shockingly common. In the second book there are multiple encounters against groups of level-3 enemies.
Debuffs that make Assurance more reliable are also very common. The party Bard and Warpriest both throw around the Frightened condition like it's going out of style.
I will say though, that opinions of the feat are probably slightly biased in my group because the character who uses it the most is the party Swashbuckler. For a Swashbuckler, Assurance (Athletics) is almost as mandatory as Assurance (Medicine) for a healer. Being able to regain panache without a roll is a massive buff to the class - and since Swashbucklers mostly only attack once per turn, the player doesn't mind wasting an action occasionally finding out that Assurance doesn't work.
So I can certainly see the YMMV, but my play experience is that it's a good feat, at least up to level 9 which is where we are now.
Thanks for sharing your experience MaxAstro. I just realized that my Stunning Fist feat should give me a semi-reliable way to discern if a target is my level or lower. It's not fool-proof since (i) I gotta hit at least once and deal damage and (ii) they could always save, but if they fail the save and are stunned 1 I know they are my level or lower and if they fail and aren't stunned I know they are higher than my level. So, if I wanna maneuver w/out MAP for that 3rd action, I might have some good intel to help me make that decision.
With that said, if I do decide to take Assurance:Athletics out for a spin (and retrain out if I don't like it), I think I'll wait until after I take Assurance:Medicine first (and in my case, going back to my original post, is level 4)
EDIT: I do need to talk to our druid and wizard and maybe even our alchemist to see if they are gonna start throwing around debuffs more. We're currently level 3 and are long-time PF1ers so we're slowly (very slowly) adjusting our combat tactics to better suit 2e
To be fair, graystone, most of us are not in your situation. Usually "GM variance" is a footnote rather than a strict negative.
Oh, maybe not but I'm not sure "most" DM's are using one method for "environmental" challenges: As such, it's hard to say it's a universal plus to the feat and I was just pointing it out. Quandary was asking why people weren't pointing out the benefit and I was just pointing out that it might not be one depending on your DM. I was never painting it as a negative, just pointing out it might not be a positive.
Assurance (Medicine) is one of the best feats in the game.
I agree 100%: once your level+proficieny+10=15, it's golden.
However, two members of my party have Assurance (Athletics) and they both use it regularly. At least in Age of Ashes, enemies lower level than the party are shockingly common. In the second book there are multiple encounters against groups of level-3 enemies.
I can't say I recall many Athletics checks in Age of Ashes from the party I was in and no one had Assurance (Athletics) so you could be right it was useful there. In the games I've played in with someone with Assurance (Athletics), it failed far more than it succeeded so it does seem like a YMMV situation.
As I said, probably my party is somewhat biased because of how staggeringly successful the Swashbuckler has been with the feat. :)
I will also say that Assurance is obviously much better the less you have invested in the attribute tied to the skill. My players are not very optimized (multiple characters with no 18s until 5th level) so that probably also helps.
Which I think is kinda the point of the feat. The character who has absolutely maxed out their Athletics bonus is not the person who is going to get the most out of the feat.
EDIT: Also, I just realized, to my embarassment, that the Swashbuckler uses Assurance (Acrobatics), not Athletics. It's the (Str 12) Monk that has Assurance (Athletics). Egg on my face, that...
Still, same principle applies.
I will also say that Assurance is obviously much better the less you have invested in the attribute tied to the skill. My players are not very optimized (multiple characters with no 18s until 5th level) so that probably also helps.
Totally understand. I'm a Dex-based monk. Not fully optimized either because @Level-3 Dex is 16 and Str is 14.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also say that Assurance is obviously much better the less you have invested in the attribute tied to the skill.Totally understand. I'm a Dex-based monk. Not fully optimized either because @Level-3 Dex is 16 and Str is 14.
Absolutely it is disproportionately beneficial to those weak in relevant stat, making skill proficiency (and skill feat) all that matters (to benefit of Rogues, regardless of racket/key stat). Although AFAIK, you can use DEX for all "free hand" Athletics "maneuvers", even if IMHO it would be clearer if they just added all those traits to Fist (or possibly all Unarmed weapons, although I doubt that). This is based on SRMF's comments (during Playtest, but rules didn't change AFAIK) which I will copy here:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.
[Facebook question] Sammy Tamimi: Does the weapon need to have the Trip trait or only need be finesse? For DEX-based Unarmed trippers, would they be able to use their DEX and get a bonus from their Handwraps?
SRMF: Typically a weapon needs to have the trip trait to trip even if you don’t have a free hand (Trip trait page 183). Because a trip is usually done with a free hand, it does not need to have the trip trait. And yes, you would gain any potency bonus from the wraps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also weird to see the entire value of Assurance:Athletics judged on usage with "maneuvers", when it also covers all the normal usages VS "environmental" challenges etc.Because it might be 100% useless as a DM might either raise the dc of the check or give a penalty to your roll and the first means assurance doesn't do a thing for it.
Even considering you may normally have further bonuses from Stats, Item etc, there usually remains a significant chance of failure which Assurance's Flat 10 absolutely avoids (esp. considering Nat1 downgrade, unless it would have critically succeeded normally). So Assurance is absolutely not "100% useless" without penalty removal potential. Medicine isn't absolutely unique here, nor even just Athletics: Many skills may face flat or sub-par DCs which can be convenient to absolutely avoid failure chance for.
EDIT: Will Saves are actually the most common poor save in Bestiary, I haven't checked the math but I'd guess that Assurance:Intimidate or Deception could be great for something like Demoralize or Feint/Distraction vs Mooks/LowWill/Debuffed... without even needing decent CHA. (in terms of debuffs, you obviously tend to know when you or allies inflicted relevant debuff or one that would be irrelevant to Assurance)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My play expeirence is thus: Every single time my monk ends her turn next to an enemy, she's knocked out before she can act again.
I now pretty much exclusively Stride in, Flurry of Blows, Stride out. I can't imagine ending my turn next to a dangerous foe, my fate hinging on the off-chance that I will be able to knock him prone.
Even considering you may normally have further bonuses from Stats, Item etc, there usually remains a significant chance of failure which Assurance's Flat 10 absolutely avoids
This just isn't true: If your DM has you climb a wall with small handholds and footholds that's also icy and they jump the DC to from 20 to 30 instead of a -10 penalty, your assurance athletics that gets you an auto 22 will always fail while you have a chance with a roll.
So Assurance is absolutely not "100% useless" without penalty removal potential
I'm not sure you really read my post: penalty removal potential IS "100% useless" if your DM doesn't use penalties and instead raises the DC. I was CLEARLY replying to your statement: "It's also weird to see the entire value of Assurance:Athletics judged on usage with "maneuvers", when it also covers all the normal usages VS "environmental" challenges etc." I quoted it before the part you quoted.
Medicine isn't absolutely unique here, nor even just Athletics: Many skills may face flat or sub-par DCs which can be convenient to absolutely avoid failure chance for.
You can't state that for a fact: even skills with set DC's like medicine say things like "the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances" [not add penalties but adjust the DC] . As such, there really isn't any "flat or sub-par DC" you can count on 100%. Treat Wounds/Repair have the most stable ones but even them aren't guaranteed to be set in stone.
Now specifically for 'attack' skills, that's totally a YMMV situation, like I was saying to MaxAstro. I haven't seen a lot of good use out of it for athletics and they have seen good use out of acrobatics: So it seems like it depends on your game and what kinds of foes you face.
Demoralize or Feint/Distraction: These are even less tempting than other skills as they aren't 'attack' skill actions so there usually isn't a penalty to overcome so it's all about trying to beat the minimum DC's with 10+prof+level. That's tough for feint/diversion as most monsters have pretty good perceptions. Demoralize... maybe but based on the will saves I've seen using the action and while casting spells it seems unlikely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been my understanding for years that penalties are applied when an outside force or situation directly effects the character making the skill check.
Conversely, DCs are raised when the character isn't personally effected, but the setup, situation, or environment is.
Example: An adventurer attempting to climb a wall while drunk will take a penalty, unless he uses Assurance.
A sober adventurer attempting to climb an icy wall will face a higher DC, and Assurance won't help him.
Example: An adventurer attempting to climb a wall while drunk will take a penalty, unless he uses Assurance.
A sober adventurer attempting to climb an icy wall will face a higher DC, and Assurance won't help him.
That's pretty much how I used to do it. I've seen PF2 games that the only penalties we saw where those from conditions though. It's really all up to the individual DM and that's what makes it hard to advise as it's usefulness varies so much.
There is also the section on level-based DC's: instead of the normal base DC plus modifiers [either to DC or checks], it's "reasonable" to just set it to the DC from the level-based DC table: "you might decide that the 15th-level villain who created the dungeon crafted the wall, and use the 15th-level DC of 34" so you can describe the wall anyway you want but the Dc is set to be challenging instead of figuring out the actual modifiers.
|
Sorry to be the slow one in the room, but there's something I'm not understanding about this.
I was considering taking Farmhand for a goblin bard, and being able to use a 3rd action trip with a whip on occasion.
Here's how I thought that worked:
Assurance +10, proficiency (lvl + training) + 1 lvl +2 trained = +13 trip role
The mobs reflex DC just needs to be 12 or lower and I auto trip.
Now, in the spreadsheet posted earlier, the avg Reflex save is less than 12 up to lvl 5, at which point I'm assured of a 17.
I feel like I'm not understanding something fundamental here.
My play expeirence is thus: Every single time my monk ends her turn next to an enemy, she's knocked out before she can act again.
I now pretty much exclusively Stride in, Flurry of Blows, Stride out. I can't imagine ending my turn next to a dangerous foe, my fate hinging on the off-chance that I will be able to knock him prone.
Ravingdork,
Skirmishing has been my main tactic too. If I were to go the Assurance:Athletics route, I'd use the 3rd Action maneuver only if my fighter companion is going before my target and is able to take advantage of my maneuver. I'm mostly viewing it as adding another tactic to my repertoire. This is how I'm imagining it going:Init order = me, fighter, baddie
1. Stride up, flurry
1a. if Baddie fails Fort DC and is stunned 1, I use Assurance to Trip. The Stunned 1 let's me know that a baddie is my lvl or lower (a higher level foe has to crit fail to be stunned and I would know that before deciding to trip or stride away). So if baddie is my level or lower, it's also a candidate to have a Reflex save that my Assurance can match or beat
1b. if Baddie passes Fort DC and thus isn't stunned, I stride away
2. Fighter strides up and engages Baddie
3. Baddie's turn
3a. Stunned 1 Baddie has to decide to spend an action to stand up (triggering an AoO from fighter) or make it's attack with -2. I get that it's likely to attack me.
3b. Engages with Fighter
I know it's still a risky tactic to use because I'm still next to a foe that can attack me, but setting up the fighter and affecting the action economy of the baddie might be worth it in a number of occasions...but not all. As I alluded to above, I need to talk to the other players about changing our tactics to employ both status effects and damage as opposed to just damage (what we are doing now).
Sorry to be the slow one in the room, but there's something I'm not understanding about this.
I was considering taking Farmhand for a goblin bard, and being able to use a 3rd action trip with a whip on occasion.
Here's how I thought that worked:
Assurance +10, proficiency (lvl + training) + 1 lvl +2 trained = +13 trip role
Your "roll" is an even 13, as if you had rolled a 10 on the die.
The mobs reflex DC just needs to be 12 or lower and I auto trip.
Now, in the spreadsheet posted earlier, the avg Reflex save is less than 12 up to lvl 5, at which point I'm assured of a 17.
I feel like I'm not understanding something fundamental here.
You actually want the enemy to have the bonus of +3 to Reflex in this case to succeed. This would make their Reflex DC 13, and since you are "rolling" you only need to match that DC, not beat it.
I will say that Trained on Assurance for maneuvers is really only valuable once you advance Proficiency to Expert, so even though you get it as a Farmhand at level 1, you might not want to use it on enemies all that often.
That said if they were Frightened, Clumsy, etc. it could definitely drop their Reflex DC to a 13 (the low save in CR 1 is 4/5).
|
|
It was written while the rules were still being formed. Pretty sure they've talked about how intense it was to try to write both at the same time, and how the adventure came out over tuned.You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
I don't see your point. What does the Fall of Plaguestone being written concurrently with the Core Rulebook have to do with a nonexistent guideline against solo enemies that are higher-level than the PCs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your "roll" is an even 13, as if you had rolled a 10 on the die.
13 is an odd number, not an even number. ;D
This would make their Reflex DC 13, and since you are "rolling" you only need to match that DC, not beat it.
You make it sound as though they would need to roll higher than the DC had they been actually rolling, which isn't true. Even when rolling, equaling the DC generally counts as a success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see your point. What does the Fall of Plaguestone being written concurrently with the Core Rulebook have to do with a nonexistent guideline against solo enemies that are higher-level than the PCs?It was written while the rules were still being formed. Pretty sure they've talked about how intense it was to try to write both at the same time, and how the adventure came out over tuned.You keep saying that fighting on level enemies is "meaningless".
If that's your experience, it does not mirror mine in the slightest and the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
The guideline exists in two places.
First, table 10-2 describes every creature of higher level than the party as a "boss", and typically bosses are not something you fight multiple of in one encounter.
Secondly, the section of pg. 489 regarding different party sizes suggests that it's better to make encounters more difficult by added more creatures, rather than making a solo creature stronger.
|
The whole "You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls."Why would they waste an action Escaping? If their goal is to stab you in the face, the grabbed condition does exactly nothing. They are already where they want to be.
Where is this -2 circumstance penalty you mention noted in the book? It doesn't seem to be part of the immobilized, flat-footed, or grabbed conditions.
lthough AFAIK, you can use DEX for all "free hand" Athletics "maneuvers", even if IMHO it would be clearer if they just added all those traits to Fist (or possibly all Unarmed weapons, although I doubt that). This is based on SRMF's comments (during Playtest, but rules didn't change AFAIK) which I will copy here:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.
[Facebook question] Sammy Tamimi: Does the weapon need to have the Trip trait or only need be finesse? For DEX-based Unarmed trippers, would they be able to use their DEX and get a bonus from their Handwraps?
SRMF: Typically a weapon needs to have the trip trait to trip even if you don’t have a free hand (Trip trait page 183). Because a trip is usually done with a free hand, it does not need to have the trip trait. And yes, you would gain any potency bonus from the wraps.
Will all due respect to Stephen, I wouldn't expect this to be the norm at most RAW tables, including PFS ones, as it flies directly in the face of the rules that are in the book and hasn't been repeated for any Final Rules discussion I have seen.
You make it sound as though they would need to roll higher than the DC had they been actually rolling, which isn't true. Even when rolling, equaling the DC generally counts as a success.
I know that wouldn't normally be the case either, but the person stated the enemy needed less than a "12" which seemed to indicate they might have confused it.
I just wanted to reiterate that even those Assurance is a flat number, it is still compared to a flat number and isn't a "saving throw" against your assurance "roll" for whatever reason.
Also, thanks for the laugh this morning on the "even" comment lol
is this -2 circumstance penalty you mention noted in the book? It doesn't seem to be part of the immobilized, flat-footed, or grabbed conditions.
It is the Prone condition, which applies flat-footed as well as the circumstances penalty.
The scenario I was stating was if the enemy was Prone and Grabbed.
|
|
...the Encounter building rules specifically tell you not to throw higher level creatures and to throw more lower level creatures instead UNLESS it is a boss.
I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong, but given that it goes against the suggested guidelines of play, building encounters...
I've looked for this guideline in the book and couldn't find it. What page is it on?
It's strange, though. Fall of Plaguestone, written by one of the CRB's authors, doesn't follow that guideline at all.
The guideline exists in two places.
First, table 10-2 describes every creature of higher level than the party as a "boss", and typically bosses are not something you fight multiple of in one encounter.
Secondly, the section of pg. 489 regarding different party sizes suggests that it's better to make encounters more difficult by added more creatures, rather than making a solo creature stronger.
It's true that encounters with multiple higher-level monsters are rare (and at least Severe), but again I've seen them in Plaguestone. But my argument was that encounters against tough solo monster are more frequent than others suggested, and Assurance is bad in such encounters.
The guideline under 'Different Party Sizes' apply specifically for building encounters with more than 4 PCs. That guideline isn't repeated elsewhere in the book and, as mentioned, official adventures written by one of the developers, for 4-PC parties don't follow it.
The guideline under 'Different Party Sizes' apply specifically for building encounters with more than 4 PCs. That guideline isn't repeated elsewhere in the book and, as mentioned, official adventures written by one of the developers, for 4-PC parties don't follow it.
Except calling them "bosses" and this quote at the end of that section, that is entirely agnostic of any party size difference:
Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.
And it's pretty obvious that you don't send four CR + X against a party of four unless you want the PCs to TPK/Lose.
YMMV, clearly.
|
|
The guideline under 'Different Party Sizes' apply specifically for building encounters with more than 4 PCs. That guideline isn't repeated elsewhere in the book and, as mentioned, official adventures written by one of the developers, for 4-PC parties don't follow it.Except calling them "bosses" and this quote at the end of that section, that is entirely agnostic of any party size differenceEncounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.And it's pretty obvious that you don't send four CR + X against a party of four unless you want the PCs to TPK/Lose.
YMMV, clearly.
Midnightoker, you keep quoting the 'Diffferent Party Sizes' section as though it applies to ALL party sizes. It doesn't.
'Bosses' can mean 'solo enemies' or 'higher-level enemies'. Think them as mini-bosses, if that helps.
If you want to make Assurance more viable by not using 'Level+' enemies against your your PCs, that's fine. I merely point out that your claim that there is a guideline advising such is false AND that the authors of this supposed guideline don't follow it. Read Plaguestone yourself if you don't believe me.
And it's pretty obvious that you don't send four CR + X against a party of four unless you want the PCs to TPK/Lose.
Yeah, it's so obvious I don't know why you're suggesting the equivalent of at least 2 Severe encounters combined. Did someone else mention it before you or are you using a strawman argument?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, you keep bringing up Fall of Plaguestone.
I could just as easily point out that Age of Ashes, through the first two books, is completely chock full of encounters with lower-level creatures. The second book especially likes to throw groups of level-3 creatures at the party.
The final boss of the book is level+1 and has level-2 minions.
|
|
I mean, you keep bringing up Fall of Plaguestone.
I could just as easily point out that Age of Ashes, through the first two books, is completely chock full of encounters with lower-level creatures. The second book especially likes to throw groups of level-3 creatures at the party.
The final boss of the book is level+1 and has level-2 minions.
I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.
For context, others were arguing that encounters with 'Level+' monsters are infrequent outside end-of-book combats, and that the CRB specifically says so. I argued against both claims by citing Plaguestone, which is an official adventure written by one of the authors of the CRB, and its frquent combats with solo 'Level+' monsters.
I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.
No one stated they do not happen outside of that scenario.
It is not a common scenario, or at least, it is not designed to be a common scenario, for PCs to fight CR + X. And therefore, because the common scenario is CR or CR - X, that should be the benchmark for evaluating Assurance.
You're acting like exceptions to the rules deserve more consideration than the commonalities. I do not agree with that premise.
No one cares that Assurance doesn't work on bosses, and it not working on bosses doesn't devalue Assurance because PCs will understand that Assurance probably isn't going to work against creatures that are a lot stronger than them (without circumstances that would support that).
And to the "yeah but attacking is better" argument on 3rd actions instead of an Assurance manuever that would succeed, the numbers don't agree on that at all.
and its frquent combats with solo 'Level+' monsters.
Or early on when my group fought three level+2 enemies. Yes, we were a party of 6 players, not 4, but the GM didn't increase the quantity of enemies.
In theory we could have been level 2, but only if we'd managed to extract literally every drop of exp from the town before encountering that fight.
It was not an end-boss, it was literally a fight before another fight.
|
|
I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.No one stated they do not happen outside of that scenario.
Yes, you did.
The rules aren't "never use CR + X" they are "CR + X is not the normal encounter".
But that's pretty obvious in the below table anyways, which clearly indicates anything above CR (and even CR in some cases) is a "boss":
I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to to challenge players
I should say facing a CR + 2 at level 1 should be unlikely.
You seem to think that every time the PCs face an enemy with a higher level, it's a boss encounter, and Assurance's weakness against those enemies doesn't matter because such enemies are infrequent. I'm telling, from Actual Play of an official adventure, those encounters are frequent.
I think your stumbling block is you keep thinking in terms of CR, which doesn't exist in 2E. 2E has XP Budgets, Party Level, and Encounter Threat Level. No CR.
In any case, I hate having to cite quotes from earlier in the discussion. Build encounters your way, I'll build them the developer's way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll take your word for it. My point is that encounters with 'Level+' enemies still happen outside climactic, end-of-book encounters. It's important to keep that in mind when discussing the efficacy of Assurance against leveled DCs and builds that use it.No one stated they do not happen outside of that scenario.Yes, you did.
The rules aren't "never use CR + X" they are "CR + X is not the normal encounter".
But that's pretty obvious in the below table anyways, which clearly indicates anything above CR (and even CR in some cases) is a "boss":
I believe there is additional information elsewhere on building encounters and not reaching for CR + X creatures to to challenge playersI should say facing a CR + 2 at level 1 should be unlikely.You seem to think that every time the PCs face an enemy with a higher level, it's a boss encounter, and Assurance's weakness against those enemies doesn't matter because such enemies are infrequent. I'm telling, from Actual Play of an official adventure, those encounters are frequent.
I think your stumbling block is you keep thinking in terms of CR, which doesn't exist in 2E. 2E has XP Budgets, Party Level, and Encounter Threat Level. No CR.
In any case, I hate having to cite quotes from earlier in the discussion. Build encounters your way, I'll build them the developer's way.
Unlikely doesn't equal never.
I don't think Midnightoker is stumbling over anything. It's clearly the intent of the rules that parties will more frequently fight [Party Level] or lower monsters than higher. You keep bringing up the one campaign that was written before the rules and guidelines for encounter budgeting were finished, and the devs have said ended up unfortunately over-tuned, to argue that since that particular game is weighted upwards, Assurance must not be useful ever.
If it was the intent that parties would regularly fight [Party Level + 1] or higher enemies 1) the encounter guidelines wouldn't refer to those as boss monsters and 2) the devs would have likely adjusted assurance to account for the difference