Could you please be more specific?
I don't see any monk feature that matches this description.
Additionally, what type of rolls, exactly, do you mean by "to hit rolls"? While some people do use Assurance with Athletics for attacks that are also skill checks, that would not apply to a strike against AC.
Monks get Graceful Legend at level 19, which lets you treat your roll on your first strike of a turn as 10 after you roll for it. This is a very, very high level ability that is limited to firing once a turn (and has a 55% chance of doing nothing) so I would be hesitant to giving it to everybody.
|
If your question is about houseruling a similar ability and making it available to other classes and/or lower levels, that would best asked over in the Homebrew Forum, where other GMs have tested their own rules and can discuss their insights.
|
At level 19?
Probably a 50% miss chance?
I still don't understand what you're asking. We know how the feature works.
I think the essence of his questions is does the ability Assurance let you take 10 on attack rolls. If we look at Assurance we see:
"Assurance
Feat 1
Fortune General Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 258
Prerequisites trained in at least one skill
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different skill and gain the benefits for that skill."
So this kinda ties into a common topic we see here: "Should attack rolls be treated as a skill check and if so are there exceptions"
I personally don't see the harm of it because there is a big difference in treating the roll as if it were a 10 (the monk feature) and what assurance grants which is 10 + your proficiency without any other positive modifiers. High level I believe the chance to miss with just Assurance (10+Prof) will be wayyyyyy less than 55%. Also you do not get to roll and choose the better result you have to forego rolling entirely. I think these differences illustrate an appropriate power difference and only in weird special circumstances would you want to make an assurance strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole question "Should attack rolls be treated as skill checks?" would be wrong. There are attack rolls that are ALSO skill checks. That's a Venn Diagram kind of question.
|
|
The whole question "Should attack rolls be treated as skill checks?" would be wrong. There are attack rolls that are ALSO skill checks. That's a Venn Diagram kind of question.
I am not sure if my wording was off but the very point has been argued in this forum often before. With people frequently pointing to the line:
"Source Core Rulebook pg. 446
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
Which can lead to the interpretation that all attack rolls are in fact a special subset of Skill checks. If you follow that reasoning they should be fair game for Assurance unless you believe there are in fact implied exceptions that the designers haven't fully spelled out yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides... the lack of an associated skill to take assurance in? There are enough interpretations in a new system without bringing in ones that hold no water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is basically nothing good about the idea of bringing that into the game.
If we're talking house rules, I think "can take 10 on attack rolls under a certain condition" would be a good mythic path ability if you're trying to recreate mythic.
|
|
Besides... the lack of an associated skill to take assurance in? There are enough interpretations in a new system without bringing in ones that hold no water.
The skill would be the one you have the training proficiency in. So it would be something along the lines of "Assurance: Simple Weapons". I don't really see the argument of "this holds no water" it may not be something you like but I think it is at least worth considering.
So to clarify, the ability to "take 10" on an attack roll would likely be way overpowered. The ability to select "Assurance: Attacks" would likely be terrible. A 10 will hit enough, particularly for a fighter, that they're probably happy to have it on their first or second attack. Assurance does far less than this. While it lets you ignore penalties, you'd also be ignoring your stat bonus and item bonus, which is too big a penalty to matter for how tight AC math is.
I completely agree. Part of the reason it seems harmless to allow someone who really wanted it to take that feat is because of how bad it would be most of the time. To allow them to just take 10 on the roll with all the other bonuses would be very overpowered and would be a level 1 feat that is (in my opinion) way too close in power to the level 19 class feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple weapons is not a skill. The same logical jump needed for Assurance: Simple Weapons would allow you to spend your skill increases on boosting weapon, armor or casting proficiencies. So that line of logic wouldn't be harmlessly wrong, like Assurance: Simple Weapons would be on its own, but gamebreakingly wrong, by throwing the class chassis, and expected math of the game out the window.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are multiple types of "checks". The Glossary tells us they include Skill Checks, Attack Rolls, Flat Checks, and even Saving Throws. There are also Traits that can apply to different Checks, such as the Attack Trait.
But Assurance only interacts with Skill Checks. It does not apply to Attack Rolls that aren't Skill Checks. If you're rolling an Athletics Check to Trip, which has the Attack Trait, then you can choose to use Assurance. You could not follow that up with a normal Attack Roll using Assurance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was treated like assurance instead of the monk ability, it wouldn't allow for item bonuses, attribute bonuses or any other modifiers. It would objectively be like taking 6 or worse on the attack roll (as characters gain bonuses to attack). The ability would be dead on arrival.
If it was treated like assurance instead of the monk ability, it wouldn't allow for item bonuses, attribute bonuses or any other modifiers. It would objectively be like taking 6 or worse on the attack roll (as characters gain bonuses to attack). The ability would be dead on arrival.
This is a really good point. A level 20 character with mastery of their chosen weapon with this ability has pre-MAP attack of 36. Per the GMG monster creation rules this misses everything above a level 16 low threat. A level 20 character should be able to wipe the floor with a level 16 low threat without much assistance from the GM.
Even if it were free to everyone at level 1 it would be awful. A lvl 1 fighter couldn't even hit an animated broom, which they could hit on a roll of 5 or higher.
|
|
Great points and I can definitely understand these interpretations. Hammerjack brought up a great point about Skill Increases and Nefreet on different types of checks (I am used to most "checks" being shorthand for skill check but this may not be true in this game/edition). Only issue I see with these interpretation is that we run into things where the things that are actions but not skills are a bit inconsistent.
For instance even though Escape can use your Acrobatics modifier it does not seem to be a skill action. So does that mean you could never take Assurance Escape or would you rule that since you can use the skill modifiers it should then be counted as a skill check (even though it is mentioned in the skill section, it seems to be considered a basic action and not an untrained skill action)? And I would suppose Assurance Seek would not be a possibility either?
As others point out, assuming you make it like proficiency such that only proficiency bonus is applied + 10, you lose out on a lot of other bonuses (and penalties). But the loss of those other bonuses nullifies the +10 bonus you would get.
A level 20 fighter would have an attack bonus of about 35 for their first attack. However, their proficiency bonus would be 28. 7 less than their attack bonus. It's like rolling a 3, if you could use assurance.
At level 1 proficiency is a 5. And you would probably have a 9 attack bonus. So it's the equivalent of taking 6.
It's a bad idea, that gets worse over time.
A 'take10' on attack roll generally means hitting every single time on the first attack.
That's why Monk's ability is so great.
However it would also likely mean no crit, which monk can still have, so huh...
As a houserule- If you wanted to give everyone the level 19 monk ability where the lowest you can roll is 10 on an attack, then a reasonable thing to give monks at level 19 is to let them roll twice on their first attack in a given round and choose the better result.