Generally I agree with Nefreet. But some checks might be 100% governed by factors which you can see before trying. "Can I jump across X distance?" "Can I climb a ladder?" "Can I climb a wet tree?" It seems absurd that nobody should ever have any inkling of when Assuance would clearly be a good idea to use, and when it isn't (actually, or just not clear).
Although you don't really know that you know all the factors until you try... maybe the ladder is rotten half way up... maybe the rock is very crumbly... etc. So maybe a better approach is knowing if Assurance will beat abstract problem equating to the factors you know. "I know I can jump X feet". "I know I can climb a ladder in good condition" etc. That doesn't make claim re: unknown factors, but it tells you what's reasonable based on what you have Perceived.
In terms of Monsters, if you ID'd it as Troll (or whatever) with Recall Knowledge, it seems reasonable to know if you are Assured you can Trip an "average Troll" or not, that being the "forseeable factor" in Assurance. Of course, not every Troll need be average, and can have higher level and special abilities/stats etc, which might be ID'able as "average Half-Oni Troll", but might also be more unique and not fit into "general knowledge" applicable to judgement of whether Assure-Trip is reliable or not. EDIT: Rephrased... Hopefully for the better, and to make 110% clear subject is reasonable prediction of Assure:Trip, not using Assure with Recall Knowledge.
More broadly, similar applies to how you can judge chances based on known factors, whose ultimate conclusion might be something like "Is it possible for me to Succeed/Fail" (although Nat1/20 really is huge when speaking of absolutes).
I agree that most "experiential" skill DCs, such as jumping, could be learned over time.
Recalling Knowledge, though, runs into the rules quandary that you can't use Assurance on Secret Checks.
Wait, what now? Assurance doesn't say anywhere that you can't use it on Secret Checks. In fact Automatic Knowledge requires you to use Assurance for Secret Checks.
Generally I agree with Nefreet. But some checks might be 100% governed by factors which you can see before trying. "Can I jump across X distance?" "Can I climb a ladder?" "Can I climb a wet tree?" It seems absurd that nobody should ever have any inkling of when Assuance would clearly be a good idea to use, and when it isn't (actually, or just not clear).
Although you don't really know that you know all the factors until you try... maybe the ladder is rotten half way up... maybe the rock is very crumbly... etc. So maybe a better approach is knowing if Assurance will beat abstract problem equating to the factors you know. "I know I can jump X feet". "I know I can climb a ladder in good condition" etc. That doesn't make claim re: unknown factors, but it tells you what's reasonable based on what you have Perceived.
In terms of Monsters, if you ID'd it as Troll (or whatever) with Recall Knowledge, it seems reasonable to know if you are Assured you can Trip an "average Troll" or not, that being the "forseeable factor" in Assurance. Of course, not every Troll need be average, and can have higher level and special abilities/stats etc, which might be ID'able as "average Half-Oni Troll", but might also be more unique and not fit into "general knowledge" applicable to judgement of whether Assure-Trip is reliable or not. EDIT: Rephrased... Hopefully for the better, and to make 110% clear subject is reasonable prediction of Assure:Trip, not using Assure with Recall Knowledge.
More broadly, similar applies to how you can judge chances based on known factors, whose ultimate conclusion might be something like "Is it possible for me to Succeed/Fail" (although Nat1/20 really is huge when speaking of absolutes).
For things like climbing a ladder or a tree or whatnot, you can also just go last and make a very educated guess based on how well your compatriots did.
|
Wait, what now? Assurance doesn't say anywhere that you can't use it on Secret Checks. In fact Automatic Knowledge requires you to use Assurance for Secret Checks.I agree that most "experiential" skill DCs, such as jumping, could be learned over time.
Recalling Knowledge, though, runs into the rules quandary that you can't use Assurance on Secret Checks.
Assurance is a Fortune effect, and you can't use Fortune effects on Secret Checks.
|
|
In looking for a supportive link, I found I was half incorrect:
If you don’t know a secret check is happening (for instance, if the GM rolls a secret Fortitude save against a poison that you failed to notice), you can’t use any fortune or misfortune abilities (see the sidebar on page 449) on that check, but if a fortune or misfortune effect would apply automatically, the GM applies it to the secret check. If you know that the GM is attempting a secret check—as often happens with Recall Knowledge or Seek—you can usually activate fortune or misfortune abilities for that check. Just tell the GM, and they’ll apply the ability to the check.
So Assurance vs Troll would work.
In looking for a supportive link, I found I was half incorrect:
If you don’t know a secret check is happening (for instance, if the GM rolls a secret Fortitude save against a poison that you failed to notice), you can’t use any fortune or misfortune abilities (see the sidebar on page 449) on that check, but if a fortune or misfortune effect would apply automatically, the GM applies it to the secret check. If you know that the GM is attempting a secret check—as often happens with Recall Knowledge or Seek—you can usually activate fortune or misfortune abilities for that check. Just tell the GM, and they’ll apply the ability to the check.So Assurance vs Troll would work.
I mean, yeah, even if it wasn't a Fortune Effect, you couldn't use it on a check you didn't know was being made, because that's not something you're intentionally trying to do.
On a tangent though, I'm really not a fan of Traits having an effect, especially something as niche as Fortune. That should really be printed in each of the abilities. Expecting the GM and/or players to remember the effects of every Trait that every ability they possess has is a bit much.
I certainly didn't remember that Fortune Effects had any special rules.
I think there are two facets here:
1. Will my Assurance work?
2. What's the expected DC?
You don't get 1 directly, though by knowing 2 you may be able to determine the answer. After some adventuring, most PCs (and their players) should have a general sense of the difficulty of standard obstacles. Yet who knows, by then the obstacles may stop being standard. :)
When facing Trolls, you might get that they're easy to trip, yet I don't think you'd get "your Assurance will work" or even an exact DC. If you get information re: tripping at all, since its Regeneration & Weakness would take priority IMO, even its Rend. You could see it's ponderous without such a roll, I'd think.
You could hypothetically tell your GM that you'd like to use Assurance on all unknown secret checks involving said skill. If you're good at that skill, this usually wouldn't be in your best interest unless somehow you expect easy DCs or heavy penalties or a misfortune effect you need to neutralize.
|
Is the player allowed to know if an Assurance result will be good enough to meet the DC of a check, or do they have to try it and potentially fail?
To answer the question in a different way, take a look at the table on page 503 with level-based DCs. Now compare those to the maximum result you could get with Assurance if you had the highest proficiency available at your level. You'll almost always be below the DC. The only exceptions are when you're Expert at level 2 or Master at level 7-8. All other times, Assurance isn't enough to beat a level-based DC of your own level.
And it's entirely possible to run into DCs based on a somewhat higher level, like for example when you run into a complex hazard. If the hazard is a standalone encounter it probably has a higher level than you, meaning Assurance is hopeless.
So while you don't get to know the DC before you try, if the thing you're rolling against is the "main event" of the encounter, you can be assured that Assurance won't be enough.
So what is Assurance good for then?
- Side events that aren't the main event might have lower DCs.
- Repeated checks in a long-term skill challenge can have lower DCs.
- Some skills like Athletics (jumping, swimming), Crafting (repair your shield) and Medicine (treat wounds) have DCs that you do know in advance. For those, Assurance is decent.