Do skill feats matter in society play?

[medtec28]

I recently played in a wilderness based scenario where we were told that “your ability to hunt and forage for supplies is part of the objective.” We were asked to make daily Survival checks to find supplies. Most of the group failed, but I succeeded, and I had the Forager feat, which should allow my character to supply food for most of the party, but upon pointing it out, I was told it didn’t matter. So glad I made this “meaningful decision” for my character. I’m wondering if any skill feats matter in society play, bonus from Quiet Allies? (nah, module says everyone must make a stealth check) Why have the feats at all if the published materials don’t acknowledge their use at all?

[Pirate Rob]

My experience has been the exact opposite of yours with GMs going out of their way to grant benefits from narrow skill feats even when the exact situation doesn't quite match.

Early scenarios frequently call out specific skill feats as a reminder as well.

Which scenario are you talking about? (May want to put the answer in a spoiler). Without that info we don't know if it was a bad choice of language by the GM setting incorrect expectations, a GM being conservative (perhaps overly so), a misunderstanding on your part, or any one of any of a million situations.

[medtec28]

Robert Hetherington wrote:

My experience has been the exact opposite of yours with GMs going out of their way to grant benefits from narrow skill feats even when the exact situation doesn't quite match.

Early scenarios frequently call out specific skill feats as a reminder as well.

Which scenario are you talking about? (May want to put the answer in a spoiler). Without that info we don't know if it was a bad choice of language by the GM setting incorrect expectations, a GM being conservative (perhaps overly so), a misunderstanding on your part, or any one of any of a million situations.

spoilers previously omitted:

2-05 Trailblazer’s bounty

I get that having characters with unexpected abilities breaks the minigame of certain adventures, but it left me with a sour taste.

[Nefreet]

Would probably just be better to discuss that particular instance in the GM discussion thread for the scenario. I believe your GM was in error.

In general, Skill Feats are very advantageous in this edition, because numerical bonuses are hard to come by.

[medtec28]

I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.” And, to “avoid table variance” interfering is the math is disallowed. Or at least that is how I felt. Hard to say what he was actually thinking, since my long distance detect thoughts spell is not currently in my repertoire.

[The Fox]

This sounds more like an instance of subpar GMing rather than subpar scenario writing.

It is not really the job of the scenario writer/editor to include every exceptional case for the GM. That's why we have human GMs after all.

Edit: WOW! So ninja'd by... everyone?

[The Fox]

Nefreet wrote:

Would probably just be better to discuss that particular instance in the GM discussion thread for the scenario. I believe your GM was in error.

I think this was one of those "face-to-face" games the old-timers talk about.

[TwilightKnight]

Sorry about your experience. I think this was a matter of the GM either not fully reading and understanding what was going on or not communicating thoroughly enough for your understanding. It can happen when we have these "abstract" scenario-specific rules that are used for convenience. Its not so much that the GM was wrong or made a mistake, but maybe they were just not as comfortable with the text as written to make fiat type decisions or simply wanted to stick to a strict reading of the rules as presented.

I've run this scenario a number of times...

1-05 Trailblazer's Bounty:

the checks you are making each day are not specifically for finding food. It is an abstract to represent all the activities you would perform along the trail. From finding provisions, to mapping, to avoiding hazards/wild animals, to how far you travel, etc. While Athletics and Survival are the listed skills, the GM is empowered to accept others depending on how the player describes using them. For my own runs, I provided a bonus of +2 on the checks for characters that had invested in relatable skill feats, like Foraging or if they had a spell that had a long duration, like Endure Elements. We didn't have it, but one player mentioned, in post-game, if they could have Crafted skis to help. I would have allowed that if they invested in some raw materials and probably would have awarded a +1 to their checks.

Don't use this experience as a reason to dismiss non-combat-specific skill feats. Hopefully your future GMs will allow you to gleen some kind of benefit even if they do not exactly fit the challenge. Good luck

[Nefreet]

medtec28 wrote:

I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.”

Skill checks and Attack rolls are really no different from each other. Both involve risk, tactics, success, failure and rewards, but more importantly, both can get boring really fast if the GM and players aren't tossing any roleplay into the rollplay.

[The Fox]

@OP: If you were at my table and I was GMing it, I would have awarded you 5 successes for having the feat, no roll required. (I suppose if there were more than 5 of you in the party, I would let you roll and try for a critical success instead.)

The relevant text from the feat:

Forager, Core Rulebook, pg. 261 wrote:

While using Survival to Subsist, if you roll any result worse than a success, you get a success. On a success, you can provide subsistence living for yourself and four additional creatures, and on a critical success, you can take care of twice as many creatures as on a success.

The relevant text from the scenario:

Trailblazer's Bounty:

Trailblazer's Bounty, pg. 5 wrote:

To help with the flow between encounters and to give players a sense of progress, have them roll an Athletics check and a Survival check after encounters A, B, and C. The checks are both DC 14 (DC 16 in Subtier 3–4). [u]This represents how well they move through the mountainous terrain and how they are able to provide for themselves.[/u] Each PC makes a check for themself.

I underlined the important bit for emphasis. It sounds an awful lot like the Survival checks are meant to represent your ability to "subsist" out in the wild. (The first clause in the underlined sentence explains what the other skill check represents, by my reading.)

More spoilers related to Trailblazer's Bounty:

Note: you would still need to make the requisite Athletics checks, because those could go poorly and prevent the awarding of Discovery Points.

Expect Table Variation®

[Nefreet]

The Fox wrote:

I underlined the

Total Tangent:

Does your browser show that section as underlined? I see posts doing it all the time, but all I see on my end is the letter U inside brackets, and I'm wondering if it's something having to do with my settings.

[Blake's Tiger]

Table Variation: I don't think I would award 5 successes (like Fox) but would add a bonus to everyone's roll (like Twilightknight) because the activities rolled into the Survival check are not solely foraging for food.

EDIT: Point in case: Would you award 5 successes if they all brought 6 months worth of rations or had some magical means of feeding themselves? 27 weeks of rations is 2 bulk.

[medtec28]

Nefreet wrote:

medtec28 wrote:

I don’t know, it is starting to feel like every scenario is based on the innovative mechanic of “succeed at 101 of 200 skill checks to get your secondary success.”

Skill checks and Attack rolls are really no different from each other. Both involve risk, tactics, success, failure and rewards, but more importantly, both can get boring really fast if the GM and players aren't tossing any roleplay into the rollplay.

I much prefer scenarios where secondary success is predicated on “You decided to do X and Y but not Z.” I find the repetitive “skill challenge minigame” overdone, lazy and boring.

[medtec28]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Table Variation: I don't think I would award 5 successes (like Fox) but would add a bonus to everyone's roll (like Twilightknight) because the activities rolled into the Survival check are not solely foraging for food.

EDIT: Point in case: Would you award 5 successes if they all brought 6 months worth of rations or had some magical means of feeding themselves? 27 weeks of rations is 2 bulk.

DISCLAIMER: I have not run, nor have I read the scenario.

I think, after being specifically told NOT to take all the food they can carry because the point is to ensure there is enough to forage along the way, any group that chose to bring food or use magic would, in my opinion, be subverting part of the objective. I would tell them they could forgo the rolls, but that it would have an adverse effect on the quality of the reports they will be filing.

Maybe my bigger issue is with secondary success. We have gone from silly random fetch quests to a series of silly skill checks. There must be a more rewarding way...

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

In the rare times that I GM, I do not always share whether the PCs succeed or fail. In that instance, I'd have all roll their checks to subsist and have the skill feat make up for up to 4 other player's unsuccessful attempts. An abundance of subsistence is not really a boon. It'd also allow for other PCs who are also good at Survival to have their success matter as well.

As others have said, this is a GM issue.

That said, I would also give some leeway to the GM if they are new to GMing. Running a scenario overly strictly as written is understandable for a new GM. After the game (so as not to disrupt the game unnecessarily), I'd mention to the GM that ignoring skill feats that are blatantly applicable kinda defeats the point of having them. Maybe next time your fellow players can get a circumstance bonus or something. But ignoring the skill feat feels like an invalidation of your character which cannot be the point of the game.

Remember, everyone at the table is cooperating to play the game and have a good time. Communication is important. This isn't the old versions of D&D, it is not GM vs. Players. If you feel your GM may be taking this stance talk to them about it.

[NielsenE]

I feel like that scenario was written to invalidate Forager which made me sad too. I've given players a +2 on their roll if they have the feat, since the skill check was covering more than only finding food.

[cavernshark]

On the topic of skill feats more generally, I have also found that most GMs I've played with have tried to minimally give circumstance bonuses to players with applicable skill feats or allowed them to try things in unorthodox ways when it makes sense in the context of the scenario. If the entire scenario is based around some kind of scoring mechanic, it makes sense that a single skill feat won't entirely bypass it, but it should certainly make it easier to tackle.

This falls squarely under the special circumstances rule and if your GM is outright denying you any benefit from an applicable skill feat, it may be worth suggesting this as an alternative. They might still deny you, but I imagine more just weren't comfortable adjusting the base rules because it's pretty easy to assume doing so isn't running "RAW", even though this is very clearly in GM discretion and part of the base game.

Special Circumstances wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 492 1.1

The player characters in your group will at times attempt tasks that should be easier or harder than the rules or adventure would otherwise lead you to expect, such as a PC Gathering Information in their hometown. In these cases, you can just apply a circumstance bonus or penalty. Usually, this is +1 or –1 for a minor but significant circumstance, but you can adjust this bonus or penalty to +2 or –2 for a major circumstance. The maximum bonus or penalty, +4 or –4, should apply only if someone has an overwhelming advantage or is trying something extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.

You can also add traits to actions. Let’s say that during a fight, Seelah dips her sword into a brazier of hot coals before swinging it at an enemy with a weakness to fire. You could add the fire trait to this attack. A PC getting an advantage in this way should usually have to use an action to do so, so Seelah would get the benefit for one attack, but to do it again she’d need to bury her sword in the coals once more.

[The Fox]

Pop Quiz
Everyone name as many scenarios as possible where PCs are required to roll a Survival check to subsist. You may list scenarios from 1e and 2e.

Why?

I contend that such scenarios are exceedingly rare.

If that is the case, and if those few scenarios where PCs are indeed asked to roll a Survival check to subsist are like Trailblazer's Bounty, where the minigame within the scenario demands that the Forager feat be neutered (by replacing its effect with a circumstance bonus) or outright negated, then the OP is absolutely correct that skill feats (at least some) are worthless in PFS.

[The Fox]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

EDIT: Point in case: Would you award 5 successes if they all brought 6 months worth of rations or had some magical means of feeding themselves? 27 weeks of rations is 2 bulk.

Short Answer Yes.

Medium Answer We reward having just the right tool for the job in other situations all the time. Why is this different?

Another Pop Quiz
Everyone name their favorite instance of a character bypassing what would otherwise have been a particularly difficult challenge simply by having the right item/feat/spell/ability for the job.

[The Fox]

Nefreet wrote:

The Fox wrote:

I underlined the

** spoiler omitted **

tangent:

Yes, I see the text as underlined. I'm using Chrome v85. I might refrain from using [U] in my posts from now on, knowing that at least some people cannot see the format.

[CrystalSeas]

Tangential Reply:

The Fox wrote:

I might refrain from using [U] in my posts from now on, knowing that at least some people cannot see the format

The only formats that reliably display are the ones that are shown in the "How To Format Your Text" spoiler just below the reply box.

Everything else depends on whether someone has installed a browser extension or has a browser that automatically reads and displays formatting instructions.

[The Fox]

CrystalSeas wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

reply to tangential reply:

[U] is one of the formats listed therein.

[Blake's Tiger]

Formatting tangent:

Not in mine. You sure?

I've got: quote, bold, italics, strike through, url, email, list, bigger, smaller, ooc, spoiler, and dice.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

As one of the players in the OP's game, I was a little surprised as well by it not working. Although I thought about mentioning that I had plenty of rations so wondered why we needed to forage, but ultimately decided it wasn't really worth it as it was such a small part of the scenario.

Now, if we'd have been penalized for having not succeeded enough when OP did and could have provided enough for everyone then we might have had issues. I'll admit, with my first PFS2 character I started making him able to subsist easily on his own and looked at forager, but after having played other characters and having GM'd a bunch of different scenarios I realized that subsisting wasn't really used in PFS so went another direction with my first while I could.

[CrystalSeas]

More Tangents:

Here are the formatting options as provided by Paizo when I use Firefox And yes, for me the u-/u showed up as formatting code, not as underlined text

=================================

Someone said wrote:

Quoted material here....

This is bold and italics and strikethrough.

Go to Paizo Inc..

Contact [e-mail]

• one
• two

This is bigger and this is smaller.

This is out-of-character commentary for play-by-post threads.

Perception: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (20) + 3 = 231d6 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 2 = 7 This is a dice expression.

Had to remove the spoiler code because it was doing its thing

Movie plot spoiler:

This is a spoiler, such as revealing who really did frame Roger Rabbit.

[Nefreet]

Tangent, Part X:

THIS is what I see.

EDIT: I actually wonder how "list" appears. I've never gotten it to work, but I can post [*] by itself.

[Ferious Thune]

The Fox wrote:

Pop Quiz

Everyone name as many scenarios as possible where PCs are required to roll a Survival check to subsist. You may list scenarios from 1e and 2e.

Why?

I contend that such scenarios are exceedingly rare.

If that is the case, and if those few scenarios where PCs are indeed asked to roll a Survival check to subsist are like Trailblazer's Bounty, where the minigame within the scenario demands that the Forager feat be neutered (by replacing its effect with a circumstance bonus) or outright negated, then the OP is absolutely correct that skill feats (at least some) are worthless in PFS.

Yeah, this was my thought. Forager as a skill feat is unlikely to matter in just about every other scenario, so let it do something when the opportunity actually comes up.

[CrystalSeas]

Tangerine:

Nefreet wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

EDIT: I actually wonder how "list" appears. I've never gotten it to work, but I can post [*] by itself.

Yep, that's what I see, and when I copy/paste, you see what I posted.

Practicing lists

• red
• orange
• yellow
• green
• blue
• violet

honestly, it seems faster to hit the enter key to create a list than to make all those code entries.

[Ascalaphus]

Eric Nielsen wrote:

I feel like that scenario was written to invalidate Forager which made me sad too. I've given players a +2 on their roll if they have the feat, since the skill check was covering more than only finding food.

This is putting it on a bit strong. It doesn't say anything like "and players can't use the Forager feat". It simply doesn't cover every present and possible future skill feat.

Keep in mind that this scenario was being written while the CRB wasn't even on the market yet - how long would it take you to digest the 650 page tome and make sure you never overlooked any possibility that might be relevant in an adventure you're writing?

But looking to the future, we can of course expect more and more skill feats to be published. But the text of existing scenarios is essentially frozen. So there may always be scenarios where a newly published skill feat could be really useful, but the scenario doesn't mention it.

I think as a GM you should feel empowered to rule on "could this perhaps apply" rather than saying "it doesn't mention it, therefore it's impossible that it applies".

[Blake's Tiger]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

As one of the players in the OP's game, I was a little surprised as well by it not working. Although I thought about mentioning that I had plenty of rations so wondered why we needed to forage, but ultimately decided it wasn't really worth it as it was such a small part of the scenario.

Now, if we'd have been penalized for having not succeeded enough when OP did and could have provided enough for everyone then we might have had issues. I'll admit, with my first PFS2 character I started making him able to subsist easily on his own and looked at forager, but after having played other characters and having GM'd a bunch of different scenarios I realized that subsisting wasn't really used in PFS so went another direction with my first while I could.

There's more to the GM instructions than what's been quoted that leads me, at least, to believe the Survival check represents a summary of far more than merely subsisting. Successes represent making good time while forging a new route through the mountains.

The trouble with Subsist (and linking feats to it) in PFS is that it requires the characters to not be prepared or take way player agency, e.g. an accident that ruins all their food supplies or some such.

We can likely find plenty of feats that don't work as expected in PFS. Group Impression going to come up much?

They can design scenarios to require skills to succeed. They can't design them to require specific feats to succeed, so some feats are going to languish.

[Ascalaphus]

Blake's Tiger wrote:

We can likely find plenty of feats that don't work as expected in PFS. Group Impression going to come up much?

They can design scenarios to require skills to succeed. They can't design them to require specific feats to succeed, so some feats are going to languish.

This is an interesting one to pull up actually.

Absalom Initiation:

When trying to disperse the protesters, you're trying to Make An Impression on multiple people in a limited amount of time, and the feat gets called out explicitly in the adventure.

That's an unusual case, but I've noticed that scenarios are using the specific skill actions such as Make An Impression more than they did in PFS1 (which tended to roll the Attitude and Request parts of a diplomacy into one, which caused trouble with abilities that gave you a bonus to specific types of diplomacy checks). So that kind of writing makes it easier to hook in new skill feats.

Again, keep in mind 1-05 is an early scenario, it doesn't have full CP scaling or any of the other trappings of current design.

[The Fox]

Tangent Bundle:

Yeah, mine has [u] and also has [color=], so these were probably inserted into that help box by a plug-in that I'm using, and I didn't realize it. Carry on. :)

[David knott 242]

The Fox wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The Fox wrote:

I underlined the

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I am also using Chrome. Since I don't use any plugins, I am guessing that [u]underlining[/u] does not work for me.

Edit: confirmed.

[Woran]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Eric Nielsen wrote:

I feel like that scenario was written to invalidate Forager which made me sad too. I've given players a +2 on their roll if they have the feat, since the skill check was covering more than only finding food.

This is putting it on a bit strong. It doesn't say anything like "and players can't use the Forager feat". It simply doesn't cover every present and possible future skill feat.

Keep in mind that this scenario was being written while the CRB wasn't even on the market yet - how long would it take you to digest the 650 page tome and make sure you never overlooked any possibility that might be relevant in an adventure you're writing?

But looking to the future, we can of course expect more and more skill feats to be published. But the text of existing scenarios is essentially frozen. So there may always be scenarios where a newly published skill feat could be really useful, but the scenario doesn't mention it.

I think as a GM you should feel empowered to rule on "could this perhaps apply" rather than saying "it doesn't mention it, therefore it's impossible that it applies".

I absolutely did not write this scenario to invalidate Forager.

Why?
I was simply unaware that it existed.

Lau gives the reason. When I was asked to write the scenario, PF2 rules had not been out.
Timeframes for PFS scenarios are six weeks. Six weeks to write from a simple prompt to a fully functional scenario with statblocks, descriptions, flow, ect.

And in those six weeks I also had to cram in the PF2 ruleset. Looking at feats to invalidate was far from my mind.

[The Fox]

@Tineke Bolleman: How would you rule it if the OP was playing at your table for this scenario?

Edit: Also, good job; I found it to be a very fun scenario to play. :)

[RealAlchemy]

Not to call out any scenario in particular, but my rogue has a list of skill feats which are pretty certain to apply at some point in PFS.
Cat fall, courtly graces, trick magic item, arcane sense, quick jump, nimble crawl.
My champion is lower level, but has streetwise and group impression.
My cleric has assurance (arcana) and quick identification.

[pauljathome]

On a side note I find the amount of work they have gone into in PF2 to allow the GM to run "forage in the wilderness or the city" type games to be absurd. It's probably my own prejudices showing through but I have very,very,very rarely seen such things show up in RPGs and I find them quite boring after the first few minutes when they DO show up.

But making such games possible has to be the reason for skill feats like forager, incredibly nerfing Create Water, etc

[Rysky]

You forget setting consistency, having a basic spell you can cast indefinitely and thus have an unlimited amount of water and thus no reason for anyone to ever die or feel threatened by thirst would make for a completely different setup in civilizations and the like.

[pauljathome]

Rysky wrote:

You forget setting consistency, having a basic spell you can cast indefinitely and thus have an unlimited amount of water and thus no reason for anyone to ever die or feel threatened by thirst would make for a completely different setup in civilizations and the like.

But PF2 is set in the same setting as PF1. And I don't recall several civilizations collapsing because their water supply suddenly vanished.

Maybe I missed the Legion of fans complaining about how unrealistic PF1 Golarion was in this respect?

On a slightly less snarky note, Golarion is insanely implausible in a great many ways. Or, to put it another way, the very high fantasy nature of the setting is very apparent in many places. Which is fine, it's a world to adventure in. Why suddenly single out one of the (IMO) lesser aspects to address?

[Rysky]

Because it broke suspension of disbelief for not only the players but also the writers.

And civilizations don't need to collapse to point out the need for water is important.

[Ascalaphus]

pauljathome wrote:

On a side note I find the amount of work they have gone into in PF2 to allow the GM to run "forage in the wilderness or the city" type games to be absurd. It's probably my own prejudices showing through but I have very,very,very rarely seen such things show up in RPGs and I find them quite boring after the first few minutes when they DO show up.

But making such games possible has to be the reason for skill feats like forager, incredibly nerfing Create Water, etc

I think one of the frustrations with PF1 was that such survival themed adventures didn't really work, because foraging for food and water was way, way too easy.

If you look at Thuvia for example, where the water lords are supposed to be powerful because they control the water supply - that never really worked if you looked at it closely. Surviving in the dry desert was basically dead on arrival as a story type.

---

That doesn't mean that if you remove these easy options that you automatically get good survivalism adventures of course. It's just a prerequisite, you still need to come up with a good adventure around it. I think Starfinder's recent Crash Down was a good effort, picking a middle ground between standard adventure and harsh survivalism. It certainly felt a bit out of the comfort zone but there was more to it than worrying about your next eel sandwich.

[Nefreet]

There is a lake. Somewhere. Maybe in a volcanic crater? Where a legion of 1st level Clerics are always casting Create Water and Purify Food and Drink for the burgeoning settlement along the rim.

Man I wish I could remember where I read that =\

[The Fox]

Nefreet wrote:

There is a lake. Somewhere. Maybe in a volcanic crater? Where a legion of 1st level Clerics are always casting Create Water and Purify Food and Drink for the burgeoning settlement along the rim.

Man I wish I could remember where I read that =\

That is not very efficient.

What I mean is that every drop of water in the lake has only a 24-hour lifespan.

So to fill an entire lake means that most of that magical energy is, in the long run, going to waste.

A better solution is to have the spell create water cast, on demand, into modern plumbing systems. You have your Church of Our Municipal Services build a cistern or water tower in the center of town, with every home and business plumbed to it. The acolyte city workers just have to make sure that there is enough supply to meet demand. They don't even need to keep the cistern full except in times when they are expecting peak demand, such as the height of summer when the townsfolk like to water their lawns in the middle of the day.

The return end of the plumbing circuit also goes to the Church of Our Municipal Services, where it is treated with purify food and drink.

[FLite]

Hmm... How many gallons per person does a city use (as in it leaves the system and does not return?)

And how many decanters of endless water would that be?

[Ascalaphus]

A magnificent city in the desert that can be there because a powerful wizard opened up a connection to the plane of water, or provided decanters of endless water - that's a good fantasy trope.

But it works better when that city is actually special because it's nontrivial for everyone else. I think turning Create Water into a level 1 spell with a static volume was a good move in this edition. It means that solving a challenge with magic comes at a cost.

It also comes with the graceful move in what kind of challenges there are for a party; at level 1, just getting some water for the party can be a challenge in a desert adventure. At level 7, the party has enough level 1 spell slots and water isn't the main worry anymore. Which is good: it would be frustrating if you kept running up against the same problems for your whole career.

[Woran]

I have always been concerned with the water vanishing after 24hours.
If it just goes trough your system and now a pubble of pee has vanished, no problem.

If your body has used that water for something else and its now occupying your eyeballs for example...
Then what...

[Woran]

The Fox wrote:

@Tineke Bolleman: How would you rule it if the OP was playing at your table for this scenario?

Edit: Also, good job; I found it to be a very fun scenario to play. :)

Forager would certainly work for the Survival portion of the challenge.

But how to exactly make it could would still be up to the GM, because its impossible as a writer to account for every possible table variation.

[Tomppa]

Certainly, some skill feats are far more useful in the PFS setting. Forager is a difficult one because "needing to forage to survive" is simply hard to write into a scenario, unless it is specifically an episode of "Survivors" (like tarnbreaker's trail, or Blazing Dangerous trails (1e)).

Obviously, best kind of skill feats are those that -you- can decide to use at will, because they are used more often than those that -require a specific situation- to be useful.

Arcane sense? Useful, you get a free innate detect magic cantrip.
Armor assist? Useless, how often do you count the amount of time you take to don an armor?

Assurance: Very useful, provided you know the DC (such as treat wounds) or are attempting something relatively easy
Charming Liar: Only triggers on critical success and you needed to be lying on narrow stuff.

Natural Medicine? People always get hurt, you get to heal them with Nature
Express rider: Generally useless, your travel speed doesn't usually matter.

Regarding this specific use: Forager in Tarnbreaker's trail: Yeah, you can keep your group well fed, but that doesn't mean the group is making progress at a good speed. I would have probably given an additional success, or a bonus to the roll, but one can't honestly assume that a single skill feat completely negates the whole skill challenge for the whole group.

[medtec28]

Tommi Ketonen wrote:

Certainly, some skill feats are far more useful in the PFS setting. Forager is a difficult one because "needing to forage to survive" is simply hard to write into a scenario, unless it is specifically an episode of "Survivors" (like tarnbreaker's trail, or Blazing Dangerous trails (1e)).

Obviously, best kind of skill feats are those that -you- can decide to use at will, because they are used more often than those that -require a specific situation- to be useful.

Arcane sense? Useful, you get a free innate detect magic cantrip.
Armor assist? Useless, how often do you count the amount of time you take to don an armor?

Assurance: Very useful, provided you know the DC (such as treat wounds) or are attempting something relatively easy
Charming Liar: Only triggers on critical success and you needed to be lying on narrow stuff.

Natural Medicine? People always get hurt, you get to heal them with Nature
Express rider: Generally useless, your travel speed doesn't usually matter.

Regarding this specific use: Forager in Tarnbreaker's trail: Yeah, you can keep your group well fed, but that doesn't mean the group is making progress at a good speed. I would have probably given an additional success, or a bonus to the roll, but one can't honestly assume that a single skill feat completely negates the whole skill challenge for the whole group.

If this is the opinion of OrgPlay Leadership, perhaps they should compile a list of feats that will NEVER be permitted to have an effect, to help people who are trying to build to a theme feel slighted. Next time I guess I should just take battle medicine like everyone else, right?

[The Fox]

medtec28 wrote:

If this is the opinion of OrgPlay Leadership, perhaps they should compile a list of feats that will NEVER be permitted to have an effect, to help people who are trying to build to a theme feel slighted. Next time I guess I should just take battle medicine like everyone else, right?

I agree with you that feats you choose should be neither nerfed nor negated for the sake of preserving the challenges presented in the scenario. I am totally fine with some abilities (or items) completely bypassing a challenge. And I understand why you feel slighted in this particular instance — I would feel slighted too, if I were in your shoes.

That's one issue.

But the second question as to which abilities are pragmatically sound choices to take for your character in the first place, given the nature of the campaign, is really up to you to decide. There are just some situations that are never (or rarely) going to come up in Pathfinder Society games. And the post you quoted does have some good advice on that front (though I strongly disagree that a single ability shouldn't negate a challenge for the entire group — that happens all the time, usually with a spell).

You can still build to a theme while making those choices. I would guess that Natural Medicine fits most survivalist-themed characters as well as Forager does, for example.

If you really do want a list of skill feats that you should avoid, I am willing to bet that other players here can help compile such a list.

If you're just expressing frustration, that's valid too. Sometimes this game/campaign can be frustrating.