Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that abilities that writers didn't consider is just running things badly. It has nothing to do with an official stance. The guide is fairly clear that solutions that a scenario writer didn't think of do apply.
It would be the same as not letting someone use an applicable spell instead of a suggested skill check for a Chase obstacle.
So, while there may be a lot of variation in exactly how a feat like Forager may affect things when gathering food is a component of a Survival challenge (rather than the entirety) the idea of a list of "feats that won't matter" doesn't make sense, because you've got enough freedom as a GM to allow any of them to matter, when relevant.
|
|
but when the group was told, by the GM, that our collective lack of success resulted in not finding enough food, and that a feat that should have changed that
That the GM described it that way is skewing your perceptive of the situation. Having read both paragraphs of instructions, to me, it is clear the challenge was more than finding food. It was sensing direction, avoiding natural dangers, and identifying paths that were easier to traverse than others. And providing food and shelter. So I think I could have found a way for the presence of the feat to help, giving you 3 discovery points (30% of what's required, 15% of what's superior, and 9% of best) because you're good at finding food probably wouldn't have been my choice at the table (and won't be now that I've been made to think about it before I run it. It might be others. Giving no benefit might still be others. That is GM discretion and something to discuss with the GM, politely, after the game.
I just don’t think pointing out all of the more universally “better” options is very helpful.
It is for other people coming to read whether or not all skill feats matter or not in PFS.
I tried to be a bit more thematic and unique and was expressly punished for it.
You were not expressly punished.
|
got it, nothing but battle medicine and assurance, that’s what I am gleaning from your analysis. Why not remove the illusion of choice, just assign battle medicine and assurance to all PFS characters.
You get more than two Skill Feats throughout your career, so after you pick up those two, then you're free to pick up whatever feels right for your character.
Like Assurance (Athletics), so you never worry about climbing ropes or jumping pits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
got it, nothing but battle medicine and assurance, that’s what I am gleaning from your analysis. Why not remove the illusion of choice, just assign battle medicine and assurance to all PFS characters.You get more than two Skill Feats throughout your career, so after you pick up those two, then you're free to pick up whatever feels right for your character.
Like Assurance (Athletics), so you never worry about climbing ropes or jumping pits.
I don’t know if that particular example does anything to counter his point.
The unfortunate reality is that 2E has a few skill feats that stand out compared to the others. That’s not really the fault of PFS. I think encouraging GMs to reward a creative use of a skill feat that isn’t useful as often is a good thing to do. Forager has always stood out to me as particularly subpar for PFS since food is generally handwaved. It’s a bit of a shame that so many backgrounds a nature character would take grant it.
I’ve taken a few subpar skill feats since they were thematic on characters, and it’s become a bit of a joke/game to try to work them into scenarios. One in particular, Breath Control, did essentially let us auto-win an encounter, because it was based around having to do something underwater and counting down the rounds of holding your breath until you succeeded. At least Breath Control can give a bonus on some saves, which puts it a notch above Forager for usefulness. But in most scenarios, that’s just a feat that never comes up. Underwater Marauder on the same character hasn’t come up at all (though I could have used it in that same adventure if I wanted to. I had better options.)
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
If the series of skill checks was for something similar to Avoid Notice (as opposed to something nonstandard like using Stealth skill for hiding things), there's no good reason not to allow Quiet Allies. The idea that the applicability of feats needs to be written into scenarios is a nonsense way of running them.
In your case, not allowing Foraged to affect things at all was not because the author did not include it, but because your GM failed to realize that the aither doesn't need to include a feat for it to apply. Other responses pointed out that the check in that scenario is not just about subsistence, so treating Foraged as a bonus to the aggregate survival activity, or as some number of points, not as an outight success is more appropriate, because finding food is only part of the task.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
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?
Mind you, I didn't say it should not have had, or that it should -never- had an effect - I merely pointed out that expecting it to negate the -whole- challenge (specifically, because the race is, well, more of a race than "how long can we survive in the wilderness") is maybe expecting to a bit too much, and pointed out that I would have probably given you an extra success or a bonus for it.
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).
It depends on the context, but without checking any specific scenarios (just off the top of my head), I think usually spending appropriate resources or non-cantrip spell-slot is suggested to count as an automatic success, instead of negating the whole challenge. Fairly sure at least some skill challenges are written like that. That's also why I suggested maybe letting the forager give an extra success - one for rolling a success on the check, another for having spent resources (a feat) on being especially good at this specific activity.
Also, quiet allies? I mean, sure, but rolling once using the lowest modifier instead of everybody rolling, is taking a pretty big risk - Either you all succeed, or you all fail. That's good for situations where it's probably designed to work - sneaking up on some NPC, for example - because you're basically saying that "okay, if the worst dude makes it, we all do". In skill challenges, where you usually need a -certain number of characters-, like 3 out of 5, to succeed, it would probably be better to have everybody roll, than betting everything on the lowest modifier to nail it - especially since skill challenges often give you a couple different skills to choose from.
Also, I didn't list the various skill feats to say that you -shouldn't- take the other ones, merely to point out that clearly some feats are more likely to see use than others.
EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out that nobody in this thread is actually representing OrgPlay Leadership's opinion - There are a couple venture officers posting, but we're just volunteers and GMs and people like you, and our opinions are just that - our opinions.
Organized play has sort of a mindset to "minimize table variation" and while the guide and rules specifically allow for creative solutions, that sadly results in some/many GMs tending to run the adventures "as written" in an effort to minimize table variation by diminishing the impact of creative solutions, they may end up causing more table variation as others are more lenient with creative solutions. It's not always easy for a GM to deviate from the written text of the adventure.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
got it, nothing but battle medicine and assurance, that’s what I am gleaning from your analysis. Why not remove the illusion of choice, just assign battle medicine and assurance to all PFS characters.
You're overstating things. I have lots of characters with lots of skill feats that are useful and are NOT battle medicine and NOT assurance.
However, you're not completely wrong. Some feats are going to see little or no use in PFS. Forager is one of them.
Like many other GMs, I'd have given you at least SOME advantage with forager in that particular scenario. But almost certainly not enough to have made it a good choice over your characters career.
For many characters skill feats are very definitely a pretty minor part of what the character does. I've got characters who struggle to find a skill feat that both fits the character and will see use.
For other characters, I desperately want MORE skill feats. There are lots of things that they would help with that DO fit the character and would be mechanically useful.
A large part of the problem is that there is a huge difference in the "general utility" of skill feats for different skills. Its hard to imagine a character with intimidation that doesn't want either Intimidating Glare or Intimidating Prowess. But none of the Survival feats are really worth much of anything except in a very wilderness/skill focused campaign.
Edit: I've always thought that PF2, as good as it generally is, had far too short a play testing/revision/play testing cycle. Skill feats is one of the areas that I think REALLY needed an additional pass. Some of them are quite cool, many of them are near total garbage, and some actively hurt the game because their very existence means that skilled characters can't do what they obviously should be able to do.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is trying to stop the players from causing variation in how the scenario plays out, they've gone well past Organized Play philosophy and into the realm of Unhealthy Fetishization of Standardization.
It has no upsides, and is less of a way of running than a way of going wrong.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is trying to stop the players from causing variation in how the scenario plays out, they've gone well past Organized Play philosophy and into the realm of Unhealthy Fetishization of Standardization.
It has no upsides, and is less of a way of running than a way of going wrong.
That's maybe a bit more extreme than what I meant. Fact is, not everything a player suggests will always be an "acceptable" creative solution in the GM's opinion, so there's always a line to be drawn somewhere. Some GM's are very relaxed with it: "Oh, instead of jumping over the river or crafting a bridge (Athletics/crafting), is there maybe a fallen tree I could use to just balance myself across with acrobatics?" - some will say "yeah, sure" and some will say "ah, doesn't look like it, athletics or crafting it is".
As an example, sometime my Forest Lore works because it's a woodlands creature, sometimes it doesn't because it's an animal and not a forest, and sometimes it doesn't work because this is a "jungle, not a forest", and sometimes it works because "well, you gained it from the lumber consortium background and while this calls for labor lore, you specifically gained your forest lore because you were laborer in a lumber camp so Okay, it'll work for this 'build a hut' project.'". Such is life and table variation.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Ah, that is different from what I thought you were saying.
Certainly, not every idea someone comes up with is actually workable. Sometimes people present ideas that make no sense at all, to try to tie a task to a skill they have a modifier in.
I was reading it as talking about saying "the scenario doesn't say that's an option, so no" instead of "that wouldn't actually work here, or requires something that isn't present, so no".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is trying to stop the players from causing variation in how the scenario plays out, they've gone well past Organized Play philosophy and into the realm of Unhealthy Fetishization of Standardization.
It has no upsides, and is less of a way of running than a way of going wrong.
That's maybe a bit more extreme than what I meant. Fact is, not everything a player suggests will always be an "acceptable" creative solution in the GM's opinion, so there's always a line to be drawn somewhere. Some GM's are very relaxed with it: "Oh, instead of jumping over the river or crafting a bridge (Athletics/crafting), is there maybe a fallen tree I could use to just balance myself across with acrobatics?" - some will say "yeah, sure" and some will say "ah, doesn't look like it, athletics or crafting it is".
As an example, sometime my Forest Lore works because it's a woodlands creature, sometimes it doesn't because it's an animal and not a forest, and sometimes it doesn't work because this is a "jungle, not a forest", and sometimes it works because "well, you gained it from the lumber consortium background and while this calls for labor lore, you specifically gained your forest lore because you were laborer in a lumber camp so Okay, it'll work for this 'build a hut' project.'". Such is life and table variation.
I especial cringe when a player at my table declares they're going to use a clearly not applicable skill (because that's what they have their best modifier in), e.g. Diplomacy to replace Survival (for real but not 1-05), concurrently roll, get a 19 or some similar high raw number and then look at me expectantly for their success.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
I just ask them to describe how, exactly, they intend to use that skill. Occasionally, people have had a good enough answer for it to make sense (sometimes with a significantly higher DC). Other times, they end up getting a hard no.
When the answer is really bad, people with any self awareness know they shouldn't expect it to work by the time they're done actually trying to say what they're doing out loud.
|
|
The key here is that table variation will happen, especially in situations like this. Personally, I have avoided taking the Forager feat because I haven't seen very many situations where it would be of use in my experience in PFS.
That said, it is the player's duty to ask the GM if it would apply, but be accepting that if the GM says it doesn't, for this specific table, it didn't.
Perhaps if you presented it as "I would like to use the forager skill feat to give me a bonus on my survival check" would have gotten you a +1 circumstance bonus? I could certainly see offering that.
But please be aware that there are GMs that do not feel comfortable with "creative solutions" or other things that are not explicitly written in, and they won't give you a bonus.
There are other places in that scenario that I might have given a bonus on the roll for.
After the goats, you can "Identify grazing areas and places medicinal plants and mosses might grow.". This is defined as a nature or herbalism lore, but I'd probably give a +1 on the check
That all being said, please don't be obnoxious about it. I have played and GMed at tables where a person will try and force their big skill through for every possible encounter, claiming "creative solutions". Be creative, but be creative wisely. And don't be upset if the GM doesn't give you what you expected, or if you are using a different skill than called for, that the DC is higher.
That's more than I should have said... and is all totally just my own opinion.
|
|
I just ask them to describe how, exactly, they intend to use that skill. Occasionally, people have had a good enough answer for it to make sense (sometimes with a significantly higher DC). Other times, they end up getting a hard no.
When the answer is really bad, people with any self awareness know they shouldn't expect it to work by the time they're done actually trying to say what they're doing out loud.
This, +100!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Well, it's not necessarily the wrong forum, but it might be beneficial to take a step back, take a deep breath, and then look at the thread again. It shouldn't be a surprise that people are replying and trying to explain why your experience was what it was, what it could have been, what they think it should have been, and tell their ideas and thoughts on skill feats in general.
I feel sorry to hear that a feat you've picked didn't work in a situation most people here seem to think it should have given at least some sort of benefit, but if it's of any consolidation, remember that retraining a feat (not the one from background or Pathfinder training though) is really cheap, just 7 days of downtime, should you decide that you want to replace it with something else.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 6 backgrounds (7 if you count Feral Child, but that’s rare) that grant Forager. The most disappointing is the PFS specific Early Explorer. A background specifically for PFS that grants a feat that’s almost never going to able to be used in PFS is a bit of a let down.
Add in the backgrounds that grant Train Animal, which arguably can’t be used at all in PFS, and that’s a lot of nature themed backgrounds that require basically having a feat you can’t do anything with.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I will point out that I did NOT push the issue at the table. I did NOT argue with the GM in any way. I came here to vent my frustrations, and now realize this was the wrong forum for this.
I think you did come to the right place, because it's good to have a discussion about the place of skill feats in PFS.
I don't agree with everything you said - you weren't singled out and punished for taking a feat, you just didn't get a reward you were hoping for. It's not like the GM gave you less reputation than the other characters for doing it wrong.
I also don't agree with this "list of feats you shouldn't take" - you could never get people to agree to which feats should be on that list. And Paizo's policy isn't to tell people "don't build this it'll be a bad character".
We've also seen the adventure doesn't go out of its way to negate the feat - as the author said, she simply wasn't aware of its existence at the time of writing.
---
I think the more interesting issue is really, how to use skill feats in PFS scenarios. It's tricky:
- Scenario writers get a certain amount of word count to use in a scenario. Words spent on what to do if someone has an obscure skill feat aren't being used on something that maybe affects more players.
- You can't really write a scenario with the assumption every party will have a particular skill feat. So if you want to make a skill feat useful, you have to be really careful, because you can't make it required, only useful.
- A future book may contain a skill feat that's highly relevant to the current scenario, but as a scenario writer you can't see into the future.
I think the only real workable solution is for GMs to exercise more of their own judgement on whether a skill feat a player has can be useful, rather than saying "it's not in the scenario so it doesn't work".
|
|
I think the only real workable solution is for GMs to exercise more of their own judgement on whether a skill feat a player has can be useful, rather than saying "it's not in the scenario so it doesn't work".
I think that clearer wording could perhaps be put into the GM guide for dealing with this kind of situation. But otherwise I agree, leaving it to the GM is the only practical solution and we all just have to live with the resulting (hopefully fairly minor) table variation
|
Unless it is clearly presented in the scenario, there isn’t much we can do about it in the Guide. There are simply too many variations and variables to make a rule that will clearly cover all situations. I had no problem adjudicating this scenario and it sounds like many GMs were similar. That some didn’t experience that same level of fiat isn’t an issue with the Guide. Maybe the text could have been clearer in the scenario, but how clear does it need to be? Is the instance of one, or even a few GMs enough to say it wasn’t clear enough? At what point do we just chalk it up to reading comprehension or simply lack of focus? This could be an example of proper GM prep. Perhaps the GM just didn’t spend enough time doing so and therefore overlooked the text. Really no way to know so this is really just speculation.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just went back and re read the Guide and I think the problem is actually much WORSE than I thought. This section under Table Variation strongly implies that all of us GMs who would give a Circumstance Bonus are, in fact, doing it wrong.
"If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered"
I think it would be helpful if wording similar to the following was added to the Guide
"In some cases a player character will have an ability such as a skill feat or an ancestral feat that has a bearing upon a challenge that the author hasn't cited. In that case, GMs are encouraged to apply a circumstance bonus to the roll in question".
Different GMs want (and in some cases need) different levels of guidance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, that’s more an issue with that other player than the rules or campaign. Players need to be aware of everyone’s schtick. If there is a true healer in the party, dont get in his way just because you happened to be trained in Medicine. Know who your “face” character is, etc. Let them try their thing first. If they fail, then by all means others should get involved.
|
|
. . . it never happens.
While I, too, have had the experience of the Untrained/Low-trained rolling ASAP before the player whose character is specialized in that task (don't lock out my Continual Healing Expert Medicine for an hour with your mundane +5 "I trained it just in case" Medicine). I can refute the "never" as I, myself, have intentionally deferred as a player and in character to my teammate(s) more capable and had tables strategize before the briefing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. If players do an adequate introduction at the beginning, each should have a pretty good idea of everyone’s schtick and at least let them do it before you jump in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reaction to that type of player is along the lines of "what are you, six?" Unless of course he is six. :-)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think it's more that some types of skill feats are more reliably useful than others. Often it's more player-facing stuff that's better;
- Assurance/Continual Recovery/Ward Medicine/Battle Medicine are absolutely useful.
- You can easily tell if Rapid Mantel will be usable at all for you depending on how many hands you use to wield weapons. Same with Combat Climber.
- Assurance (Athletics) is surprisingly good for climbing, since these DCs are often on the low side for your level because the whole party needs to be able to make them, not just the jocks.
- Underwater Marauder is useful in an underwater adventure, and then it's really awesome.
- Intimidating Glare is clearly useful, just for not having to worry about critters understanding your language.
- Cat Fall is nice because falling isn't unheard of. It also allows you to do some reckless moves because you know you'll land on your feet anyway.
Meanwhile feats that rely on a certain kind of plot like Forager or Survey Wildlife might sometimes be useful, but since most PCs won't have them, you can sort of cynically guess that scenarios won't require these to be successful in the scenario.
|
|
Indeed. It is not that most Skill Feats won't have any value but rather they will have episodic and relative value.
The Medicine skill feats are all pretty useful because you can be sure someone is going to get hurt every scenario. However, even within that skill, some are more episodic and relative. E.g. Inoculation won't be necessary every scenario or even many scenarios.
I have Recognize Spell, and I've never used it in 3 level's worth of scenarios because somehow I've never battled a spellcaster.
Some rules of thumb: if you can use it to modify mechanical things in a short (10 minute or less) time frame, you'll probably get use out of it; if it takes or provides benefits for days to weeks, it is probably rarely going to be used; if its successful use would require the entire party to have the feat or it would be required to succeed a challenge, it probably won't come up in organized play and might or might not manifest in other ways based on table variation.
