Textually:
"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.
Each time your proficiency rank in Survival increases, double the number of additional creatures you can take care of on a success (to eight if you’re an expert, 16 if you’re a master, or 32 if you’re legendary). You can choose to care for half the number of additional creatures and provide a comfortable living instead of subsistence living.
Multiple smaller creatures or creatures with significantly smaller appetites than a human are counted as a single creature for this feat, and larger creatures or those with significantly greater appetites each count as multiple creatures. The GM determines how much a non-human creature needs to eat."
Does this mean that a PC can literally without fail abilitate the party to evade food and water consumption? NO matter the situation?
|
You still need to meet the minimum Proficiency requirements to be able to even roll the check:
Untrained lush forest with calm weather or large city with plentiful resources
Trained typical hillside or village
Expert typical mountains or insular hamlet
Master typical desert or city under siege
Legendary barren wasteland or city of undead
And presumably, if you subsist in an area for too long, the GM is within their ability to increase the Proficiency requirement accordingly.
But, if you're Legendary, you can probably make miracles happen anywhere.
You still need to meet the minimum Proficiency requirements to be able to even roll the check:
Untrained lush forest with calm weather or large city with plentiful resources
Trained typical hillside or village
Expert typical mountains or insular hamlet
Master typical desert or city under siege
Legendary barren wasteland or city of undeadAnd presumably, if you subsist in an area for too long, the GM is within their ability to increase the Proficiency requirement accordingly.
But, if you're Legendary, you can probably make miracles happen anywhere.
"The GM determines the DC based on the nature of the place where you’re trying to Subsist. You might need a minimum proficiency rank to Subsist in particularly strange environments."
So the list you showed is for DC's not minimum proficiency rank. Minimum ranks is for "particularly strange environments" only. So with Forager in a non-"particularly strange environment", the minimum result is coverage for 5 creatures.
You still need to meet the minimum Proficiency requirements to be able to even roll the check:
Untrained lush forest with calm weather or large city with plentiful resources
Trained typical hillside or village
Expert typical mountains or insular hamlet
Master typical desert or city under siege
Legendary barren wasteland or city of undeadAnd presumably, if you subsist in an area for too long, the GM is within their ability to increase the Proficiency requirement accordingly.
But, if you're Legendary, you can probably make miracles happen anywhere.
"The GM determines the DC based on the nature of the place where you’re trying to Subsist. You might need a minimum proficiency rank to Subsist in particularly strange environments."
So the list you showed is for DC's not minimum proficiency rank. Minimum ranks is for "particularly strange environments" only. So with Forager in a non-"particularly strange environment", the minimum result is coverage for 5 creatures.
Still, if someone crit fails he or she should get a crit fail since no effect should change the result of a roll by 2 or more steps am i wrong?
Still, if someone crit fails he or she should get a crit fail since no effect should change the result of a roll by 2 or more steps am i wrong?
"While using Survival to Subsist, if you roll any result worse than a success, you get a success." Since a crit fail is worse than a success, it becomes a success.
I wonder if the first two sentences are intended to not stack together? Like how Third Path to Perfection doesn't halve damage on a critical failure.
So in other words, if you fail or crit fail, you get the normal success effect of Subsist, and if you roll a success, then you get the four extra people.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the first two sentences are intended to not stack together? Like how Third Path to Perfection doesn't halve damage on a critical failure.
So in other words, if you fail or crit fail, you get the normal success effect of Subsist, and if you roll a success, then you get the four extra people.
I think this is definitely the intent of the Feat, though the wording admittedly makes that less clear than would be ideal.
Feels worth noting that there are situations where you can't roll to subsist at all. Namely certain other planes. You need the Planar Survival feat for that. Combine these two skill feats and you're in good shape though.
I think this is definitely the intent of the Feat, though the wording admittedly makes that less clear than would be ideal.I wonder if the first two sentences are intended to not stack together? Like how Third Path to Perfection doesn't halve damage on a critical failure.
So in other words, if you fail or crit fail, you get the normal success effect of Subsist, and if you roll a success, then you get the four extra people.
I have become increasingly convinced this is the original intent of the feat, even though it is clearly not how it works by RAW and we have plenty of examples of abilities which explicitly name rolling a success. The Poacher NPC from the GMG says roll a success, for example. The counter point is they never corrected it, but ration tracking just isn't that important to most people. But if you want to run a gritty survival game where food does matter, this feat kind of ruins it. I'd consider talking to your player about it. The weaker ruling is still extremely helpful if you have a decent survival bonus without completely eliminating an aspect of the game.