Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.
I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.
If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.
If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?
Dishonest implies that it's in some way manipulating or misleading - it says what it does on very clearly, and has a good reason for doing so. Being able to take 10 with a fully buffed modifier is almost certainly going to guarantee success on level-appropriate tasks, which isn't the goal of the feat. It's clearly stated to be for more basic tasks, and it'd frankly be fairly unbalancing to have the full modifier - being able to ignore penalties on skill checks with MAP applied is already very useful, nevermind if you had an excellent bonus doing so. Class abilities (like a Marshal's aura) that rely on a standard-difficulty DC for your level would become auto-successes. It'd end up a must-have on a wide variety of builds, and is just a bad idea in general. It being written the way it has been written is about as dishonest as something like Courtly Graces is, because you could theoretically pick it when your Society is worse than your Diplomacy and Deception, and so it'd have very little effect. The mechanics are clear, there's good reason for them, and if you want assurance on that character, pick it on a different skill.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Trip is still a bad choice for _anyone_ to use with Assurance. Somebody (I don't recall the name) put out a Guide that recommended it and it was heavily discussed in the Guide commentary thread.
Allow me to quote: "...I have just randomly looked under 'G' (in the Bestiary), for all creatures from CR7 to CR11... and if your PC is level 10 & pushed Athletics to Master your Assurance - Athletics fixed total is 10 +10 (level) +6 (master) = 26. The results are that you auto-trip 8 of the 24 creatures. E_____, could you please describe how you came to the conclusion that As/Ath is auto-hit at higher levels? (I picked level 10 because PFS tops out at 11, did you sample at level 15?)"
Note that the 'auto-hit' commentators stopped posting in the thread at this point, rather than actually try to provide any proof.
I agree with the posters above that state Assurance is for basic tasks, and several of the examples. But not Trip!
Assurance table for reference (Left side is vs Level+0, right side is vs Level-2, % is % of monsters it works on)
Assurance table for reference (Left side is vs Level+0, right side is vs Level-2, % is % of monsters it works on)Actually, Trip is still a bad choice for _anyone_ to use with Assurance. Somebody (I don't recall the name) put out a Guide that recommended it and it was heavily discussed in the Guide commentary thread.
Allow me to quote: "...I have just randomly looked under 'G' (in the Bestiary), for all creatures from CR7 to CR11... and if your PC is level 10 & pushed Athletics to Master your Assurance - Athletics fixed total is 10 +10 (level) +6 (master) = 26. The results are that you auto-trip 8 of the 24 creatures. E_____, could you please describe how you came to the conclusion that As/Ath is auto-hit at higher levels? (I picked level 10 because PFS tops out at 11, did you sample at level 15?)"
Note that the 'auto-hit' commentators stopped posting in the thread at this point, rather than actually try to provide any proof.
I agree with the posters above that state Assurance is for basic tasks, and several of the examples. But not Trip!
So for Reflex on on level enemies only a fraction but not a negligible amount and pretty hard to use above level 15.
It seems that we are looking at the same data and some of you are saying it is bad, and some are saying it is sometimes very good.
:)
It is interesting how bad some will saves are, there seens to be a much larger pecentage of them.
Which reminds me, for conditions like frightened, you are lowering the enemies DC, so that still effectively helps you. Even though you can't modify your roll, you can still lower your enemies.
Is this spreadsheet run on the full bestiary?
|
|
Assurance table for reference (Left side is vs Level+0, right side is vs Level-2, % is % of monsters it works on)Actually, Trip is still a bad choice for _anyone_ to use with Assurance. Somebody (I don't recall the name) put out a Guide that recommended it and it was heavily discussed in the Guide commentary thread.
Allow me to quote: "...I have just randomly looked under 'G' (in the Bestiary), for all creatures from CR7 to CR11... and if your PC is level 10 & pushed Athletics to Master your Assurance - Athletics fixed total is 10 +10 (level) +6 (master) = 26. The results are that you auto-trip 8 of the 24 creatures. E_____, could you please describe how you came to the conclusion that As/Ath is auto-hit at higher levels? (I picked level 10 because PFS tops out at 11, did you sample at level 15?)"
Note that the 'auto-hit' commentators stopped posting in the thread at this point, rather than actually try to provide any proof.
I agree with the posters above that state Assurance is for basic tasks, and several of the examples. But not Trip!
So for Reflex on on level enemies only a fraction but not a negligible amount and pretty hard to use above level 15.
It seems that we are looking at the same data and some of you are saying it is bad, and some are saying it is sometimes very good.
:)
It is interesting how bad some will saves are, there seens to be a much larger pecentage of them.
Which reminds me, for conditions like frightened, you are lowering the enemies DC, so that still effectively helps you. Even though you can't modify your roll, you can still lower your enemies.
Is this spreadsheet run on the full bestiary?
Everything on easytool as per… about a month ago. Which was all bestiaries, all PFS scenarios, all modules and all APs up to b3. link if you want to clone it.
|
Gotta be careful with raw bestiary % though. Some monsters get used more than once, others haven't been used in any AP so far. And then there's the bias of any AP towards certain types of NPC builds. Agent of Edgewatch for example does seem to have a lot of rogueish enemies in it (gasp! police chasing rogues!) so that skews against tripping.
|
|
Gotta be careful with raw bestiary % though. Some monsters get used more than once, others haven't been used in any AP so far. And then there's the bias of any AP towards certain types of NPC builds. Agent of Edgewatch for example does seem to have a lot of rogueish enemies in it (gasp! police chasing rogues!) so that skews against tripping.
Only bestiary monsters (I think this is correct, array formulas are a bit janky)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Just as well, Sneak Savant does not interact with Assurance in any way, since Sneak Savant's benefits requires rolling to get its benefits, and Assurance forgoes a roll...As has been mentioned, it can be fine for something like Glad Hand. It can also be useful for High Jump and Long Jump, especially with the Swashbuckler or Barbarian feats to reduce the DCs. Or just climbing and not risking falling.
Medicine isn't the only thing with flat DCs.
Plus there's a level 10 Rogue with Sneak Savant and Assurance: Stealth never failing a Sneak check again.
Actually, it isn't clear whether or not Assurance works on a check that mention requiring a die roll. See Go to this thread for more discussion, but it's contentious whether or not rolling a failure or success excludes Assurance. I'm not sure there's an intentional difference between "succeeding on a check" and "rolling a success on a check".
This is something you would need to ask your GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat foes are REALLY common in APs.
And why wouldn't they be? Even in non-APs, it makes a lot of sense to have a gang of orcs instead of an orc, a hobgoblin, an ogre, and a tiefling. It's much more logical for the story, makes things a heck of a lot easier on the GM, and the players can better respond to enemy tactics.
Lord knows if the GM told me there was an orc, a hobgoblin, an ogre, and a tiefling in the room, I would have forgotten what half of the enemies were by the time my first turn rolled around.
Bands of orcs (or goblins, or mimics, or whatever near-homogeneous grouping) are easy to get, to remember, and to deal with.
Usually it's only PC parties that get that eclectic.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat foes are REALLY common in APs.And why wouldn't they be? Even in non-APs, it makes a lot of sense to have a gang of orcs instead of an orc, a hobgoblin, an ogre, and a tiefling. It's much more logical for the story, makes things a heck of a lot easier on the GM, and the players can better respond to enemy tactics.
Usually it's only PC parties that get that eclectic.
For APs particularly, keeping word count under control is a Thing. If re-using the same lieutenant as a mook a few times next level is possible, that saves half a page of words which you can use for something else.
|
Not much reason to "roll hoping for a crit" in a world where Risky Surgery exists. I wouldn't bother with Assurance on a Cleric or Druid, but it's clearly the superior option to hard-investing in wisdom for an Investigator or Rogue.
Risky surgery deals damage BEFORE healing. When somebody is dying that is quite a risk to take.
But even for my cleric/druid there are times that assurance is the way to go. In some cases you REALLY don't want to roll dice.
And at some levels (eg, level 3 or level 6) assurance is mathematically the best option anyway.
Dishonest implies that it's in some way manipulating or misleading - it says what it does on very clearly, and has a good reason for doing so. Being able to take 10 with a fully buffed modifier is almost certainly going to guarantee success on level-appropriate tasks, which isn't the goal of the feat. It's clearly stated to be for more basic tasks, and it'd frankly be fairly unbalancing to have the full modifier - being able to ignore penalties on skill checks with MAP applied is already very useful, nevermind if you had an excellent bonus doing so. Class abilities (like a Marshal's aura) that rely on a standard-difficulty DC for your level would become auto-successes. It'd end up a must-have on a wide variety of builds, and is just a bad idea in general. It being written the way it has been written is about as dishonest as something like Courtly Graces is, because you could theoretically pick it when your Society is worse than your Diplomacy and Deception, and so it'd have very little effect. The mechanics are clear, there's good reason for them, and if you want assurance on that character, pick it on a...Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.
If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?
Again, it doesn't have to be "Take 10". I could live with it being "Take 8" or "Take 6" or whatever number it needs to be to make the feat not be "too good not to take", just as long as the Barbarian with a positive Str mod doesn't have his strength inexplicably disappear into the ether just because he's using the feat to negate the luck component of his attempt to do this or that.
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can call yourself a high level optimizer all you want but if you're attacking at -10 instead of ignoring your MAP entirely with an assurance maneuver that probably isn't true
Depending on level that attack at -10 may well be on par with assurance.
At level 20, your stat can be +6, +1 for Apex Item, +3 for an item bonus and you're at +10. Toss in bard song and you're better off at -10 than using assurance.
Very late game only, of course.
But even mid game you can be better off to roll than use assurance against an unknown foe. Assurance is likely to fail against at level opponents, rolling may well succeed.
Now, obviously, once you know what an opponent is the choice to use assurance becomes clear. It will fail or succeed. No choice either way :-).
And, obviously, the above only applies to a character who has maxed out their skill (usually athletics). And assurance can still be quite useful for the character who hasn't. And assurance can still be quite useful for the character who hasn't.
For somebody with a rogue with skill feats to burn assurance athletics is a great option. For a character who is also spending lots of feats on, say, medicine the opportunity cost of a skill feat can well be just too high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Risky surgery deals damage BEFORE healing. When somebody is dying that is quite a risk to take.
When would you ever be using Treat Wounds while someone is Dying?
|
|
When would you ever be using Treat Wounds while someone is dying?
Risky surgery deals damage BEFORE healing. When somebody is dying that is quite a risk to take.
I wouldn't. I'd forgotten that Risky Surgery can't be used for Battle Medicine.
But if I'm going to roll dice I kinda prefer mortal healing :-)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Yabbut Assurance doesn't work on every monster and may not work at level 20" is a pretty pessimistic way of looking at Exocist's data.
For a large part of a character's career, against a significant number of monsters, a character can automatically succeed at doing something to a minor foe. That's pretty good. It's certainly better than many of the other skill feats offered.
If you had a feat that could automatically Trip a boss foe of any type, that would be downright broken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can call yourself a high level optimizer all you want but if you're attacking at -10 instead of ignoring your MAP entirely with an assurance maneuver that probably isn't true
This assumes attacking 3 times is a good idea. Even despite that, attacking at -10 is very likely to fail, but not automatically, unlike using Assurance where you do not equal or surpass the DC needed. The fact that rolling still gives me a chance compared to Assurance really shows how useless the feat really is, especially compared to other non-MAP abilities that are far more likely to succeed and will have a superior effect by comparison.
...Just as well, Sneak Savant does not interact with Assurance in any way, since Sneak Savant's benefits requires rolling to get its benefits, and Assurance forgoes a roll...As has been mentioned, it can be fine for something like Glad Hand. It can also be useful for High Jump and Long Jump, especially with the Swashbuckler or Barbarian feats to reduce the DCs. Or just climbing and not risking falling.
Medicine isn't the only thing with flat DCs.
Plus there's a level 10 Rogue with Sneak Savant and Assurance: Stealth never failing a Sneak check again.
Actually, it isn't clear whether or not Assurance works on a check that mention requiring a die roll. See Go to this thread for more discussion, but it's contentious whether or not rolling a failure or success excludes Assurance. I'm not sure there's an intentional difference between "succeeding on a check" and "rolling a success on a check".
This is something you would need to ask your GM.
It is clear, though, because in the first errata of the Core Rulebook regarding abilities like Juggernaut or Evasion, other effects which improved the overall result of your saving throw went up multiple degrees, which wasn't intended, even if possible based on the original wording, so it was all errata'd to include whether you roll the result or not.
Sneak Savant and other degree-improving effects have identical wording to those abilities, meaning it seems quite clear it was intended for them to not stack in that manner. And again, Assurance forgoes rolling, meaning you can't apply Sneak Savants abilities to something that isn't rolled.
It doesn't improve your degree of success more than once though.
It doesn't by itself; it's other rules interactions that did, being combined unintentionally. That's why rolling the dice was added to those abilities, setting a precedent of stacking degree-changing effects by making the dice result matter.
A feat that removes the crucial part of when you apply it (rolling a result) means you can't apply it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.
Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.
Wait, what makes you not need to roll saves?
I think it's more like you roll a failure, and then you have an ability that upgrades that to a success, and then you have another ability that upgrades successes to critical successes.
So with the wording that you need to roll a success it prevents the result from upgrading twice since you rolled a failure that got upgraded to a success rather than rolling a success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.
Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.
Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?
Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.
"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."
So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.
Right?
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can call yourself a high level optimizer all you want but if you're attacking at -10 instead of ignoring your MAP entirely with an assurance maneuver that probably isn't trueDepending on level that attack at -10 may well be on par with assurance.
At level 20, your stat can be +6, +1 for Apex Item, +3 for an item bonus and you're at +10. Toss in bard song and you're better off at -10 than using assurance.
Very late game only, of course.
But even mid game you can be better off to roll than use assurance against an unknown foe. Assurance is likely to fail against at level opponents, rolling may well succeed.
Now, obviously, once you know what an opponent is the choice to use assurance becomes clear. It will fail or succeed. No choice either way :-).
And, obviously, the above only applies to a character who has maxed out their skill (usually athletics). And assurance can still be quite useful for the character who hasn't. And assurance can still be quite useful for the character who hasn't.
For somebody with a rogue with skill feats to burn assurance athletics is a great option. For a character who is also spending lots of feats on, say, medicine the opportunity cost of a skill feat can well be just too high.
Counter argument against assurance potentially failing against an unknown foe is that assurance will never critically fail, where rolling very well might. The third action maneuver is a decent, low risk way to fish for the weak save.
Wait, what makes you not need to roll saves?
Well, it is a corner case, but there is the Robes of the Archmagi item that grants a 1/day ability to automatically succeed on a saving throw of an Arcane spell that is targeting or affecting you. It could be a DC 9876543210, and it would still succeed. It's quite powerful.
It's limited, both in scope and frequency, but if I was targeted with, say, Dominate (at an appropriate level), and choose to use the Robes' ability, and I possess Resolve as a class feature (17th level Wizard), I don't bump that to a critical success because Resolve triggers when you roll a successful Will Saving Throw, not when you succeed at a Will Saving Throw attempt. It's borderline splitting hairs, but there is a difference, and this isn't the only exception I can list, either.
It's the same concept with Sneak Savant. Just because you use Assurance to have a failure, you don't bump it to a success because Assurance doesn't roll a Stealth check, it forgoes that roll entirely, which is what Sneak Savant is reliant on to trigger, identical wording to the triad of saving throw degree increasers.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.
What is the point of comparing something that provides bonuses to something that negates having to roll? They don't do the same thing.
A player with an ability modifier and a player without an ability modifier are both conveyed the same exact benefit of not having to make the check. It's not "dishonest," it's not the player with the modifier "getting fleeced."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There so much of each saying the same thing over and over. The current system is balanced in the way pf2 likes it's balance. Keeping stuff that are harder actually harder, but removes sillines as climbing up a rope and fail. As I have played for quiet sometime, I can say I am surprised how often assurance helps in certain situations.
I even decided that if something is fast, not difficult to do and that PC have the perfect assurance, I won't even bother them asking for a roll, just saying "your assurance makes you know this or you are capable to this". This includes craft check to see if a bridge is walkable, identifiyng striking weapons when you are lvl 6, but at times when failure matters, I ofc ask players to choose if they use assurance or not. There are so many hidden good combos out there and players will find them, like assured glad hand check.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.
Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?
Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.
"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."
So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.
Right?
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.
Toughness provides a lower relative benefit the higher your class HP and Con is. If you're a level 15 Barbarian with 20 Con, it provides a 5% HP increase, whereas a Wizard with 10 Con gets a 13% HP increase.
So by this line of logic, Toughness is a trap for anyone with higher base HP. That Barbarian isn't getting equal value to the Wizard, and is "getting fleeced".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.What is the point of comparing something that provides bonuses to something that negates having to roll? They don't do the same thing.
A player with an ability modifier and a player without an ability modifier are both conveyed the same exact benefit of not having to make the check. It's not "dishonest," it's not the player with the modifier "getting fleeced."
No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.
Contrastly,
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.
Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?
Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.
"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."
So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.
Right?
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.
Toughness provides a lower relative benefit the higher your class HP and Con is. If you're a level 15 Barbarian with 20 Con, it provides a 5% HP increase, whereas a Wizard with 10 Con gets a 13% HP increase.
So by this line of logic, Toughness is a trap for anyone with higher base HP. That Barbarian isn't getting equal value to the Wizard, and is "getting fleeced".
Toughness gives you your level in hp. It does this if you have no Con mod whatsoever, it does this if you have some Con mod, and it does this if you sank an ability score increase into Con at every opportunity.
The Wizard gets his level in hp, regardless of class-granted hp or Con mod. The Barbarian definitely has more of the former and probably more of that latter, and yet, he still gets his level in hp. THAT is "not getting fleeced".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it this way:
Say a longsword costs 10 sp.
That is 10% of the total wealth of a player character with 100 sp, and it's 0.5% of the total wealth of a player character with 2000 sp.
And regardless of which player is buying it, it better cost 10 sp, never mind whether it's a larger or smaller chunk out of the buying player character's budget (or someone is getting screwed in this deal).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it isn't clear whether or not Assurance works on a check that mention requiring a die roll. See Go to this thread for more discussion, but it's contentious whether or not rolling a failure or success excludes Assurance. I'm not sure there's an intentional difference between "succeeding on a check" and "rolling a success on a check".
This is something you would need to ask your GM.
It is clear, though, because in the first errata of the Core Rulebook regarding abilities like Juggernaut or Evasion, other effects which improved the overall result of your saving throw went up multiple degrees, which wasn't intended, even if possible based on the original wording, so it was all errata'd to include whether you roll the result or not.
Sneak Savant and other degree-improving effects have identical wording to those abilities, meaning it seems quite clear it was intended for them to not stack in that manner. And again, Assurance forgoes rolling, meaning you can't apply Sneak Savants abilities to something that isn't rolled.
Wrong, because Assurance itself doesn't increase your degree of success, so the errata you're quoting doesn't apply. If you beat a Medicine DC with Assurance and have Risky Surgery, or fail a Stealth check but have Sneak Savant, the degree of success increases once, not twice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.
Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.
No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.
No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).
No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.
Did the player...
1) Increase that ability score for the purposes of Assurance? It's not a "price" if they didn't. It just happens to be coincidence.
2) Not read how the feat functions and assumes that they would get their ability modifier? Because then that's really on the player.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).
No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.
Did the player...
1) Increase that ability score for the purposes of Assurance? It's not a "price" if they didn't. It just happens to be coincidence.
2) Not read how the feat functions and assumes that they would get their ability modifier? Because then that's really on the player.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
1) If his ability score applies to that skill, then it should apply to that skill regardless of circumstance. I mean, what in-universe is happening when two characters with the same level and training decide to, say, arm-wrestle and they both go with Assurance? Neither one is better trained than the other and one has biceps as thick as the other guy's waist, yet they're dead even?
2) Ah, so we're back to same mindset behind the 3.5 Toughness feat. Hey, if they don't realize that a feat is not worth a piddly 3 hp, then that's on the player, too.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a feat that does exactly what it says on the tin. You aren't being penalized for having a high stat score as it just doesn't factor in. Assurance is not a character trying their hardest or even attenpting an activity. They're doing it in the same way you would ride a bike down an empty street: it's a practiced activity you can do without thinking or trying.
Wrong, because Assurance itself doesn't increase your degree of success, so the errata you're quoting doesn't apply. If you beat a Medicine DC with Assurance and have Risky Surgery, or fail a Stealth check but have Sneak Savant, the degree of success increases once, not twice.Actually, it isn't clear whether or not Assurance works on a check that mention requiring a die roll. See Go to this thread for more discussion, but it's contentious whether or not rolling a failure or success excludes Assurance. I'm not sure there's an intentional difference between "succeeding on a check" and "rolling a success on a check".
This is something you would need to ask your GM.
It is clear, though, because in the first errata of the Core Rulebook regarding abilities like Juggernaut or Evasion, other effects which improved the overall result of your saving throw went up multiple degrees, which wasn't intended, even if possible based on the original wording, so it was all errata'd to include whether you roll the result or not.
Sneak Savant and other degree-improving effects have identical wording to those abilities, meaning it seems quite clear it was intended for them to not stack in that manner. And again, Assurance forgoes rolling, meaning you can't apply Sneak Savants abilities to something that isn't rolled.
Assurance doesn't have to, because other abilities and effects which require dice rolls do. And Sneak Savant is once such ability, improving a failure to a success.
But really, you're missing the big picture here. The key component isn't the fact that it's improving degrees of success, the key component is that a dice has to be rolled for it to apply. The errata is merely the precedent and intent of the developers. Assurance removes that dice roll entirely, meaning the trigger for Sneak Savant's benefit never occurs. It's no different than failing to meet the trigger of a Free Action or Reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules balance aside, shouldn't the stronger, more dexterous, smarter, ect. person always just be better than the equally skilled person when using that skill? How do you logically square the circle and suspend your disbelief when something like this comes up?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not the same cost. The barbarian is paying a feat and his Str score. The rogue is only paying the feat. The benefit is the same, but yes the Barbarian is paying more to have the same effect.No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.
The barbarian isn't increasing their strength score for the purpose of Assurance. Assurance is designed to give you an option to be mediocre at a skill with perfect consistency; if you choose to invest heavily in that skill, it's up to you. It'll still have an effect, only lesser, unless you invest so heavily that you receive a +10 bonus from ability score and items, in which case it's the very end of the game, and I guess you'll have to accept the 2nd level skill feat (or background skill feat) is now wasted. Seriously though, how is this 'paying a different cost' any more than someone who has invested in Diplomacy and Deception is paying a different cost for Courtly Graces? Someone who has better Perception paying a different cost for Lie to Me? Acrobatic Performer who has invested in Perform? Concealing Legerdemain who has invested in Stealth? Deceptive Worship and Deception? Impressive Performance and Diplomacy? Natural Medicine and Medicine? Schooled in Secrets and Diplomacy? That's just 1st level skill feats. In a game that's focused on maintaining balance, there are going to be a wide variety of options that give you diminishing returns on investment to allow characters to get to an acceptable level of effectiveness without overshooting it. That's not dishonest, that's just balancing it.
Just adding my anecdotal experience - at my table playing PF2e APs, Assurance(Athletics) has seen somewhat regular use and success on tripping foes. It doesn't seem bad to me at all. The ability to trade a third max MAP action for a guaranteed trip on select recurring enemies is a feat worth taking.This 100% depends on who you are fighting and at what level. Not to mention that there are many things for which a 3rd action are useful for that don't require you even spend a feat.
If you feel you've got enough useful 3rd actions without taking Assurance (Athletics), then don't? There's no-one advocating it be picked on every character, just that it is useful on some characters. It's a low-investment option to give you that useful 3rd action if you're in a spot to take advantage of it, that's all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules balance aside, shouldn't the stronger, more dexterous, smarter, ect. person always just be better than the equally skilled person when using that skill? How do you logically square the circle and suspend your disbelief when something like this comes up?
It's more about the experience than the inherent talent, really. You might have somebody with over 160+ IQ capable of incredible intellectual skills, but that doesn't mean they know how to play or count cards.
Even ignoring that, it gets more silly when you consider the game's math is balanced around characters having high/max ability scores and item bonuses and potentially even status bonuses (or inflicting penalties) to make on-level challenges easier, or even making beyond-extreme encounters manageable.