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.
Please note that I specifically said the two characters were equally skilled. So they'd both have equal proficiency in the skill and the assurance feat, one would just have a higher modifier due to stats. In such a case how does it make any sense that one should be better in all other cases except for using this singular feat?
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?
Perhaps its just training and practise. This is the right way to go about bribing the guard - doesn't matter that you're butt ugly, or this is the exactly the right gap to put the staff in to trip the runner - it doesn't matter if you're a weaking, momentum will do its job.
You either do it right or you don't
| 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?Well, they're more likely to have invested in the skill. So they're likely to have a better modifier still.
But Assurance makes their modifiers all the same. A Wizard with Assurance in Arcana at Trained will have the same exact result as a Fighter with Assurance in Arcana at Trained, even though there is most likely a major Intelligence modifier and Item Bonus disparity otherwise.
Your inherent skill means nothing with Assurance, which is where the real disconnect lies.
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?Well, they're more likely to have invested in the skill. So they're likely to have a better modifier still.
Is everybody missing that I specifically said the characters are equally skilled? They both have the same proficiency, levels, skill feats, etc. it's just that one has better modifiers from stats. Why are they only equal when using this specific feat?
Please note that I specifically said the two characters were equally skilled. So they'd both have equal proficiency in the skill and the assurance feat, one would just have a higher modifier due to stats. In such a case how does it make any sense that one should be better in all other cases except for using this singular feat?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.
To be fair, I don't disagree. But it's being argued that with Assurance, only raw training and skill matter. The circumstances, statuses, or items don't mean jack on both sides of the spectrum. Neither do ability scores.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.
Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.
Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.
This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps its just training and practise. This is the right way to go about bribing the guard - doesn't matter that you're butt ugly, or this is the exactly the right gap to put the staff in to trip the runner - it doesn't matter if you're a weaking, momentum will do its job.
You either do it right or you don't
So why is one better at the exact same check made without assurance? It would be one thing if assurance gave a list of checks that it works with, but given that it doesn't your explanation just doesn't track.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.
Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.
Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.
This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.
I said balance aside when asking my question.
I would argue that this is why a D20 system shouldn't use skills in combat the way PF2 does. Or perhaps assurance simply shouldn't work on 'opposed' rolls and be reserved for skill checks where an opponent isn't actively working against your success. So it'll work for medicine, climbing, swimming, but not tripping, stealth, or diplomacy. This should keep it in the nice to have range.
To be fair, I don't disagree. But it's being argued that with Assurance, only raw training and skill matter. The circumstances, statuses, or items don't mean jack on both sides of the spectrum. Neither do ability scores.
If you chose to roll all of these things matter again but the exact same check with assurance and they suddenly don't? I'm not buying that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Personally I'd only take Assurance Athletics on characters with a hand available for grappling. Trip alone isn't appealing enough, you want to be able to hit both fort and reflex for it to really count.
| 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?
By recognizing that Assurance is a feat based around allowing you to avoid rolling on simple tasks and not PF2’s version of Taking 10.
Side note, if one of them is stronger, more dexterous, or smarter - then they are not equally skilled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Equally Skilled” a glossary term you can point toward a page number on? Otherwise it just has the standard linguistic meaning it has always had. Since my skill roll is based on the total of my proficiency and my modifier, “equally skilled” would require both axes of the total to be in parity. Otherwise they are equally proficient but not equally skilled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By recognizing that Assurance is a feat based around allowing you to avoid rolling on simple tasks and not PF2’s version of Taking 10.
Out of universe, how would you justify the change in how the skills work between using assurance and rolling; essentially, what is the character doing differently when they do it one way versus doing it the other way? With taking-10 and taking-20, the cost was additional time spent on the task. You either tried everything or did one thing with more care than usual.
Side note, if one of them is stronger, more dexterous, or smarter - then they are not equally skilled.
I suppose I could have worded it as equally proficient or somesuch, but given the subject at hand, I figured the intent would be clear. In case you're still trying to pick nits, the two characters are in all ways equal at using the skill in question except that one character has higher bonuses due to stats. In such a case how does it make sense that the two are equal when using assurance but otherwise there is a gap between their total bonuses when using the skill?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
people are really misjudging what assurance is, and why it is useful to have a flat number of what can be a guaranteed success at any level of the game. It is very useful for game balance that there are flat numbers that are not going to fluctuate wildly. Assurance is very much the exact number that is the completely average and expected value for a work output of specific level. For the barbarian, it very well might be NOT pushing what they can do when they use their full strength, and instead just doing the very functional expected performance level of the activity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of universe it’s a feat vs a feature. In universe though one is carefully “taking” time to not fail vs being proficient enough to be “assured” success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of universe it’s a feat vs a feature. In universe though one is carefully “taking” time to not fail vs being proficient enough to be “assured” success.
Sorry, I'm a bit distracted. I should have said what is your in-universe explanation for the difference. The out-of-universe explanation is obvious as are most of PF2's other strange bits; balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people are really misjudging what assurance is, and why it is useful to have a flat number of what can be a guaranteed success at any level of the game. It is very useful for game balance that there are flat numbers that are not going to fluctuate wildly. Assurance is very much the exact number that is the completely average and expected value for a work output of specific level. For the barbarian, it very well might be NOT pushing what they can do when they use their full strength, and instead just doing the very functional expected performance level of the activity.
Without referencing the ability please describe a character's actions when using assurance and when rolling normally. Beyond that, please explain why anybody who's skilled at a feat can potentially critically succeed at a task, but only a select few can do it carefully?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.
Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.
Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.
This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.
Firstly, Taking 20 is what you meant; it's the mechanic that represents making attempt after attempt until you succeed. Taking 10 is not the same thing, it's one attempt just like a rolled check is, except you take the average of what would be your luck component (the rolled d20). You trade not being able to uber-succeed for the benefit of not failing abysmally.
Second, your criticism in the third paragraph is, in fact, fair, and something we can talk about. Maybe make it "Take 10" for characters without an ability mod and "Take some lesser number" for other characters, BUT ALSO adding in some other benefit. Arrange it to NOT break the math but still acknowledge that one character has more invested into the skill (whether he pumped up his ability mod exclusively for the skill or not is irrelevant; he did pump up his ability modifier and this skill is one of the things it applies to). Off the top of my head: "A number of times per day equal to the ability mod in question, you may apply a +1 to your Assurance result with this skill."
Just some damned thing so no one gets screwed over.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
By all means, homebrew it however you want. Whatever works at your table. Assurance works very well for exactly what it is at my tables. It's popular, but not overshadowing other skill feats.
By all means, homebrew it however you want. Whatever works at your table. Assurance works very well for exactly what it is at my tables. It's popular, but not overshadowing other skill feats.
Oh, I realize this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm perfectly content to never touch Assurance with a 10-foot pole and just roll everything (with all the ability mod I've spent resources on and all the penalties that were fairly applied to me that I under no circumstances believe I should just be able to blanket-ignore off of one feat).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it doesn't make sense. But does that matter? The question was "is assurance bad" (and by extension "what uses are there for it") not "does assurance make sense".
I'd argue that it certainly does. Roleplaying asks for rules to have an in-universe explanation so that actions can be described. Ideally you'd be able to play your character without ever mentioning a gameplay term and still have the GM understand you perfectly.
Rules that don't work this way require extra justification to exist at all.
| 2 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?Well, it doesn't make sense. But does that matter? The question was "is assurance bad" (and by extension "what uses are there for it") not "does assurance make sense".
It matters if it not making sense is the reason why it's considered bad.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does being trained well enough in your skill that you don’t need to risk failure on basic tasks using it NOT make sense in universe?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two conversations here and they have both run their course.
Is Assurance bad? As many people have noted, it's situationally quite good. Not the best. Not the worst. It's fine.
Does Assurance make sense not including ability bonuses from a verisimilitude stand-point? Again, many people, including myself have noted how it does. If you still don't feel like it does, then there's very little we can do to convince you otherwise.
Honestly, what more is there to say?