Can you use Ageless Patience on combat maneuvers during Encounter mode? When trying to do a two-action trip, I had a GM who seemed to be under the impression that it could ONLY be used on Exploration and Downtime activities, even though it used the Seek action (an Encounter action) as an example.
I see no reason to restrict it from combat actions.
[edit - adding]
Though it does call out actions where a delay would be counterproductive as not qualifying, and your GM may interpret delaying a grab in that category.
That makes sense, though I suppose it could also be described as a QUICK action that occurs only after "waiting for the perfect opening."
If the GM rules thusly, I will certainly abide by it, but assuming that doesn't happen, there's nothing else preventing it?
Acting at a slower pace would hinder combat maneuvers as if anything you're making matters worse by telegraphing what you're doing. You aren't waiting for an opening, you're actively tripping once over the course of two actions. "Here I go. Hold still. And...trip! Why aren't you tripped?"
I also think that interpretation collapses under the weight of "too good to be true". The feat would move into the "must have" category for trip specialists (et al).
So yes, you can use the feat in Encounter Mode, most definitely, but no, not with combat maneuvers which are about swift action, not patient pacing.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Acting at a slower pace would hinder combat maneuvers as if anything you're making matters worse by telegraphing what you're doing. You aren't waiting for an opening, you're actively tripping once over the course of two actions. "Here I go. Hold still. And...trip! Why aren't you tripped?"
I think you're adding more detail here than is in the feat text, and then using that detail as an argument against allowing it. The feat only says you spend more time/actions doing something, not that you're doing the action slowly. Agelessly patiently waiting for the perfect moment to trip would fit the text of the feat just as well.
I also think that interpretation collapses under the weight of "too good to be true". The feat would move into the "must have" category for trip specialists (et al).
I'm not convinced of this either, the level 2 ranger feat Hunter's Aim is fairly similar; spend two actions on a single attack to get a +2 circumstance bonus and ignore a hindrance.
You could also compare it to spending an action before a Strike to first move into flank, which also shifts odds by 2 in your favor.
Acting at a slower pace would hinder combat maneuvers as if anything you're making matters worse by telegraphing what you're doing. You aren't waiting for an opening, you're actively tripping once over the course of two actions. "Here I go. Hold still. And...trip! Why aren't you tripped?"I think you're adding more detail here than is in the feat text, and then using that detail as an argument against allowing it. The feat only says you spend more time/actions doing something, not that you're doing the action slowly. Agelessly patiently waiting for the perfect moment to trip would fit the text of the feat just as well.
I also think that interpretation collapses under the weight of "too good to be true". The feat would move into the "must have" category for trip specialists (et al).I'm not convinced of this either, the level 2 ranger feat Hunter's Aim is fairly similar; spend two actions on a single attack to get a +2 circumstance bonus and ignore a hindrance.
You could also compare it to spending an action before a Strike to first move into flank, which also shifts odds by 2 in your favor.
I'd say taking more time doing the same thing does mean working more slowly. There's no wording about choosing a moment, yet there is language re: working at a pace to enhance thoroughness.
--
That's an excellent counter-example, and I'd put the feats at about the same opportunity cost. Except Ageless Patience has near universal applicability. After writing my first response, it dawned on me how strong that feat is already; it's like critically Aiding yourself automatically. (Hopefully the party has enough teamwork and synergy to get the same or even higher bonuses via Aid, but it's not a given at middlin' levels, nor for all parties and all skills.)
I wouldn't protest a ruling allowing it, yet neither would I rule that way. I might be more wary fighting Elf minions afterward. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ageless Patience is definitely one of the best Ancestry feats in the game. But the doubling of actions makes it quite clumsy during combat. After all, why using 2 actions to make a Trip at +2 when you can just attempt 2 Trips? That's not helping much, it even reduces your chances of success.
During combat, Ageless Patience is only useful when you have just one attempt at something and you must not fail, for example Recall Knowledge to know the Golem Antimagic entry: If you fail, the casters will just spend the whole fight twiddling their thumbs. But on repeatable actions, it's in general a waste of actions.
As to why it can't be used, I hardly see why speed would be an asset when tripping someone, so it's definitely a use around my tables. I personally allow it on nearly everything, as long as you have the time (which is the biggest limitation).
After all, why using 2 actions to make a Trip at +2 when you can just attempt 2 Trips? That's not helping much, it even reduces your chances of success.
I would love to see the math behind that if it's not too much trouble.
After all, why using 2 actions to make a Trip at +2 when you can just attempt 2 Trips? That's not helping much, it even reduces your chances of success.I would love to see the math behind that if it's not too much trouble.
Assuming baseline 60% chance, patience gives you 70% for two actions. Two attempts is .6 [success on first attempt] + (.4 * .35) [odds of dependent event: failing first attempt and succeeding on second attempt] = .6 + .14 = .74 or 74%. At least I think that's how that works but stats was never my strong suit.
Assuming baseline 60% chance, patience gives you 70% for two actions. Two attempts is .6 [success on first attempt] + (.4 * .35) [odds of dependent event: failing first attempt and succeeding on second attempt] = .6 + .14 = .74 or 74%. At least I think that's how that works but stats was never my strong suit.After all, why using 2 actions to make a Trip at +2 when you can just attempt 2 Trips? That's not helping much, it even reduces your chances of success.I would love to see the math behind that if it's not too much trouble.
Your maths are fine. So, higher chances of success and a high chance to not use a second action. Really better.
Ooh...the math makes a good point. Thank you, math.
Though there will be examples where the math advantages the other direction, it's less common and then insignificant. Heck, odds are the Seek example in the feat's description would be a poor choice; just Seek twice. :-P
So it's major use would be one-shot attempts and attempts w/ repercussions, and without reliable +2 Aid (depending of if the aid-giver would have an opportunity too or not).
I have the feat on my Alchemist, and I use it extensively on Recall Knowledge checks outside combat, on Thievery checks to disarm and open doors, and on Athletics/Acrobatics check outside combat. Besides that, I've used it once during combat as I was the last one able to recognize the Haunt (and without a success at recognizing it, we would have been unable to dispel it).
It's an absolutely excellent feat that gives you tons of bonuses outside combat. But during fights, it's quite limited. One actions skill checks that are so decisive that you're ready to spend nearly an entire turn on them are rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tripping someone slowly sounds exactly like what this line of the feat would be talking about.
The GM might determine a situation doesn't grant you a benefit if a delay would be directly counterproductive to your success
That the math makes it sub-optimal is just icing.