Pageant of the Peacock


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

You are making a Spellcraft check, but you make it by making a Bluff check. This still gets you the correct answer, because you succeeded on the Spellcraft check made with a Bluff check.

It's not rocket surgery.


Anzyr wrote:
It's not rocket surgery.

No, it's certainly not... "rocket surgery".

Nonetheless, you'll need more than your simple assertion of confidence to claim that making a Bluff check in place of a knowledge check is the same thing as making a Knowledge check with your bluff bonus. I.e. that it's the same thing as Versatile performance.

My claim is that, once it's a bluff check, it does what a bluff check does: lies or misleads. If you want to prove I'm wrong, you'll need more than just repeating yourself.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"In place of" is really really clear. You just don't want it to be.

Grand Lodge

Anzyr wrote:

You are making a Spellcraft check, but you make it by making a Bluff check. This still gets you the correct answer, because you succeeded on the Spellcraft check made with a Bluff check.

It's not rocket surgery.

No. But you can use PotP to convince everyone that you are a rocket surgeon. You just dazzle them with poise till they don't notice that you haven't answered any of the hard questions people have been asking you. (like what the heck is rocket surgery?)


It's very clear, yes. You make a bluff check instead of making a knowledge check. That is, you lie in place of actually knowing.


Rudy2 wrote:
It's very clear, yes. You make a bluff check instead of making a knowledge check. That is, you lie in place of actually knowing.

No, it is very clear that this isn't what it actually does but you are simply invested in hating this particular piece of cheese that you choose to twist what it actually does. Seriously, just avoid PFS if you cannot handle stuff like this because this is pretty low down on the cheesy options list.


No instead of, in place of. No wonder you aren't following, you are using the wrong words. The result of getting the Intelligence based check correct is known. All you do is make a Bluff check to get to that result. The result of a successful Knowledge check is that you know something about something.

Crystal. Clear.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
My claim is that, once it's a bluff check, it does what a bluff check does: lies or misleads.

Interesting notion. My rebuttal, then, would be that if you only get to do what Bluff already does, then the line about replacing an INT-based check literally does nothing. That is, someone who has the ability to make a Bluff check in place of the INT-based check has absolutely no advantage over someone who doesn't.

I think you need a much stronger basis than "it's not worded identically to Versatile Performance" before claiming that we have the next Prone Shooter.


I think this is what Jiggy just said but, if POTP lets you make a bluff check to bluff when someone asks a knowledge based question to you... how can you not already do that with the skill Bluff?

GM: It is an esoteric rune that is hard to identify.

Bard option 1: I lie and roll bluff to convince people i am right when i know i am wrong.

Bard option 2: I use POTP to lie to convince people i am right when i know i am wrong.

Bard option 3: I use POTP and roll a total of +Billions. I know everythings. This rune means danger ahead, use cold iron.

Notice how only one of those above instances results in POTP actually letting you do something you couldnt do before? If the intent was just to add +4 to bluff and disguise they could have saved a lot more of their precious word count.

Grand Lodge

Literally doing nothing, is a popular opinion on how many things work.

From feats, spells, magic items, traits, to class features.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdWXLUsz9Y

At 50 seconds.

That's the bluff check.

But with PotP, he's actually speaking those languages, and saying what he's trying to say?

He can dance around with mice, and 'Make a pretty dress for Cinderelly'?

He can cutscene and flashcrowd with a dozen mini-lab-coated elven techs, and at the end, have produced the KN:Engineering solution to the missing maguffin?

Cool.

Wait, all day, forever?

Um...


Welcome to how magic works. We aint gotta 'splain shtuff.

More seriously, keep in mind there is only so much that can be known. a result of 100 on your int based skill doesnt let you know more than there is to know about a creature. There is no rule to say you must reveal the whole family line of that kobold you just ID'd so that you can hunt down all of its relatives and wipe out its genetic signature from the species. You just know the generalities of the creature entry and probably some tale tell signs if it has any class levels or templates going on.


I agree with both sides of the argument, to an extent.

I agree that the rule as intended is that you simply bluff your way through appearing to know more than you do. The problem is that this is one of those abilities that puts restrictions on something you should have always been capable of. It's like an ability allowing a character to make a stealth check in place of a diplomacy check to sneak away from a conversation, or an intimidate check in place of a bluff check to make someone stop asking questions. Quite unnecessary.

On the other hand, I agree that the rules as written suggest you make a bluff check and then use that number for an INT based skill check. If it were presented in another context, such as "You perform an epic which grants supernatural insight", there would be no argument. But the segregation between flavor text and mechanics makes it a hard sell, regardless of whether it is or isn't balanced.

It's not so much that the ability is vague as it is mixed up. It was written to allow you to do something you could already do, that the designer felt you couldn't. Instead, it allows you to do something way more powerful that makes no thematic sense. The solution, I think, isn't to rule one way or the other, but to either house rule the masterpiece into something sensible or leave it alone.


Rhatahema wrote:

I agree with both sides of the argument, to an extent.

I agree that the rule as intended is that you simply bluff your way through appearing to know more than you do. The problem is that this is one of those abilities that puts restrictions on something you should have always been capable of. It's like an ability allowing a character to make a stealth check in place of a diplomacy check to sneak away from a conversation, or an intimate check in place of a bluff check to make someone stop asking questions. Quite unnecessary.

On the other hand, I agree that the rules as written suggest you make a bluff check and then use that number for an INT based skill check. If it were presented in another context, such as "You perform an epic which grants supernatural insight", there would be no argument. But the segregation between flavor text and mechanics makes it a hard sell, regardless of whether it is or isn't balanced.

It's not so much that the ability is vague as it is mixed up. It was written to allow you to do something you could already do, that the designer felt you couldn't. Instead, it allows you to do something way more powerful that makes no thematic sense. The solution, I think, isn't to rule one way or the other, but to either house rule the masterpiece into something sensible or leave it alone.

Well said :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally think Pageant of the Peacock is what Ulysses Everett McGill is doing through the entire movie of Brother Where Art Thou? and you'll note that while he is always making stuff up as he goes, he's rarely wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
It's very clear, yes. You make a bluff check instead of making a knowledge check. That is, you lie in place of actually knowing.

Why would there be a supernatural ability that explicitly allows you to use the bluff check as written? Now if you told me you saw that in a Rogue Talent I'd believe you...

Anzyr wrote:
I personally think Pageant of the Peacock is what Ulysses Everett McGill is doing through the entire movie of Brother Where Art Thou? and you'll note that while he is always making stuff up as he goes, he's rarely wrong.

That's how I always saw it too. You say the first thing off the top of your head while really having no idea what the answer is, but then it just happens to be correct. It makes sense because it's SUPERNATURAL.

It's all eerie and spooky and shit, ya know?

Shadow Lodge

I think that while we try to understand the logic of how or why this feat works, we should also remember that bards create magic by playing music.


Avatar-1 wrote:
I think that while we try to understand the logic of how or why this feat works, we should also remember that bards create magic by playing music.

Honestly, I think trying to understand "why the feat works" is half the problem some people are having it with understanding what it does. It doesn't matter why Pageant of the Peacock lets you use Bluff in place of Appraise or Spellcraft. It just does. How or why it does so is up to your own interpretation.


Rhatahema wrote:
The solution, I think, isn't to rule one way or the other, but to either house rule the masterpiece into something sensible or leave it alone.

This is, of course, optimal, but the main issue with it is PFS.

The PFS GM thread about this has made it clear that there is not a consensus on it, which means table variation will result. I do hope to get more official clarification on it, however.


Jiggy wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
My claim is that, once it's a bluff check, it does what a bluff check does: lies or misleads.

Interesting notion. My rebuttal, then, would be that if you only get to do what Bluff already does, then the line about replacing an INT-based check literally does nothing. That is, someone who has the ability to make a Bluff check in place of the INT-based check has absolutely no advantage over someone who doesn't.

I think you need a much stronger basis than "it's not worded identically to Versatile Performance" before claiming that we have the next Prone Shooter.

Andrew Christian gives an excellent example of why it's not the next "Prone Shooter".

Besides that, it's absurd to be comparing it to Prone Shooter. Even if it only gave you a +4 to Bluff checks, and a conditional +4 to some Disguise checks (and I believe it does more than that, as evidenced by the example I linked), it would be far from useless. I admit, in that case, it wouldn't be fantastic, but it would be useful in many builds.

Liberty's Edge

Thornborn wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhdWXLUsz9Y

At 50 seconds.

That's the bluff check.

But with PotP, he's actually speaking those languages, and saying what he's trying to say?

He can dance around with mice, and 'Make a pretty dress for Cinderelly'?

He can cutscene and flashcrowd with a dozen mini-lab-coated elven techs, and at the end, have produced the KN:Engineering solution to the missing maguffin?

Cool.

Wait, all day, forever?

Um...

Great, Linkified.

Liberty's Edge

I have 2 problems with this masterpeice:

1) the fluff. Essentially it is that you lie so well that the whole universe follow your lie.
If it had been: "through graceful movement of your body you enter a trance-like state and contact the accumulated knowledge of all the bards, present and past" etc. I would have been way happier.

2) the paltry cost. In the end it cost 1 preferred class point if you are a human, half elf or half orc (buying a 2nd level bard spell). Or it cost half a feat (taking Expanded arcana when you have access to 3rd level spells).


Pageant of the Peacock is one of those thigns that should just be erased form the book.

Grand Lodge

Rudy2 wrote:
Andrew Christian gives an excellent example of why it's not the next "Prone Shooter".

As I responded in that thread, I disagree greatly with that reading of it. He's taking "You can make a Bluff check in place of an Int based check" and changing it to "You can make a Bluff check to remove the penalty for speaking a hard to believe lie on your next Bluff check."

Rudy2 wrote:
Besides that, it's absurd to be comparing it to Prone Shooter. Even if it only gave you a +4 to Bluff checks, and a conditional +4 to some Disguise checks (and I believe it does more than that, as evidenced by the example I linked), it would be far from useless. I admit, in that case, it wouldn't be fantastic, but it would be useful in many builds.

Andrew Christian's argument either doesn't let you do anything that you couldn't already do (in which case the line about using Bluff for an Int check is redundant and shouldn't have been printed, a la prone shooter) or it's nerfing the Bluff skill in order to come up with a reason why PtoP doesn't just let you use Bluff for Int based checks (I know that there are examples of things that suddenly restricted common uses of things after the fact, but I can't remember any off the top of my head).

Grand Lodge

Jeff Merola wrote:
(I know that there are examples of things that suddenly restricted common uses of things after the fact, but I can't remember any off the top of my head).

You are thinking of potion sponge. (At least that is the most common example used.)

Grand Lodge

FLite wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
(I know that there are examples of things that suddenly restricted common uses of things after the fact, but I can't remember any off the top of my head).

You are thinking of potion sponge. (At least that is the most common example used.)

It wasn't the one I was thinking of (since that one was helpful for answering a few debates in my local area about whether or not you could drink a potion underwater), but yes, that's the general kind of thing I was referring to.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
My claim is that, once it's a bluff check, it does what a bluff check does: lies or misleads.

Interesting notion. My rebuttal, then, would be that if you only get to do what Bluff already does, then the line about replacing an INT-based check literally does nothing. That is, someone who has the ability to make a Bluff check in place of the INT-based check has absolutely no advantage over someone who doesn't.

I think you need a much stronger basis than "it's not worded identically to Versatile Performance" before claiming that we have the next Prone Shooter.

Andrew Christian gives an excellent example of why it's not the next "Prone Shooter".

Besides that, it's absurd to be comparing it to Prone Shooter. Even if it only gave you a +4 to Bluff checks, and a conditional +4 to some Disguise checks (and I believe it does more than that, as evidenced by the example I linked), it would be far from useless. I admit, in that case, it wouldn't be fantastic, but it would be useful in many builds.

So you're saying that the author wanted to create a PC option that allows you to mitigate/remove the Bluff penalties for unbelievable lies, that intelligent adult decided to communicate "eliminate those penalties" by writing "make a Bluff check in place of an INT-based check"?


I'm saying that an intelligent adult made the unfortunate mistake of assuming that Pathfinder players and GMs would be able to extrapolate meaning from context.


That would also fly in the face of "rules as written" as the written rules for POTP say nothing about mitigating any penalties for how unbelievable a lie is. You would have to add about a paragraph worth of new text to get anything like that, as written you can even use it to mitigate the penalty on a straight bluff check used to bluff.


Rudy2 wrote:
I'm saying that an intelligent adult made the unfortunate mistake of assuming that Pathfinder players and GMs would be able to extrapolate meaning from context.

So, an argument of authorial/editorial incompetence? Wouldn't it be simpler to just assume that the author wrote what they actually meant?


If you assume the author meant what so many optimizers would like them to have meant, then you're assuming even greater incompetence than I can imagine. No competent game designer would intentionally create such an unbalanced ability.

That being said, for the reasons I have already given, I don't even agree that the RAW interpretation is clear.

Grand Lodge

Well, what if a completely competent author wrote it to work, as described?

What if later, there is an FAQ, that confirms it?


First, if there is an FAQ that confirms it, I would obviously have to concede the point on how it works in game. I would not run games with it, but I would no longer have the ability to say "that's not what is meant".

Second, were that to happen, assuming it was the author that confirmed it, I would not agree with the assessment of the author as being "competent", though that would obviously be a matter of dispute.

Third, I sincerely don't think that will happen, as I have more faith than that, but we'll see, I suppose.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Rudy2 wrote:
If you assume the author meant what so many optimizers would like them to have meant, then you're assuming even greater incompetence than I can imagine. No competent game designer would intentionally create such an unbalanced ability.

Here's your problem: you can't look at the issue rationally because you've already decided that it's "us versus them"—the "optimizers" are trying to get away with something and you need to stop them. You're too invested in your desired outcome to see when your position is unsupportable.

Quote:
That being said, for the reasons I have already given, I don't even agree that the RAW interpretation is clear.

You mean the reasons that have already been refuted, and whose refutations you haven't even answered.


No one has refuted the point about bonuses versus checks, actually.


Jiggy wrote:
Here's your problem: you can't look at the issue rationally because you've already decided that it's "us versus them"—the "optimizers" are trying to get away with something and you need to stop them. You're too invested in your desired outcome to see when your position is unsupportable.

I could say the exact same thing about you. You've already decided that the nazi GM is trying to oppress the creative players. It's just rhetoric and opinion, either way.


It's really pretty simple:

Say we have a Knowledge (Religion) check to know about the religion of the Peacock Spirit (it's a real Golarion thing, wiki it) and the DC check to know that what that is say DC 20. Perry, the Bard uses Pageant of the Peacock to use Bluff instead of Knowledge (Religion) on that check. Because he succeeds with a total Bluff of 22, he proudly declares that "The Peacock Spirit was totally a thing back in the Thassilonian Empire." That's exactly how it works. That's what using Bluff in place of an INT based skill (Knowledge: Religion) means. Understand?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Here's your problem: you can't look at the issue rationally because you've already decided that it's "us versus them"—the "optimizers" are trying to get away with something and you need to stop them. You're too invested in your desired outcome to see when your position is unsupportable.
I could say the exact same thing about you. You've already decided that the nazi GM is trying to oppress the creative players. It's just rhetoric and opinion, either way.

No, you're just assuming I must think that because I haven't accepted your position. In reality, I agree that it's massively overpowered and would really like it to be PFS-banned/PFS-FAQ'd/PFS-houseruled. That's the only reason I'm here in the first place: to see if someone has a (legitimate) interpretation that I missed that makes it less ridiculous. But I'm just not willing to go to the lengths you are to convince myself that what I wish it meant was a valid interpretation of what got printed. The author may well have communicated poorly, but the claim that "Bluff instead of INT" was supposed to communicate "Bluff without penalties" is ridiculous to the point of self-delusion.

Quote:
No one has refuted the point about bonuses versus checks, actually.

Yes, I already responded to that; that's how we got to this point in the conversation:

You said your piece about "checks" and how that meant you only accomplish what Bluff can already accomplish.

My refutation was that this causes the "Bluff instead of INT" line to not actually do anything.

Your response to that was that it still does something, just not something even remotely related to what it SAYS it does.

Making something up to contradict a legitimate rebuttal is not the same as there not having been a rebuttal.

I don't like PotP any more than you do, but the way you and others are approaching it just spreads the "us versus them" mentality, so the next time any of us GMs encounter a LEGITIMATELY ambiguous rule that a player has misinterpreted in their favor, the player's going to be much more hesitant to listen because they'll think we're just again doing what you're doing here. You're not helping.

Silver Crusade

Pageant of the Peacock wrote:
By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

"Yes, I'm a Rutherford. You know, one of those Rutherfords. Every male in my family line has gone to Mr. Colchester's Academy for Fine Young Gentleman. While there, we had a course in just about everything, so I know more than most about the mating habits of hill giants."

There, I just used the "fluff" line of Pageant of the Peacock to justify using Bluff to make a Knowledge (local) check.


Jiggy wrote:

Yes, I already responded to that; that's how we got to this point in the conversation:

You said your piece about "checks" and how that meant you only accomplish what Bluff can already accomplish.

My refutation was that this causes the "Bluff instead of INT" line to not actually do anything.

Your response to that was that it still does something, just not something even remotely related to what it SAYS it does.

Making something up to contradict a legitimate rebuttal is not the same as there not having been a rebuttal.

I don't like PotP any more than you do, but the way you and others are approaching it just spreads the "us versus them" mentality, so the next time any of us GMs encounter a LEGITIMATELY ambiguous rule that a player...

It is legitimately ambiguous; the huge number of interpretations to the contrary are proof of that. I admit, at first I thought it was just me, and was prepared to just keep quiet and avoid players with the ability, but the outpouring in the other thread, if evidence of nothing else, is evidence that it is not clear. If you have large numbers of people with different interpretations, then that is objective evidence of lack of clarity. It doesn't mean that I'm correct, of course, but it does mean it's not straightforward.

Even if it was the case that one interpretation causes it to do nothing (and I don't think that's the case), that could simply mean that the author thought it was doing something, but was mistaken.


Jiggy wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Here's your problem: you can't look at the issue rationally because you've already decided that it's "us versus them"—the "optimizers" are trying to get away with something and you need to stop them. You're too invested in your desired outcome to see when your position is unsupportable.
I could say the exact same thing about you. You've already decided that the nazi GM is trying to oppress the creative players. It's just rhetoric and opinion, either way.

No, you're just assuming I must think that because I haven't accepted your position. In reality, I agree that it's massively overpowered and would really like it to be PFS-banned/PFS-FAQ'd/PFS-houseruled. That's the only reason I'm here in the first place: to see if someone has a (legitimate) interpretation that I missed that makes it less ridiculous. But I'm just not willing to go to the lengths you are to convince myself that what I wish it meant was a valid interpretation of what got printed. The author may well have communicated poorly, but the claim that "Bluff instead of INT" was supposed to communicate "Bluff without penalties" is ridiculous to the point of self-delusion.

Quote:
No one has refuted the point about bonuses versus checks, actually.

Yes, I already responded to that; that's how we got to this point in the conversation:

You said your piece about "checks" and how that meant you only accomplish what Bluff can already accomplish.

My refutation was that this causes the "Bluff instead of INT" line to not actually do anything.

Your response to that was that it still does something, just not something even remotely related to what it SAYS it does.

Making something up to contradict a legitimate rebuttal is not the same as there not having been a rebuttal.

I don't like PotP any more than you do, but the way you and others are approaching it just spreads the "us versus them" mentality, so the next time any of us GMs encounter a LEGITIMATELY ambiguous rule that a player...

Is PFS FAQ'd even a thing? I thought a lot of the ill feelings towards PFS is because when PFS pushes for a change it spills over to the generel ruleset and their FAQ/Errata/nerf becomes a change to the wider game.


Rudy2 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Yes, I already responded to that; that's how we got to this point in the conversation:

You said your piece about "checks" and how that meant you only accomplish what Bluff can already accomplish.

My refutation was that this causes the "Bluff instead of INT" line to not actually do anything.

Your response to that was that it still does something, just not something even remotely related to what it SAYS it does.

Making something up to contradict a legitimate rebuttal is not the same as there not having been a rebuttal.

I don't like PotP any more than you do, but the way you and others are approaching it just spreads the "us versus them" mentality, so the next time any of us GMs encounter a LEGITIMATELY ambiguous rule that a player...

It is legitimately ambiguous; the huge number of interpretations to the contrary are proof of that. I admit, at first I thought it was just me, and was prepared to just keep quiet and avoid players with the ability, but the outpouring in the other thread, if evidence of nothing else, is evidence that it is not clear. If you have large numbers of people with different interpretations, then that is objective evidence of lack of clarity. It doesn't mean that I'm correct, of course, but it does mean it's not straightforward.

Even if it was the case that one interpretation causes it to do nothing (and I don't think that's the case), that could simply mean that the author thought it was doing something, but was mistaken.

I agree with you there, the game doesnt define terms like Fluff or Crunch which has already resulted in a lot of confusion in the past and Bardic Masterpieces include what most would consider Fluff in the Effect line which would normally be all about Crunch. I even agree that this 2nd level spell equiviliant renders most knowledge checks irrelevant and scales with level. But thats also entirely in line with what i would expect a bard only spell to do.

Grand Lodge

Torbyne wrote:
Is PFS FAQ'd even a thing? I thought a lot of the ill feelings towards PFS is because when PFS pushes for a change it spills over to the generel ruleset and their FAQ/Errata/nerf becomes a change to the wider game.

Except that every time the developers nerf something, it gets blamed on PFS. That isn't neccessarily PFS pushing for a nerf. Sometimes it is the developers looking at something and saying "yeah, that didn't do what we wanted."

The complaints that lead to nerfs often start in PFS threads, because when a home GM looks at something and sees it as broken, they just house rule it.

When PFS wants something nerfed, they just ban it from PFS.

That said, they do rule some things. (Animal Item Slots, Read Lips is a language, deathwatch vs stealth)


Good to know :) I dont do PFS and only see the things that flare up into cross thread topics (Crane Wing level stuff)

Grand Lodge

Yeah, I am not sure who started the crane wing thing. I get the impression weapon cords was pretty much cross community.

Within the PFS community, when we complain about getting something fixed for PFS, the people in charge typically say "We will look at it, and we will take it back to the General developers, but unless the general developers think it needs to be fixed, we aren't going to make up separate rules for it. If it becomes a serious problem, we will just ban it."

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
I don't like PotP any more than you do, but the way you and others are approaching it just spreads the "us versus them" mentality, so the next time any of us GMs encounter a LEGITIMATELY ambiguous rule that a player has misinterpreted in their favor, the player's going to be much more hesitant to listen because they'll think we're just again doing what you're doing here. You're not helping.

Players in the FORUM always do that, regardless of the precedents. Outside the forum it is very different.

Liberty's Edge

Torbyne wrote:


I agree with you there, the game doesnt define terms like Fluff or Crunch which has already resulted in a lot of confusion in the past and Bardic Masterpieces include what most would consider Fluff in the Effect line which would normally be all about Crunch. I even agree that this 2nd level spell equiviliant renders most knowledge checks irrelevant and scales with level. But thats also entirely in line with what i would expect a bard only spell to do.

Legend lore for 1 preferred class point is a bit excessive even for a bard.

you don't use a spell slot to activate the power, you use 1 round of bardic performance to activate it for 10 minutes.

Grand Lodge

Actually, someone over on the PFS-GM board worked out that if you use "clever wordplay" (trait) to make Perform (oratory) an int based skill, and then made oratory one of your versatile performances, and used Pragmatic Activator to make UMD an Int based skill, then you can cover something like 41 skills with just putting skill points into performance(act) (including sense motive, diplomacy, and UMD. Personally, I would rather have a way to turn perception into an Int based skill, rather than UMD, but that really might start eating your rounds of performance faster than you want.)

And the important point is it is not that you are maxing all your knowledges. As mentioned, other classes can do that.

It is that you are maxing all your knowledges, your spellcraft, your linguistics, your appraise, and all the crafts, and in the above case, your diplomacy, your UMD, *and* your sense motive, for 1 skill point a level. You still have 5 skill points per level to spend.


The problem here is that multiple people are claiming that this power does different things. The "RAW" argument has one single interpretation, whereas the "Common Sense" argument is a collection of different people arguing different interpretations. This makes it impossible to argue against, because we're drawn in circles. Every time a non-RAW argument is refuted, someone else says "but that wasn't what I was arguing, so you're wrong".

So, for the sake of actual progress on that, someone from the "Common Sense" arguing-group reword the ability such that it does what they think it does. Mechanically. Those arguing RAW have been accused of being unable to apply common sense and context (be it in this thread, or the PFS one that spawned much of this debate most recently), so reword it so that we'll understand it. What are you claiming the mechanics of it are, without fluff and without implied context. Explicit context is fine, of course "a bonus to bluff in this circumstance" or "substitute this skill when doing this", but nothing we need to extrapolate on our own.

Once this is done, lets see if we can actually find those rules in the rules text given by the masterpiece.

I will tell you my personal opinion on this... I'm not sure what most of you are arguing this thing does anymore, but I've not seen one that is supported by the text of the masterpiece as written. I agree that this masterpiece almost certainly isn't meant to allow you to do what it says it does. But, while we can potentially even use intent or context to mitigate RAW, we can't make rules up out of nowhere to make it do what it 'should' do. Which is how the arguments have felt so far.

I made a post on the other thread a day or two ago with one possible rewording. I'd have to go back and see if that one even makes sense, given some of the arguments I've seen since. But regardless, I know my own interpretation of what the masterpiece SHOULD do, as well as what it DOES do. I want to know the same thing from those arguing "common sense" over "RAW".

51 to 100 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Pageant of the Peacock All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.