Pageant of the Peacock

[FLite]

Drake. I actually maintain that I am arguing RAW as well, the only difference is that one side is arguing that the first sentence under "Effect" is fluff and does not count as RAW, and the other side is arguing that it counts as RAW and limits the second sentence.

I think that there is a certain legitimate arguement (on my side) that this is another case of "Pistol training" where part of the RAW was meant to be inferred from context.

I think that there is a certain legitimate arguement (on the other side) that this is another case of "potion sponge" were the ability "enables" you to do something most people just assumed you could do anyway. (and implicitly either bans that thing for people who don't have the ability, or makes that part of the ability redundant.)

So, in my case, the full rules mechanics are (in bold):
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

where as the other side maintains that the full rules mechanics are (in bold):
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

[Torbyne]

I am getting a little flustered trying to interpet the arguement (sorry, waiting for chief results in another forum at the same time and thats eating most of my mental pie :/) But what intelligence based skills connect with Breeding Eloquence and/or Refinement? I would see that being Knowledge: Nobility and thats about it... Maybe if you could use Bluff instead of Diplomacy or Intimidate? But thats clearly beyond the scope of the masterpiece, so just use bluff instead of Knowledge: Nobility? Even then they could have saved a ton of space in the write up.

[Zathyr]

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...

Not all day, forever. Some people are talking like it's always on, but it isn't. Not unless you have 144+ rounds of bardic performance per day, preferably with some extra to spare for your other abilities. 10 minutes per round of bardic performance you spend, standard action to activate.

If you're ambushed you likely won't have it up and would need to spend a standard action to activate it before gaining its benefits on monster lore and/or spellcraft checks, eating into precious action economy. In many adventuring scenarios it'll chew into your daily rounds of bardic performance pretty quickly if you want to keep it up. And you probably won't have enough uptime per day to make a craft check with it, depending on what you're making and probably the GM.

Really, even if I had this on a bard, I wouldn't neglect the skills it can potentially cover.

[DrakeRoberts]

FLite wrote:

Drake. I actually maintain that I am arguing RAW as well, the only difference is that one side is arguing that the first sentence under "Effect" is fluff and does not count as RAW, and the other side is arguing that it counts as RAW and limits the second sentence.

Fair enough. My naming of the arguments was not meant to put more weight or properness on one than the other. It seemed the clearest way to describe two groups which I'd have to refer to many times in my post. My apologies if it came across in any other way.

[FLite]

Knowledge nobility seem to be the primary one. Though depending on the culture, linguistics could be another. (some societies place high values on diction and penmanship)

In a mage centric society, spellcraft would be a mark of high breeding.

Among dwarves, Craft(Weapon) or (Armor) or Knowledge(Engineering) might be key. (I don't care if your father was the King, *MY* father built the grand underdark bridge!)

I think they wanted to leave it open.

[FLite]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

FLite wrote:

Drake. I actually maintain that I am arguing RAW as well, the only difference is that one side is arguing that the first sentence under "Effect" is fluff and does not count as RAW, and the other side is arguing that it counts as RAW and limits the second sentence.

Fair enough. My naming of the arguments was not meant to put more weight or properness on one than the other. It seemed the clearest way to describe two groups which I'd have to refer to many times in my post. My apologies if it came across in any other way.

Not a problem. I just wanted to be on the record. I agree we need a better name for the positions in this argument.

[FLite]

(Actually, there are more than two groups.)

RAW it is unlimited

RAW it is limited

RAW it is unlimited but RAI it is limited and we should go with that

RAW it is unlimited and should be nerfed or removed

etc.

[DrakeRoberts]

FLite wrote:

So, in my case, the full rules mechanics are (in bold):

Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

where as the other side maintains that the full rules mechanics are (in bold):
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station
(an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

I don't have a problem calling the first part 'mechanics', but that does not seem to be the whole of the argument. If it were, the 'mechanics' would be additive. That is to say, the power would do the following:

1) You are required to move
2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (My argument here would be that without numerical bonus, this either is an auto-success or description [what people are referring to as fluff])
3) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
4) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check (honestly, what surprises me most is that nobody has argued that this is just 1 check per use of the masterpiece, rather than at-will... if anything, I think that's a more reasonable RAW interpretation that still limits the power of the ability)
5) You gain a +4 to Disguise checks when they are to appear to be someone of a higher station (presumably the options presented in parentheses are examples rather than a complete list of potential guises)

But the arguments, as I've seen them presented aren't suggesting this. Rather, they're arguing that the section referenced by point 2 above instead somehow limit point 3 and 4. I have a couple of issues with this that come to mind immediately, namely:

1) Why refer to 'higher station' in the +4 disguise portion but not the +4 bluff section if neither was to be across the board?

2) Why does "convincing others of my breeding, eloquence, and refinement" require, without this ability, an "intelligence check or intelligence-based skill check" instead of a bluff check as such a reading would imply?

[Jiggy]

Good job DrakeRoberts, you seem to be one of the few people paying attention both to the text of PotP and to what other people are actually saying about it. :)

[Jiggy]

Rudy2 wrote:

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.

No, if you follow enough rules debates through to their conclusions, you will eventually realize that no, the presence of lots of conflicting "interpretations" is NOT evidence that a rule is unclear. I could go on at length about what it more consistently indicates and what the usual sign of true ambiguity is, but that'd be a bit of a derail.

[Anzyr]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

FLite wrote:

So, in my case, the full rules mechanics are (in bold):

Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

where as the other side maintains that the full rules mechanics are (in bold):
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station
(an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

I don't have a problem calling the first part 'mechanics', but that does not seem to be the whole of the argument. If it were, the 'mechanics' would be additive. That is to say, the power would do the following:

1) You are required to move
2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (My argument here would be that without numerical bonus, this either is an auto-success or description [what people are referring to as fluff])
3) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
4) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check (honestly, what surprises me most is that nobody has argued that...

+1. I pretty much agree with all of this. To be honest, I even agree that it could be one Bluff in place of an INT check per use. Not wholly convinced since the singular language could merely be once per check as it were, but at least that claim has an argument behind it.

[DrakeRoberts]

If I were to break this down into what I would consider a power that should be acceptable to all parties it would be something like:

1) You are adjusting your body language (this is why we require Dance or Act)

2) The adjustment in body language makes you seem 'better' than you are (as defined by breeding/eloquence/refinement)

3) This sense of refinement (etc.) gives you a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff, as people are more likely to believe you (as refined/eloquent/well-bred types are less likely to lie... depending on who you ask, at least)

4) It likewise gives you a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise to pose as someone of higher station (after all, you seem more refined/eloquent/well-bred than someone of your actual station)

5) Finally, ONCE during this charade, the supernatural nature of this bluffing and posturing lets you use Bluff in place of an Intelligence or Intelligence-based skill check. (This is basically magical method acting... you're channeling the persona of someone who would know, and the supernatural elements of the ability make it so)

Note that in my interpretation, the knowledge/information gained, or other results of the int-based check are Real, this is what makes it supernatural. Versatile performance's reasonings/connections make a bit more sense, but they're also non-magical.

I think this interpretation addresses the logic behind the ability, the flavor of the ability, the supernatural nature of the ability, and the power level of the ability, all while remaining completely faithful to the wording of the ability.

[FLite]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

1) You are required to move
2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (My argument here would be that without numerical bonus, this either is an auto-success or description [what people are referring to as fluff])
3) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
4) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check (honestly, what surprises me most is that nobody has argued that this is just 1 check per use of the masterpiece, rather than at-will... if anything, I think that's a more reasonable RAW interpretation that still limits the power of the ability)
5) You gain a +4 to Disguise checks when they are to appear to be someone of a higher station (presumably the options presented in parentheses are examples rather than a complete list of potential guises)

This is somewhat close to my arguement, but arranged slightly differently:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)
2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

The once per performance thing is an interesting assertion, I think that argument is somewhat undercut by "for the duration of the performance" language, but I would accept it as a legitimate interpretation.

I think the reason no one ever thought of it was because usually paizo is pretty good about marking abilities with limited usages. Though usually they are good about marking abilities that are at will too, so I am not sure what to think.

I think if it was limited to once a performance, and information relevant to impressing people with your credentials, I would be fine with it giving you true information. It would mean you couldn't pop PotP, and then walk down the dungeon hallway identifying monsters and deciphering obscure clues. Not unless there was at least one of your party members that you were trying to impress with how erudite and educated you were. (Mental note: Take PotP, and then hire a new henchman every adventure... :) )

[Jiggy]

FLite wrote:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)

2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

Hm, that's an interesting one. It seems (somewhat) plausible when viewed in a vacuum; to check it, though, in what circumstances *does* 2b apply in a way that (A) isn't already part of what the Bluff skill does and (B) is something a reasonable person might try to communicate by writing the text of 2b?

If you've got good answers there, you might be onto something.

[Bigdaddyjug]

The only problem I see with people asserting that the first sentence of the masterpiece is crunch, and thereby defines the rest of the masterpiece, is that "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement" has no mechanical effect as defined anywhere else in the rules.

It's like the specious argument surrounding the whole bastard sword/katana/dwarven waraxe debate. There is no definition anywhere in the rules for "special training", so it's either fluff or an abstraction.

In this case, I think "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement" is both fluff and an abstraction. It's descriptive text that tells you how and/or why the ability works, but it's also an abstraction describing that the bard "puts on airs", and by "putting on airs" gains some insight into whatever intelligence check he was about to make.

[Anzyr]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

The only problem I see with people asserting that the first sentence of the masterpiece is crunch, and thereby defines the rest of the masterpiece, is that "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement" has no mechanical effect as defined anywhere else in the rules.

It's like the specious argument surrounding the whole bastard sword/katana/dwarven waraxe debate. There is no definition anywhere in the rules for "special training", so it's either fluff or an abstraction.

In this case, I think "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement" is both fluff and an abstraction. It's descriptive text that tells you how and/or why the ability works, but it's also an abstraction describing that the bard "puts on airs", and by "putting on airs" gains some insight into whatever intelligence check he was about to make.

Exactly. +1

[DrakeRoberts]

FLite wrote:

This is somewhat close to my arguement, but arranged slightly differently:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)
2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

The once per performance thing is an interesting assertion, I think that argument is somewhat undercut by "for the duration of the performance" language, but I would accept it as a legitimate interpretation.

I think the reason no one ever thought of it was because usually paizo is pretty good about marking abilities that are at will too, so I am not sure what to think.

I think if it was limited to once a performance, and information relevant to impressing people with your credentials, I would be fine with it giving you true information. It would mean you couldn't pop PotP, and then walk down the dungeon hallway identifying monsters and deciphering obscure clues. Not unless there was at least one of your party members that you were trying to impress with how erudite and educated you were. (Mental note: Take PotP, and then hire a new henchman every adventure... :) )

I find the 'subclause' notion to be more likely the author's original intent, but I'm not sure that I think that's entirely supportable as written. That said, it's close enough that I'd accept a GM's ruling on that as sensible, even in PFS. It is very much what I tried to fix with my rewording in the PFS thread.

That said, I don't think the restriction is necessary powerwise or thematically. As my proposal noted, I can see thematic reasons why your preening would give your bluff check bonuses for basically anything rather than just to support the "I'm regal" bluff. I think the distinction on the bluff and disguise bonus wordings supports my interpretation a bit more.

As for the number of uses issue, I think the duration clause indicates that the bluff and disguise bonus last for that duration, and that it is the duration during which you have the opportunity to make your bluff/int-check substitution. If you maintain the performance, you don't get another Int check, so it is "for the duration of the performance". Of course, if you wanted more int checks, you could terminate the performance early and start it again, but that raises your cost to 1 performance round per check and uses up actions, making it very expensive to use more than once in combat, even if you had it up and unused going into battle.

My one sticking point, really, is that the Int checks MUST be real, not made-up knowledge. This is my major complaint with some of the other interpretations:

Firstly, there is no language supporting the assertion. The 'check' substitution wording is a very weak argument, at best, as a check is (by definition) simply a d20 roll plus bonuses. Substituting an Int-based skill check for a bluff skill check is, written out longwise, saying you "may attempt a d20+bluff roll in place of a d20+Int roll or d20 +Intelligence-based skill roll." This doesn't change the purpose of the roll at all.

Secondly, saying that the information (or whatever) gained from the check is made-up/BS means that it could have been done with a Bluff check anyhow, and negates any value to this portion of the text at all. Proposals that it somehow causes regular bluff checks but with a negation of improbability penalties, bluff checks unopposed by sense motive checks, or bluff checks that would be otherwise denied by GMs for having a lack of personal knowledge are all without any textual merit that I can see. If you believe this is not true, please explain where you're reading that any of those are true.

Finally, this is a supernatural ability. There, by definition, must be something magical going on. Being able to bluff better due to posture changes is a very sensible feat, but is also the result of someone doing something natural in an extraordinary manner and not a supernatural one. Consider that some other masterpieces let you dance up the tiniest crevices in walls (climb speed) or create weight-supporting walls with the power of mime. This is why I'm saying that while the motions and flavor inform upon the effects of the masterpiece, one does not have to make one realistically and naturally achievable (aka a Bluff just being used for fake knowledge).

[DrakeRoberts]

side joke:

Clearly my last post was the correct answer to the question of the Life, Universe, and Everything of the PotP/Paizo existence, because posting it made everything suddenly end on the site. Presumably this new existence of the site will be even stranger and more bizarre than the last.

[Rudy2]

While I'm not sure I can see the argument for it being one check per use, adding that limitation, I will gladly admit, brings it down from 'ridiculous and broken' to 'silly and powerful'; I would not at all be put out if that was how the dice fell in terms of the official interpretation.

[DrakeRoberts]

It says "...and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check." It could be read both ways. It doesn't say "...and may attempt Bluff checks in place of Intelligence checks and Intelligence-based skill checks." Which would have been a better way to phrase it if it meant all such checks within the duration. I'm not saying that the latter isn't true, but that it's true to the wording still to go with the one use interpretation, and makes the power level of this masterpiece much more correctly aligned.

[Rudy2]

Hmm... a good point. I'll seriously consider using that as my table variation.

[Thomas Long 175]

Pancakes.

That is all.

Carry on.

[Andrew Christian]

Jiggy wrote:

FLite wrote:

1) You are required to move (and to be seen moving? does it work on blind people?)

2) You are able to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (since there is no numerical bonus, this requires further elaboration:)
--2a.) You gain a +4 to Bluff checks (circumstance bonus, specifically)
--2b.) You can use a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based check
3) You get a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise
--3a.) List of examples, as you say, presumably not exhaustive.

Being subclauses, both 2a and 2b are circumstantial on 2. You can't use the +4 from 2a to convince the king the butler killed the chef, likewise you can't use the bluff check to know random facts about random goblins.

Hm, that's an interesting one. It seems (somewhat) plausible when viewed in a vacuum; to check it, though, in what circumstances *does* 2b apply in a way that (A) isn't already part of what the Bluff skill does and (B) is something a reasonable person might try to communicate by writing the text of 2b?

If you've got good answers there, you might be onto something.

My thought on this would be:

Bard: "You see that group of stars there? That's known as Platypus!"

Normally, if talking to a commoner, it would probably be a standard Bluff, but to an Astrologer, it would probably be an impossible lie, so a -20 Bluff.

Astrologer: "You are full of crap, its obvious you know nothing of the stars, because two of them are Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Callistria's Girdle!"

Bard then starts Pageant of the Peacock and rolls a Knowledge (geography) check using his Bluff at +4. Depending on what he rolls, at the GM's discretion, he might move the lie from impossible to plausible or somewhere inbetween.

Bard: "Ah, to the average person, you are correct, but down in Sargava, the Platypii are very dangerous, nigh unto Gods to the savages. Indeed they believe they come from the stars--those 5 stars to be exact."

Poppycock... but he made his Knowledge (geography) to obviate the penalties for lying.

Without Pageant of the Peacock, I would probably not allow an obvious Lie bluff check to convince an expert you know more than he does.

[Jeff Merola]

And why not? Expert is not synonymous with omniscience. People can lie to experts about their own field of study in real life, without the aid of magic. Just look at all the false studies and research papers that are first accepted as true, for example.

[FLite]

Actually, I was thinking about this last night, and while I initially was of a similar mind to Jiggy's example, I appreciate the arguement that some people feel that would not be enough for this to be considered a SU power, and some feel it that what Jiggy and I have been describing should be doable with bluff. (I feel that being able eliminate the -20 penalty to bluff an expert that you know more than him is SU to me, but some of the people were like "yeah but I have +40 already so why would I care")

So I am floating the following idea.

You walk into a noble reception, bow deeply and elaborately. trigger potp

Player: Allow me to introduce myself, I am the Marquise de Carabas, son of the Counte of MonteChristo
Countess: That name is familiar. Was he related to my fathers sisters son, the Duke of Earl? innocently attempting to place my ancestrey and place in the local social hierarchy, but also possibly exposing me as a fraud if I give the wrong answer
P: has no or low Knowledge nobility. *Turns and looks at the countess and raises an eyebrow and looks haughty.* Invokes bluff to replace knowledge skill, makes bluff check
Pageant of the Peacock (in the back of the countess's mind): How could you be so *common* and *inconsiderate* to even ask him that, have you no shame? metaphorically slaps her and everyone else in the room on the back of the head, and they all forget that you didn't answer the question.
C: I'm sorry, you were saying?

Also works on passwords, secret society hand shakes, things like that that you can't really bluff and make up a new one, but with PotP you can make people not notice that you don't know it.

Think of it as the Jedi Mind Trick "you don't need to see our papers" only without that crass having to say what you want them to think to make it work.

[DrakeRoberts]

Andrew Christian wrote:

My thought on this would be:

Bard: "You see that group of stars there? That's known as Platypus!"

Normally, if talking to a commoner, it would probably be a standard Bluff, but to an Astrologer, it would probably be an impossible lie, so a -20 Bluff.

Astrologer: "You are full of crap, its obvious you know nothing of the stars, because two of them are Aroden's Staff and the other three are part of Callistria's Girdle!"

Bard then starts Pageant of the Peacock and rolls a Knowledge (geography) check using his Bluff at +4. Depending on what he rolls, at the GM's discretion, he might move the lie from impossible to plausible or somewhere inbetween.

Bard: "Ah, to the average person, you are correct, but down in Sargava, the Platypii are very dangerous, nigh unto Gods to the savages. Indeed they believe they come from the stars--those 5 stars to be exact."

Poppycock... but he made his Knowledge (geography) to obviate the penalties for lying.

Without Pageant of the Peacock, I would probably not allow an obvious Lie bluff check to convince an expert you know more than he does.

Your response leaves me with a number of questions that FLite's interpretation didn't:

1) Where in the language of the power as written do you get this?

2) Where do you get that the results of the Knowledge check is a lie?

3) Where do you get that this power negates improbability penalties?

4) Where do you get that the improbability penalties on a Bluff check are based on the person listening rather than the person getting circumstance bonuses to Sense Motive based on their prior knowledge?

5) Are you proposing that the entirety of this ability is to potentially modify the "GM's discretion"?

6) And most importantly, where do you get the idea that you couldn't just make that second bluff straight out with bluff normally... after all, the expert is an expert in Profession (Astrology) or perhaps Knowledge (Nature), not Knowledge (Geography)... you're changing your bluff away from their specialty, that's why these proposed penalties should be dropped, not because of this ability?

I want to be clear that these are not rhetorical questions, nor are they meant to be antagonistic. I don't see it, if it's there, please show me where. Thank you.

[DrakeRoberts]

FLite wrote:

Actually, I was thinking about this last night, and while I initially was of a similar mind to Jiggy's example, I appreciate the arguement that some people feel that would not be enough for this to be considered a SU power, and some feel it that what Jiggy and I have been describing should be doable with bluff. (I feel that being able eliminate the -20 penalty to bluff an expert that you know more than him is SU to me, but some of the people were like "yeah but I have +40 already so why would I care")

So I am floating the following idea.

You walk into a noble reception, bow deeply and elaborately. trigger potp

Player: Allow me to introduce myself, I am the Marquise de Carabas, son of the Counte of MonteChristo
Countess: That name is familiar. Was he related to my fathers sisters son, the Duke of Earl? innocently attempting to place my ancestrey and place in the local social hierarchy, but also possibly exposing me as a fraud if I give the wrong answer
P: has no or low Knowledge nobility. *Turns and looks at the countess and raises an eyebrow and looks haughty.* Invokes bluff to replace knowledge skill, makes bluff check
Pageant of the Peacock (in the back of the countess's mind): How could you be so *common* and *inconsiderate* to even ask him that, have you no shame? metaphorically slaps her and everyone else in the room on the back of the head, and they all forget that you didn't answer the question.
C: I'm sorry, you were saying?

Also works on passwords, secret society hand shakes, things like that that you can't really bluff and make up a new one, but with PotP you can make people not notice that you don't know it.

Think of it as the Jedi Mind Trick "you don't need to see our papers" only without that crass having to say what you want them to think to make it work.

My problem isn't with a power working like this. It's with the fact that I don't see support for those mechanics in the power: neither the negation of improbability penalties nor that the intelligence-based check substitution somehow mentally manipulates an observer rather than providing the normal results of some of a check (in this case knowledge).

[blackbloodtroll]

Hilarious enough, I was under the impression that this ability did quite a bit less, until two of my DMs convinced me otherwise.

This may sound odd to some, but just about every DM I have played with, actually likes it when a player makes a Knowledge check.

I am still trying to find the int-based skill that everyone finds so "abusable", that it must be stopped.

[Bigdaddyjug]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hilarious enough, I was under the impression that this ability did quite a bit less, until two of my DMs convinced me otherwise.

This may sound odd to some, but just about every DM I have played with, actually likes it when a player makes a Knowledge check.

I am still trying to find the int-based skill that everyone finds so "abusable", that it must be stopped.

This x1000. Most of my GMs give out more info than we earned on Int checks, especially knowledge checks to ID monsters.

The only thing I could consider is PFS GMs getting mad about ridiculously high day job rolls. They're acting like the player is taking the gold out of their character's pockets.

[Rudy2]

Regardless of how you interpret it, PotP cannot be used for Day Job checks; the duration is too short, and you can't use short duration effects for day job rolls.

[blackbloodtroll]

Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls.

Although, I still don't see this as unusable with that check.

There are actually ways to get boons/vanities that allow you to use Bluff for your Day Job rolls already.

[DrakeRoberts]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls.

This is unnecessarily antagonistic. Just because he's trying to follow the rules (regardless of whether or not he's right... I know there's a short term/permanent bonus thing, but I don't remember off hand what it is), doesn't mean he doesn't want his players to succeed. It simply means he doesn't want to cheat for them to do well.

Be nice.

[blackbloodtroll]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls.

This is unnecessarily antagonistic. Just because he's trying to follow the rules (regardless of whether or not he's right... I know there's a short term/permanent bonus thing, but I don't remember off hand what it is), doesn't mean he doesn't want his players to succeed. It simply means he doesn't want to cheat for them to do well.

Be nice.

Wait, what?!

I don't know how you got that from my comment.

Also, who said anything about cheating?

You seriously got me all wrong here.

[DrakeRoberts]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait, what?!

I don't know how you got that from my comment.

Also, who said anything about cheating?

You seriously got me all wrong here.

My apologies then. It read as though your response to him saying he thought it against the rules to use PotP for day job rolls was "Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls." As in... "If you wouldn't allow that, it's because you don't want to see players roll well for their Day Jobs". Which, if he thinks it's the rules (and it may be), then that would be antagonizing him for not allowing what he sees as cheating.

See where I was getting that from now?

EDIT: I see now you were responding not to Rudy2, but to Bigdaddyjug. My apologies.

[blackbloodtroll]

Ah. Text has a bad way of relaying tone, and we as Humans, have a base negative bias towards textual communications.

[Thomas Long 175]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah. Text has a bad way of relaying tone, and we as Humans, have a base negative bias towards textual communications.

Humanoids.

goblins are humanoids. But wait. Are you a troll, or a goblin. Now you say you're a human. Am I confused, or are you confused?

A being that looks like a goblin, is named troll, and calls itself a human. O.o

[blackbloodtroll]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah. Text has a bad way of relaying tone, and we as Humans, have a base negative bias towards textual communications.

Humanoids.

goblins are humanoids. But wait. Are you a troll, or a goblin. Now you say you're a human. Am I confused, or are you confused?

A being that looks like a goblin, is named troll, and calls itself a human. O.o

It's a Fremont thing.

[Rudy2]

Just for reference

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play (Year of the Demon) Pg. 21 wrote:

Permanent bonuses from equipment, feats, racial bonuses, and traits affect your Day Job check as they would any check for the rolled skill, but temporary bonuses such as those granted by spell effects, other than crafter’s fortune, do not contribute...

[blackbloodtroll]

I was correct.

There are still ways to use Bluff for Dayjob rolls, through Vanities.

Now, I am trying to think of an example of something that would be a "game breaking" use of this ability, being used as written.

If someone has a specific example, please provide one, so I can better understand the upset.

[Anzyr]

The only "gamebreaking" thing is that lets Bards be even better skill masters then they already are with a very very low investment cost. I honestly think the only reason Rudy2 is upset by it is that it makes the Catfolk Bard FCB completely useless. Along with Bardic Knowledge in general. That isn't really a rule argument though.

[Rudy2]

My complaint was about overshadowing other players who make much greater investments into things like knowledge checks, not about breaking the game. With a secondary complaint about it being narratively stupid. I like players to make skill checks, though.

It's not an argument I'm going to rehash again, though. See the other 350 post thread, if you like. I've really devoted more than enough of my life to arguing about it.

[Rudy2]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I was correct.

There are still ways to use Bluff for Dayjob rolls, through Vanities.

Just a minor note that you wouldn't be able to get the +4 to bluff though, since that's a temporary bonus.

[blackbloodtroll]

Rudy2 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I was correct.

There are still ways to use Bluff for Dayjob rolls, through Vanities.

Just a minor note that you wouldn't be able to get the +4 to bluff though, since that's a temporary bonus.

Yes. I already stated the ability was not viable with Day Job rolls.

[Bigdaddyjug]

If a player invests a lot of resources into knowledge checks it's because he wants to make them when they come up. He's not going to be upset if there's another character that can help make sure that happens.

[Anzyr]

I for one welcome the skill master class overshadowing at other people at skills. All INT skills into 1 skill for the cost of a single FCB (if you are the right races) may be insanely convenient, but really the Bard should have been overshadowing people at skills anyway. Sure it makes Catfolk Bards favor class bonus and Bardic Knowledge in general seem weak, but hey it costs them a 2nd level spell, rather then being free. A small cost, but for a small cost one would hope it would be better then their free ability.

[Usagi Yojimbo]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I was correct.

There are still ways to use Bluff for Dayjob rolls, through Vanities.

Just a minor note that you wouldn't be able to get the +4 to bluff though, since that's a temporary bonus.

Yes. I already stated the ability was not viable with Day Job rolls.

Earlier:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls.

Although, I still don't see this as unusable with that check.

This is what has people confused. Perhaps you meant, "...don't see this as usable with..."?

[Usagi Yojimbo]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

If a player invests a lot of resources into knowledge checks it's because he wants to make them when they come up. He's not going to be upset if there's another character that can help make sure that happens.

That opinion speaks well of you, but I think you'll find that people can sometimes be unhappy if someone else solves all of the tasks that they thought they were needed for. :)

[Rudy2]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

He's not going to be upset if there's another character that can help make sure that happens.

I have experience with players that shows that this is not the case. Maybe you wouldn't feel that way, but that doesn't mean others don't (and they do).

I detail it in the other thread, if you care. The argument about what players should or should not feel (and what an odd thing to have opinions about. Other people and what they should feel?) is hashed out in detail there. Not going to repeat it here.

Careful, though; the thread makes blackbloodtroll ill, so it may be contagious. Who can say?

[blackbloodtroll]

Usagi Yojimbo wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I was correct.

There are still ways to use Bluff for Dayjob rolls, through Vanities.

Just a minor note that you wouldn't be able to get the +4 to bluff though, since that's a temporary bonus.

Yes. I already stated the ability was not viable with Day Job rolls.

Earlier:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Huh. Most PFS Judges I have met are actually happy to see players get high Day Job rolls.

Although, I still don't see this as unusable with that check.

This is what has people confused. Perhaps you meant, "...don't see this as usable with..."?

Whoops! I did type that wrong.

[Anzyr]

Rudy2 wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

He's not going to be upset if there's another character that can help make sure that happens.

I have experience with players that shows that this is not the case. Maybe you wouldn't feel that way, but that doesn't mean others don't (and they do).

I detail it in the other thread, if you care. The argument about what players should or should not feel (and what an odd thing to have opinions about. Other people and what they should feel?) is hashed out in detail there. Not going to repeat it here.

Careful, though; the thread makes blackbloodtroll ill, so it may be contagious. Who can say?

The player who complains that "throws are cheap" will never get better at the game. If that fact that there is someone who can make a character that does what their character does only better bothers them, they can always seek advice from more experienced players to improve their builds. Complaining about someone else having a better build though is the height of a badwrongfun attitude that should be stomped out as quickly as possible for the benefit of the game.