Pageant of the Peacock


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

This is why RAW can be so goofy at times. If the writer of the feat/spell/etc isn't very careful with wording then they might unintentionally hand players something far stronger or weaker than they intended.

Effect Text wrote:

(1)By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. (2)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.

(3)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).

Sentence 2 doesn't state that the Intelligence-based skill check has to be done within the context of convincing someone of your nobility or whatever. This means that in a straight-forward RAW interpretation, you can take a standard action to get a +4 bonus to Bluff, and then substitute a Bluff roll for an INT check or INT-skill check regardless of circumstance, even though Sentence 3 puts a similar bonus to Disguise under limited conditions.

Personally, I think sentences (1) and (2) should have been written to make the limitation more explicit.

Errata Idea for Sentences 1 and 2 wrote:
For the duration of the effect, you may attempt a Bluff check, with a +4 circumstance bonus, in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.


I think your Errata proposal makes it a bit too weak, honestly. There's no need to limit the +4 bonus to Bluff (I don't think even the author intended to limit that). I would say, instead:

"For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt Bluff checks in place of Intelligence checks or Intelligence-based skill checks made to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:

I would say, instead:

"For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt Bluff checks in place of Intelligence checks or Intelligence-based skill checks made to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement."

That would be pointless. In effect it becomes:

"For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks."

You could just use the bluff skill anyway to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. The extra words in no way enhance the bluff skill as it is.

I would not spend a feat or a 2nd level spell slot just to gain a +4 temporary bonus to bluff that burns a use of your limited number of rounds of Bard Performance per day.


Talking fixes, just tack "during social interaction" or something similar. No longer breaks monster knowledge checks, still has the aspect of letting you bluff your way through any knowledge check or int check while not knowing anything(letting you negate bluff penalties). Can't use bluff to know an items value, or determine what spell is being cast. Basically, you convince someone who knows something for a fact that you are right when you are bluffing.

i.e.

Random Noble Guy: Ahh, have you met my brother the Duke?
(instead of knowledge check to actual know who the brother is, you can bluff. Normally you would get a -20 penalty for making up a random name)

Success situation would go something like this
Bard Guy: Ahh yes, the Duke of Overthere, he and I are quite close
Random Noble Guy: Oh, what a clever nickname
Bard Guy: Indeed, good chap.

or

Bard Guy walks upto ancient tablet with archaic language
Bard Guy: Ahh how interesting, a recipe for dragon soup
Expert Dude: No no, we know some of these symbols, it refers to a Generic Ancient Artifact O' Doom.
Bluff instead of linquistics with no penalties
Bard Guy: I am quite sure that its for dragon soup. See here, this symbol, definitely soup. I am a very distinguished scholar, studied at Super Great University, haven't you heard of it, I am quite sure of myself.
Expert Dude: Uh, maybe, I guess.
Bard Guy: Let me take that off your hands, good chap. Ill take it to where it belongs.
Expert Dude: Thats ok, maybe, sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say both of those fall under normal bluff rules, if your good at it you don't have to say a full title or name or translate, as was mentioned earlier experts are fooled about their own fields of study in real life all the time. And the effect you describe doesn't seem on par with a 2nd level spell to me. But it does match the first sentence of POTP much better than the all encompassing interpretation does.


Bluff works normally, but you would receive massive penalties for impossible lies. The way I see the ability working is that you could convince someone the sky wasn't blue but instead neon pink at no penalty. Or respond to specific questions that the asker knows with utter gibberish and convince them you are right at no penalty. Negating all bluff penalties based on Int-based skills or knowledge is a pretty powerful effect in non-combat settings.


Calth wrote:
Bluff works normally, but you would receive massive penalties for impossible lies. The way I see the ability working is that you could convince someone the sky wasn't blue but instead neon pink at no penalty. Or respond to specific questions that the asker knows with utter gibberish and convince them you are right at no penalty. Negating all bluff penalties based on Int-based skills or knowledge is a pretty powerful effect in non-combat settings.

I see what you are trying to say but at the same time I would say that your interpretation of what benefit it grants is highly situational with a huge cost that I think almost nobody would take.


EricMcG wrote:

If they had ended the sentence at "+4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks.", then it would have been a useful ability (know any other feat that gives +4 on a skill?)

Plenty.

Most of said Feats give +4 on TWO skills, in fact.


Rynjin wrote:
EricMcG wrote:

If they had ended the sentence at "+4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks.", then it would have been a useful ability (know any other feat that gives +4 on a skill?)

Plenty.

Most of said Feats give +4 on TWO skills, in fact.

And those feats are always on instead of requiring resources to be spent on them AND the single skill version starts out at +3 and bumps to +6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
c873788 wrote:
I see what you are trying to say but at the same time I would say that your interpretation of what benefit it grants is highly situational with a huge cost that I think almost nobody would take.

Here's an awesome example.

A flat +4 circumstance bonus to bluff AND a +4 bonus to certain types of disguise AND the ability to use bluff for int checks in limited situations is not super powerful, no. It's not a piece of junk either, though. It works for certain character builds.

You say "almost nobody would take". Most feats and abilities are taken by very few people. Just because a feat is no longer "You have to take this, it's awesome" does not mean it's horrible, it means it works for a subset of builds, instead of all of them. That's a good thing; it means more variety among builds.


Rudy2 wrote:
Here's an awesome example

It is an awesome example. And it is also an example of picking a class ability with a steep cost that will probably only ever be used once in the character's entire career.

It's a piece of junk because of the cost and because it is highly situational. In fact, it's entirely plausible that a character could go through an entire adventure path and find that he never has the opportunity to use it.


Indeed, I don't think their intention was a feat for a temporary, situational +4 to a single skill that required you spend resources on it.

That's not "good for some builds." That's good for nothing. Most temporary bonuses provided by spell like features or such start at +10 to +20, are generally pretty long lasting, and magic bonuses tend to be non-situational.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a few derailing posts. Let's also dial back the grar here please.


I was recently asked about this by one of my own players. I read the description provided for Pageant of the Peacock, and promptly advised that the use of Bluff for Knowledge implicitly means his Bard PC would be making stuff up and persuading other people he knew what he was on about. And that he should be fully aware that relying on anything I told him after a use of Bluff in place of Knowledge would be... unwise.

Golarion appears to run on slightly different rules than reality, but it does NOT run on rules that different. Suspension of disbelief is ruined when any Bard can potentially know anything with simple performance. From my perspective, the 'this does allow Bluff to provide real Knowledge' interpretation is being pursued by people who want it to be true, without any apparent consideration for the consequences.

The major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.

Shadow Lodge

Grigori already knows all about your and your party's dirty laundry...


King.Ozymandius wrote:

I was recently asked about this by one of my own players. I read the description provided for Pageant of the Peacock, and promptly advised that the use of Bluff for Knowledge implicitly means his Bard PC would be making stuff up and persuading other people he knew what he was on about. And that he should be fully aware that relying on anything I told him after a use of Bluff in place of Knowledge would be... unwise.

Golarion appears to run on slightly different rules than reality, but it does NOT run on rules that different. Suspension of disbelief is ruined when any Bard can potentially know anything with simple performance. From my perspective, the 'this does allow Bluff to provide real Knowledge' interpretation is being pursued by people who want it to be true, without any apparent consideration for the consequences.

The major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.

Actually it seems more like you want it not to be true than anything else. The consequences of it do not change the RAW. This is the rules forums, not the general discussion or homebrew. It doesn't matter if the consequences are not ones we like, we still stick to the RAW.

As per RAW, there is no limiter in using bluff in place of knowledge, and what it gives you in return is just ambiguous enough for us to argue about it.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Actually it seems more like you want it not to be true than anything else. The consequences of it do not change the RAW. This is the rules forums, not the general discussion or homebrew. It doesn't matter if the consequences are not ones we like, we still stick to the RAW.

As per RAW, there is no limiter in using bluff in place of knowledge, and what it gives you in return is just ambiguous enough for us to argue about it.

Oh. My apologies, I thought I was in a different forum. If this is the forum where people are obsessed with arguments about RAW, then by all means, please proceed..!


King.Ozymandius wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Actually it seems more like you want it not to be true than anything else. The consequences of it do not change the RAW. This is the rules forums, not the general discussion or homebrew. It doesn't matter if the consequences are not ones we like, we still stick to the RAW.

As per RAW, there is no limiter in using bluff in place of knowledge, and what it gives you in return is just ambiguous enough for us to argue about it.

Oh. My apologies, I thought I was in a different forum. If this is the forum where people are obsessed with arguments about RAW, then by all means, please proceed..!

You mean the rules forum? Yeah, this is it. You may not like the RAW, and can houserule against it, but your houserule is not an arguement. Presentation is important. You can present something as what you feel is RAI and how to adjust the RAW to match the RAI, but just saying ignore RAW is not the purpose of this forum.


King.Ozymandius wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Actually it seems more like you want it not to be true than anything else. The consequences of it do not change the RAW. This is the rules forums, not the general discussion or homebrew. It doesn't matter if the consequences are not ones we like, we still stick to the RAW.

As per RAW, there is no limiter in using bluff in place of knowledge, and what it gives you in return is just ambiguous enough for us to argue about it.

Oh. My apologies, I thought I was in a different forum. If this is the forum where people are obsessed with arguments about RAW, then by all means, please proceed..!

Actually, you sound to be sarcastic, but funny enough this is that forum :P


Sarcasm wasn't actually my intent. :) I went searching for advice on how to handle the Pageant of the Peacock in an actual game, as I wasn't particularly happy with it or my handling of it, and this was the first forum thread I came across about it. I don't really have anything to say about RAW. So yes, totally the wrong forum! :)


King.Ozymandius wrote:
Sarcasm wasn't actually my intent. :) I went searching for advice on how to handle the Pageant of the Peacock in an actual game, as I wasn't particularly happy with it or my handling of it, and this was the first forum thread I came across about it. I don't really have anything to say about RAW. So yes, totally the wrong forum! :)

No problem, your ruling is pretty close to what I see as the RAI, but that is what a large part of this discussion is about. One of the functions of the rules forum is for players who believe they understand the rules well to try and come to a consensus on when there appears to be a strong conflict between RAW and RAI, or when RAW is unclear. So like I said, it is a matter of presentation. If you had asked if your ruling was correct, the response probably would be quite different. If you know the RAW is unclear, and want suggestions on how to handle it, advice and the homebrew forums are better choices.


Calth wrote:
No problem, your ruling is pretty close to what I see as the RAI, but that is what a large part of this discussion is about. One of the functions of the rules forum is for players who believe they understand the rules well to try and come to a consensus on when there appears to be a strong conflict between RAW and RAI, or when RAW is unclear. So like I said, it is a matter of presentation. If you had asked if your ruling was correct, the response probably would be quite different. If you know the RAW is unclear, and want suggestions on how to handle it, advice and the homebrew forums are better choices.

Yep, I have reposted my original post as a new thread in the Advice subforum, with some edits and a bit of clarification to try and avoid the appearance of sarcasm. Turns out I had no idea about the subforums, have rarely used the forums at all, and now I can't delete my original post from this one. Thanks all!


King.Ozymandius wrote:
Sarcasm wasn't actually my intent. :) I went searching for advice on how to handle the Pageant of the Peacock in an actual game, as I wasn't particularly happy with it or my handling of it, and this was the first forum thread I came across about it. I don't really have anything to say about RAW. So yes, totally the wrong forum! :)

Consider it this way: Why does anyone need to use a specialized magical ability just to use the Bluff skill as written? Because that's essentially what you are saying is the case if you rule it as "yeah you're just making stuff up and not getting real information."

I can see why people don't like the ability as its powerful but for miniscule cost. If you wanted to house rule it fairly and not make it worthless I'd try adding an additional cost. "While Pageant of the Peacock is active you get +4 to bluff and disguise to appear to be of higher station and you may spend 3 rounds of bardic performance as standard action to make an intelligence check or intelligence based skill check using your bluff skill."


chaoseffect wrote:
King.Ozymandius wrote:
Sarcasm wasn't actually my intent. :) I went searching for advice on how to handle the Pageant of the Peacock in an actual game, as I wasn't particularly happy with it or my handling of it, and this was the first forum thread I came across about it. I don't really have anything to say about RAW. So yes, totally the wrong forum! :)

Consider it this way: Why does anyone need to use a specialized magical ability just to use the Bluff skill as written? Because that's essentially what you are saying is the case if you rule it as "yeah you're just making stuff up and not getting real information."

I can see why people don't like the ability as its powerful but for miniscule cost. If you wanted to house rule it fairly and not make it worthless I'd try adding an additional cost. "While Pageant of the Peacock is active you get +4 to bluff and disguise to appear to be of higher station and you may spend 3 rounds of bardic performance as standard action to make an intelligence check or intelligence based skill check using your bluff skill."

That is exactly why I came online to seek advice, because my ruling causes issues too, exactly as you describe. There doesn't seem to be a good way to resolve it, without a houserule like increasing the cost. I'm more conversant with the rules than most of my players, as I have to be, but this one has me thoroughly stumped..!

To be clear, I don't really want to houserule anything, as that destroys the common understanding of the descriptive ruleset and causes another set of headaches when I'm GMing with one understanding of the rules and a player is playing with another understanding of the rules. But I don't see that I have any choice for this particular masterwork performance, at least until there is official errata for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
King.Ozymandius wrote:

I was recently asked about this by one of my own players. I read the description provided for Pageant of the Peacock, and promptly advised that the use of Bluff for Knowledge implicitly means his Bard PC would be making stuff up and persuading other people he knew what he was on about. And that he should be fully aware that relying on anything I told him after a use of Bluff in place of Knowledge would be... unwise.

Golarion appears to run on slightly different rules than reality, but it does NOT run on rules that different. Suspension of disbelief is ruined when any Bard can potentially know anything with simple performance. From my perspective, the 'this does allow Bluff to provide real Knowledge' interpretation is being pursued by people who want it to be true, without any apparent consideration for the consequences.

The major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.

I really don't think this is as bad as people say, if someone actually rolled something ridiculous like, say, an 83, what more do they know than if they had rolled a 20 or 25? I thought it was perfectly within the rules to establish how much information is actually available on a topic. And can't bards already substitute one skill for another with versatile performance, no one claims they are coming up with false results when they do that. This one ability is a small sacrifice to boost up a core aspect of what the bard brings to the table. If you want to hit big you need power attack, if you want to be the know it all bard you need POTP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Welp. I talked to the creator of the rule -- and was surprised!

It's pretty much as written. It's like the Augury spell. I don't know why this offends people so much...but the Bard uses magic to get into character or to tap into their magical cloud of knowledge -- this gives them one INT check or INT-Based Skill Check, and ten minutes of Bluff per Bardic Performance Rounds Used. So, yeah, the Bard, who already is designed to be a know-it-all, magically has a superior knowledge for one check per daily rounds of Bardic Performance used for that purpose.

I, as a GM, find this an acceptable trade off for a feat or spell known. It's powerful, but it's magic, and it's in character for Bards. Bards are supposed to know things, even better and wider than a Wizard or a Cleric, or even a Ranger. If a player deciding to play something other than Bard invests all their skill into, say, Knowledge Arcana, and the Bard comes up with a magical muse that whispers a piece of info outside of the realm of normal Arcanist knowledge once or twice, that's actually "in keeping with the spirit of the class", and the Wizard can be awestruck for a moment that the Bard stumbled across this knowledge that was supposed to be forbidden or lost.

In PFS, at the table - I run it like this:

1 round of Bardic Performance, and a Standard Action, gets you:
A (SINGULAR) Bluff check in place of an Intelligence Check OR an Intelligence-Based Skill Check. And ten minutes of +4 to Bluff Checks, and +4 to Disguise Checks based on pretending to be of a higher station.

Requirements of Bardic Performance also apply, since you must perform this Masterpiece...

So, it's not overpowered at my table.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dan Houser wrote:
Welp. I talked to the creator of the rule

Who would that be? And was it here on the messageboards, where we can go look?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Owen Stephens. And it was a PM on Facebook -- full disclosure; I'm doing artwork for an upcoming book of his, and decided to use my professional and friendly ties with him to ask him directly what he thought.

Here's the transcript - (Pardon the expletives)

Me: You're probably not awake yet -- but I had a quick question about something Paizo related.

Pageant of the Peacock is intended to be a 'Pretend to know everything and pass yourself off as special' thing rather than a 'Magic tells me everything thing' right?

You intended it to be an impervious to Sense Motive Bluff for folks who want to pretend to be royal types. If I'm off, I'd like to make sure I'm corrected.

Owen: While it obviously is a "take on the appearance of something greater" effect, it's worth noting that " Unless otherwise stated, a masterpiece’s effects are supernatural." and " Masterpieces should generally be no more powerful than a cleric or sorcerer/wizard spell available to a caster of the same level as the minimum level needed to select the masterpiece".

So I'd argue that absed on the wording of that ability, magic DOES feed you information, you just access it by pretending to be that smart.

It's actually a little like the terrible movie "Master of Disguise".

Me: Neat. But Bluff is an opposed skill check, so the replacement here is a flat vs. DC check for an opposed check - so unless the check has an opponent it doesn't fire off? Like - A wizard's duel -- they rattle off facts about spells -- the Bard bullsh**ing, and the Wizard pontificating, but ultimately the Bard baffles 'em with bulls**t.

However, Same wizard decides to cast explosive runes on a door after that, the bard cannot use his dancing and performance to know what the hell he's looking at, right?

Owen: Yes, he can. Anytime he would be able to make a Int check or Int based skill check, he may instead use his Bluff bonus. It's like the Versatile Performance bard class feature.

The Bard channels the mystic Power of Bullshi**ng, but does it so well what he spouts is actually accurate.

Me: Awesome. Okay, then. Settles it for me. If that was the intent of the framer of the rule, then that is how I shall rule at the table. Lucky PCs. :D

And for the record, it only gives you one per use at the cost of a Standard Action, so not OP in my opinion, just wondering about versatility of it versus Versatile Performance. Cool one burst utility Masterpiece, sir.

Owen: After all the bard must sacrifice either a **feat** or a 2nd level spell known, and has to activate the power as a standard action, and is then burning a round of bardic performance for every 10 minutes of use. That's a big cost if the payoff isn't fairly significant.

Me: Absolutely - So:

1 Round of Daily Bardic Performance and a Standard Action gets the Bard - One Intelligence Check or One Intelligence Based Skill Check with their Bluff instead of Int, and Ten Minutes of Bluff +4 to Disguise and Lying Checks, correct?

Owen: Hmmm. I'd have said you could use Bluff for any Int check during that duration, but it could be read as only one. I can't answer that one.

Consider that the power should be about as useful as the Augury spell.

Me: I'll say one per round spent. That's as written, and plain. You're too generous, sir.

Anyway, that'd be MY table variation.

Owen: A defensible interpretation. I am so uncaffeinated.:P

And there you have it.
Reprinted with Owen's permission.

Edit: changed the word Spell for Feat per uncaffeinated Owen's intent. :)


I still don't like the ability, and won't allow it in home games, but I've made peace with the fact that, if limited to one check per use, it is powerful, but not ridiculously unbalanced.


I hear you - I was startled by it's apparent OP nature. My buddy plays this and is one of 'those' players. He plays in character, of course, but his middle name should be dump-stat, if you get my drift. Also, he's a fan of broken mechanics like Zen Archer, etc. -- so when he brought this up, my radar went off.

So, while I was startled for a moment, I actually sat down and read the rule and figured, hey -- it's pretty reasonable for a magical effect that mirrors two other magical effects for combat and skills (Augury and True Strike) - so why not let them use Bardic Performance to have a different kind of utility -- it's finite, so -- hooray! :D


@Dan Houser
Thanks for asking, and for including the complete transcript! Really appreciate it. :)

@Owen Stephens
Thanks for answering, and for letting Dan use the complete transcript! Also thanks for designing Pageant of the Peacock, it is easily one of my favorite masterpieces. :)


No problem. Gotta earn that one-star PFS GM status, somehow. :D

Silver Crusade

At my tables, you get 10 minutes of Bluff for Int checks. It's extremely rare that making a knowledge, spellcraft, or other Int check that someone else failed, is going to make anybody mad. What I will do is start with the lowest results first and give out their information before moving onto the highest result. That way everybody will feel like they contributed.

Grand Lodge

Wow. So the createre really *did* think it was supposed to be 10 minutes of every knowledge stat ever....? yeesh.

Yeah, I am fine with it if it one Int check per performance.


Dan Houser wrote:

It's powerful, but it's magic

Of course.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thanks, Dan. I hope the people see it who need to.

Liberty's Edge

Dan Houser wrote:

Owen: After all the bard must sacrifice either a **feat** or a 2nd level spell known, and has to activate the power as a standard action, and is then burning a round of bardic performance for every 10 minutes of use. That's a big cost if the payoff isn't fairly significant.

Me: Absolutely - So:

1 Round of Daily Bardic Performance and a Standard Action gets the Bard - One Intelligence Check or One Intelligence Based Skill Check with their Bluff instead of Int, and Ten Minutes of Bluff +4 to Disguise and Lying Checks, correct?

Owen: Hmmm. I'd have said you could use Bluff for any Int check during that duration, but it could be read as only one. I can't answer that one.

Owen is really mistaken if he think that it has a high cost. At worst it is 1/2 feat, and only for a bard that don't get to use his preferred class bonus to get extra spell.

Expanded arcana at level 7+ and you get 2 second level spells.
Sure, he play with 1 less second level spell for a few levels, but that is simply a form of delayed access. Hardly a "high cost".
Human, half elf, half orc? The cost is 1 preferred class point. Essentially the equivalent of 1 skill point.
1 skill point to increase 13 intelligence based skill every time you increase bluff? The horror, that cost will break me.

The bard being limited to only 1 intelligence skill check is your interpretation, one that is not shared by the majority of the people.

Even discounting that, you compare Pageant to Augury. They are profoundly different and the pageant is stronger.

Silver Crusade

It also has the cost of a round of bardic performance every time you use it.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
It also has the cost of a round of bardic performance every time you use it.

Thats like steroids costing a buck 50. Its not a signifigant limitation to its use.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
It also has the cost of a round of bardic performance every time you use it.
Thats like steroids costing a buck 50. Its not a signifigant limitation to its use.

No, it's not.

But, I do think the limitation of one skill check per use is significant.

The ability is constrained when it comes to monster identification. If you don't know the combat is coming, first of all, you're spending a standard action to start the ability, that you could be doing something else, if you want to identify anything. Even if you do know it's coming, and have the ability active, you're only going to identify one thing if you're fighting multiple types of monsters, or identify one spell effect, per combat.

It isn't a significant limitation on out of combat knowledge checks, but it's something, and it means that other knowledge gurus can still shine on identification.

It also means that if there are a bunch of potions, or whatnot, the Bard can't identify the lot of them via Spellcraft without burning through a lot of rounds, which can start to add up at that point.

As said, I still wouldn't allow it in my games, but it is something.

Grand Lodge

well, it depends.

one round per replaced skill check isn't too bad.

one round for ten minutes of skill checks is silly.

Grand Lodge

I think this is now unavailable for PFS.

Grand Lodge

yup.

650 post thread about it convinced the PFS leadership that it was easier to ban than to fix. Which leaves me a little sad. I would rather they had run the fix than the ban.

Liberty's Edge

FLite wrote:

yup.

650 post thread about it convinced the PFS leadership that it was easier to ban than to fix. Which leaves me a little sad. I would rather they had run the fix than the ban.

PFS leadership will rarely (never) issue errata to a rule to balance things; it's vastly easier to just prevent players from accessing it. They don't want there to be two sets (PFS Errata and Official PRD) of rules.

Grand Lodge

So, now, how does this change anyone's opinion?

Are there less tears of blood, and soiled undergarments?

Silver Crusade

Rudy2 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
It also has the cost of a round of bardic performance every time you use it.
Thats like steroids costing a buck 50. Its not a signifigant limitation to its use.

No, it's not.

But, I do think the limitation of one skill check per use is significant.

The ability is constrained when it comes to monster identification. If you don't know the combat is coming, first of all, you're spending a standard action to start the ability, that you could be doing something else, if you want to identify anything. Even if you do know it's coming, and have the ability active, you're only going to identify one thing if you're fighting multiple types of monsters, or identify one spell effect, per combat.

It isn't a significant limitation on out of combat knowledge checks, but it's something, and it means that other knowledge gurus can still shine on identification.

It also means that if there are a bunch of potions, or whatnot, the Bard can't identify the lot of them via Spellcraft without burning through a lot of rounds, which can start to add up at that point.

As said, I still wouldn't allow it in my games, but it is something.

Now I expect to see those GM stars start showing up for you rudy2. Seems like you have no more excuses to not GM.

Grand Lodge

Until the next Crane Wing, Pageant of the Peacock, etc.

;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Until the next Crane Wing, Pageant of the Peacock, etc.

;)

NOW the pattern is clear!

Paizo hates birds!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, that means Broken Wing Gambit, and Wings of the Androsphinx are next.

Expect a Tengu ban as well.

201 to 250 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.