|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm sure everyone knows about this as it is the staple of a Bard.
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.
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.
Can "seem to be more than you are" be used as a RAI argument to prevent the use of Pageant RAW?
The GM intends to only give +4 to bluff to seem like I know what I'm talking about. If this is the case; What good would this masterpiece be as seeming to know for appraise, knowledge skills and spellcraft is utterly useless.
I know James Jacobs cleared this up before, but is there any official rulings on this; or would this follow the RAW?
As far as I know its effectively Perform dance becomes knowledge: all of it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is one of those rules that is better because it seems to have been designed as intentionally ambiguous. FWIW, I've GM'd for a half-dozen bards with Pageant of the Peacock now.
For decades, I've allowed players to improvise skill checks in place of others - without needing a feat/spell/masterpiece.
Often as a GM, you have great juicy story bits you want to get into the players' hands -- and sometimes there's a lack of Knowledge skills to utilize as your vehicle. That's one thing that makes Pageant a great ability to have at your table - as a delivery mechanism for story.
As a random example, imagine a Bard based on Al Franken with a high skill in Perform (comedy) whose background is that he performs political satire as his day job. Before this ability ever existed, I would've gladly allowed and encouraged use of Perform (comedy) in place of Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (nobility) for this character.
As another random example, I've allowed a certain local PFS character to use Profession (waffle chef) in place of dozens of checks when the roleplay made sense (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge Local, etc). I'd like to think that in every occurrence, it's made the table better and more enjoyable for every player in seeing the creative ways it's been applied.
Thus, I see Peacock as no different, and the flavor text is to not be ignored. This is one of those abilities that makes tabletop gaming special compared to CRPG gaming, and when the ability is used, I kind of expect (and enforce) it to be used in the context of its fluff.
Thus, when I GM a player with this ability, I don't allow it to be a drop-in replacement for every single Knowledge skill. For example, can you "peacock" while stunned? While gagged? I'd say that you couldn't, because your peacocking requires some degree of freedom to "strut" (and this is as RAW as being unable to execute a Dazzling Display while similarly bound). Thus, with two heroes bound on a conveyor belt trying to sort out the Knowledge (engineering) check for the death machine, the scholar has an advantage.
GMing this though, I wouldn't shut the "Peacocker" down. I'd let them both roll, potentially applying a circumstance penalty to the "Peacocker" that isn't applied to the scholar. If the scholar botches the roll, I may suddenly "forget to apply" the circumstance penalty in order to deliver the cinematic scene where the "Peacocker" wrestles free an arm or two, bobs their head Quagmire-style and comes up with how the death machine works to save the day.
Summarizing this, because the ability utilizes "Peacocking" as it's delivery vehicle, I believe GMs have the ability to assign circumstance bonuses or penalties depending on how things are being roleplayed (as they always do with any single skill check). And thus, as usual, it falls to a good GM to sense the dynamic of his table and adjudicate the ability so that it maximizes the fun of everyone (which means in some cases throwing a bone to a "Peacocker" and other times potentially applying a penalty to the "peacocking" and instead giving that bone to the scholarly wizard-type).
TLDR: I believe this is best run as a blend between all-powerful ever-present-bonus and encouraged-roleplay-to-get-the-full-bonus, with table variation depending on the GM requirements to deliver story and plot information to the players.
To a new player, I likely look like a GM ruling hard against the full use of this ability, but I'd like to think that instead becomes a challenge of "impress me with your peacocking tonight and the sky is the limit on the mileage you'll get from your character..."
That said, I wish every single table of 4-6 players had someone who attempted to use ad-hoc skills to achieve things, and by that virtue if someone needs an ability/spell/masterpiece to feel empowered to do so, I'm glad it's in the game to open those doors to encouraged creativity.
Your posture and motions might allow you to pass yourself off as a knowledgeable sage. However, they should not grant you the ability to actually recall historical information.
On the other hand, if it just let you bluff that you know things, then it didn't really give much of a bonus to begin with. Not that +4 to bluff isn't awful, but it is worse than glibness, and intellect based checks can be among the least valuable ones and hardest to put lots of points into. Bard also happens to benefit the least out of getting a lot of knowledge points because of the bardic knowledge class feature. Knowledge can also add the most to the game and let them understand what's going on, really get into the story, and add small tidbits that really make things great.
Devils advocate.
Your posture and motions might allow you to pass yourself off as a knowledgeable sage. However, they should not grant you the ability to actually recall historical information.On the other hand, if it just let you bluff that you know things, then it didn't really give much of a bonus to begin with. Not that +4 to bluff isn't awful, but it is worse than glibness, and intellect based checks can be among the least valuable ones and hardest to put lots of points into. Bard also happens to benefit the least out of getting a lot of knowledge points because of the bardic knowledge class feature. Knowledge can also add the most to the game and let them understand what's going on, really get into the story, and add small tidbits that really make things great.
Devils advocate.
It's a good devil's advocate. To angel's advocate, since you mention the bardic knowledge class feature, I'll point out that Pageant messes up the balance of the bard archetypes by making loremaster and bardic knowledge nearly useless, thus increasing the power of any archetypes that trade it out for something equally juicy that Pageant doesn't replace.
It's a good devil's advocate. To angel's advocate, since you mention the bardic knowledge class feature, I'll point out that Pageant messes up the balance of the bard archetypes by making loremaster and bardic knowledge nearly useless, thus increasing the power of any archetypes that trade it out for something equally juicy that Pageant doesn't replace.
I went through to try and add up the skill points I could really squeeze out of those, and most of them are really poor trades imo. I think sandman got the most of the trade off, but I don't like trading out inspire competence or courage personally. I think the one that enjoyed it most was Thundercaller, but thundercaller got some of the worst skill bonuses out of it too. Buccaneer got a good trade I think, but I think a pirate that sashays around might be more horrifying than anything, but maybe that's just me.
Thundercaller is also insanely powerful, so I assume the trade-down from BK and LM were intended to be part of the balance. Lotus Geisha is also a pretty strong trade--if those two abilities don't matter to you, Lotus Geisha hardly loses anything at all. Chelish Diva is in a similar boat to Thundercaller, what with its no-save frightened performance.
|
I just observed a PFS game that got pretty silly with Pageant of the Peacock (PotP). In this case it was stylistically done and added to the the fun. With a different party composition, though, it could have been awful. This was the 3rd time I've encountered this ability in play, but the first time I thought about it seriously. Thanks to Blue.
This particular group didn't have anyone who had invested much in knowledge skills. The party Bard had PotP and bluff at around 28. With an effective +28 Knowledge(Everything), this bard, "knows everything about everything". In the event I witnessed it was a fine addition to the fun.
It would have been grossly unfair, and a bit yucky, if there been a PC who had fairly invested lots of real skill points in knowledge skills. The scholar PC would be completely overshadowed. It's one thing to project the social illusion of knowing "everything about everything", something else entirely to actually be able to pull up weird bits of esoteric lore.
For example, two PCs are each challenged to quickly build a makeshift bridge with conveniently available materials. Each bridge will be tested to destruction to see how much weight it supports. The non-bard knows Knowledge (Engineering) at +20. The Bard has Pageant of the Peackock, Bluff skill at +40, and enough rounds of bard song to build the makeshift bridge. The Bard should have no trouble convincing any judges that the Bard's bridge is superior, or in winning any sort of contest involving a social element. However, the real engineer's bridge should support more weight than the bard's Pageant of the Peacock bridge before it collapses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm too sexy for your physics....
However, the real engineer's bridge should support more weight than the bard's Pageant of the Peacock bridge before it collapses.
The wizard builds a magical super bridge in a day and didn't ask anyone. Magic is a jerk like that.
I'm too sexy for your physics....
Easily my favorite explanation for this sort of thing.
I'm too sexy for your physics....
Getting dangerously close to real life there-----
Would you feel the same way about the Lore Oracle ability Focused Trance. With 1 rank in each knowledge skill that pretty much means auto passing any required knowledge check ever if you have 1d6 rounds to think. Sure you wont use it for monster ID in combat but for everything else it isn't an issue.It would have been grossly unfair, and a bit yucky, if there been a PC who had fairly invested lots of real skill points in knowledge skills. The scholar PC would be completely overshadowed. It's one thing to project the social illusion of knowing "everything about everything", something else entirely to actually be able to pull up weird bits of esoteric lore.
Lore Oracle has it Cha modifier times per day for one Knowledge (not Spellcraft or Appraise) check and takes 1d6 rounds on it, so no monster ID. That's more comparable to the bard's Loremaster ability to Take 20. Pageant lets you use 1 round of performance to affect all Int-based skills for 10 minutes without increasing the action cost, and it also gives +4 to Bluff, Disguise, and all those Int skills too since you do them with Bluff. The Lore Oracle also has to spend a revelation on it, whereas a bard of the appropriate race can pick up pageant at level 6 as a favored class bonus.
It's been discussed to death in the PFS section of the forum.
For my purposes, I'll GM it RAI - it's a bluff, and the knowledge isn't real (but listeners think so).
Expect considerable table variation, and bring supporting documentation.
Fair enough... I'm willing to admit it just bugs me! :P
It is amusing to consider that as soon as you grapple or hold the bard, he ceases to know anything.
I can imagine his school days: "Will you sit still?" "I can't! I'm thinking!"
Hey guys, there are already two threads on this in this forum, another in PFS, another in PFS GM, possibly another in advice.
Can we keep it there?
Free-availability of kitsune in PFS post August 14th is going to make this the issue du jour, I'm afraid.
Couple that with a tendency of people not to do forum searches before starting topics, and there's an inevitable algal bloom of "PotP" threads.
It's hopeless!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin: "Man, I only get two skill points per level, and that's if I don't drop my INT even by one! I guess I could use my favored class bonus, but I need that extra HP..."
Sorcerer: "I hear you man. I'm not much better off, really. Guess I'm not quite as MAD as you are, though. What are you putting ranks in, anyway?"
Paladin: "I don't know. Do you want to 'face'? I guess I can skip Diplomacy if you would."
Sorcerer: "You kidding me? I'm going to have to have Spellcraft and UMD. Somewhere down the line I'm going to need to learn to Fly! I mean are we going to have downtime? You want Craft-ed items?"
Paladin: "Yeah, but there's Heal and Ride. If I'm Ride-ing I need Handle Animal. Sense Motive, of course."
Sorcerer: "Okay, okay. You take Diplomacy and I'll do Intimidate. We'll 'Good Cop - Bad Cop' it. Then you get one more skill and I'll get one more. Sucks. I guess there's no chance we'll be Knowledge-ing anything until level two. Hope there's no Religion or Arcane stuff we need to know about..."
Bard: "Guys, relax... I got this."
Seriously... why is this an issue? Who is not happy to be taking all of this off of everyone's plate so they can play what they want, rather than one more thing "the game" mandates!?!?
Couple that with a tendency of people not to do forum searches before starting topics, and there's an inevitable algal bloom of "PotP" threads.
Except that he ressurected a 6 month old thread to make this comment. So I'm not even sure how he found the thread in the first place without either 1. doing a topical search and finding all the OTHER threads on this or 2. reading the PFS GM mega-thread on this, which links to this thread fairly early on. In which case, why didn't he post there?
Oy!