Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock


GM Discussion

551 to 600 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court 5/5

TOZ wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That you are a horrible PC-killing monster?
Wait, we needed a 500 post thread for that? I could have told you that years ago.

Needed? No.

Now the wanting on the other hand...

I always find the non-mythic TOZ wanting.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Mark Stratton wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

I am disappointed by your lack of tear collection. I expect to be repaid this debt at Gen Con with the tears of 100 virgin* players.

*new to the game, not that other thing.

5/5

nosig wrote:
just wondering... do you always "take 10" on skill checks? I do. Every time I can - every time. I'm kind of known for it. ("got the T-Shirt"). Just my way of removing the roll play from my play...

This is why I've started including language about PCs feeling threatened all the time and forcing them to not be able to take 10.

Spoiler:
"the threat of an angry Care Baird prevents you from easily acquiring information"

4/5 5/55/55/5 ****

Kyle Baird wrote:
nosig wrote:
just wondering... do you always "take 10" on skill checks? I do. Every time I can - every time. I'm kind of known for it. ("got the T-Shirt"). Just my way of removing the roll play from my play...

This is why I've started including language about PCs feeling threatened all the time and forcing them to not be able to take 10.

[spoiler]"the threat of an angry Care Baird prevents you from easily acquiring information"

I think that is more the players feeling threatened by you as opposed to the PCs, but I'm so threatened by the Care Baird I dare not argue the point.

5/5

Blazej wrote:
I'm so threatened by the Care Baird I dare not argue the point.

He's really a big softy.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kolossal Ego wrote:
I always find the non-mythic TOZ wanting.

The Care Baird has yet to kill either. Even James Jacobs has at least managed that!

5/5

Jason Hanlon wrote:

Wait wait wait... so if you've changed your opinion, what have you changed it to?

In the wake of this new information, what do you believe the masterpiece does?

EDIT: If anyone replies to this with "It does what it says it does" I will give up on this thread entirely. :P

JASON

IT DOES WHAT IT SAYS IT DOES.

WAKEDOWN

WHY IS THIS EVEN UP FOR DEBATE. IT ALLOWS BILLY TO MAKE KNOWLEDGE CHECKS THAT AID THE PLEBEIANS WHO CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES. HOW DOES THIS BREAK YOUR LITTLE UNIVERSE? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE THAT SO MANY SEEM TO BE HAVING. IT IS NOT SOMEONE DANCING AND GIVING SEVEN PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO MOVE UNHINDERED BY SIMPLY WITNESSING THE MIRACLE OF BILLY IDOL IN MOTION.

SOMEONE SUCH AS A GOD CANNOT IMAGINE A UNIVERSE WHERE A LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE GREATER WEAVE AND HEFT OF THE FABRIC OF REALITY WOULD CAUSE SUCH A WRINKLE IN THAT CLOTH.


Actually, Wakedown was of the opinion that it didn't make real knowledge checks.

Shadow Lodge

Hold on, it's August and we met Friday's stretch goal.

Coin Flip: 1d2 ⇒ 1

Looks like real knowledge* this month. We'll roll again next month.

(Notice, I didn't say real good knowledge)

I always feel warmer when I hear the raspy voice of Baba Yaga. She completes me.


What we need now is a module wherein the BBEG has an optimized bluff score and uses this ability to uncover all the secrets of the Pathfinder Society by lying about them.

It's up to YOU to stop him.

Shadow Lodge

DAMMIT! How do I stop him from Peacocking us to death!?

Can I bind him?

Is there anything in the rules that says if that will stop his powers? If he can't dance, he can't peacock, right??!?

Wait, what are the rules for binding someone? Are those like tying up? HELP ME!!


It's no good. Bound in chains, yet he tilts his head in a haughty manner, stares into your eyes, and lies his way into your darkest secrets.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Actually, he informs you that he is the decemvirate in disguise. He proves it by telling you each things about yourself, only the decemvirate would know, and tells you that for the sake of the society, you must return and kill the doppelganger who replaced one of the VCs and sent you on this task.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

And then you kill him. And by killing one of the decemvirate, you make yourself an enemy of the society too. ( it turns out the doppleganger VC was the one with PotP

5/5

THIS IS DEVOLVING INTO A FARCE OF A CONVERSATION. NO ONE IS CONTRIBUTING IN ANY MEANINGFUL MANNER ANYMORE. LET IT DIE. YESSSSSS

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nosig wrote:

Sorry - your post hit a hot button for me. It is just that it looks like you are treating CHA based skill checks different from other skill checks, something many judges do (and that kind of leads to the story above).

you stated "I always ask players to describe what they're doing. " and I assumed you ment I always ask players to describe what they're doing in social situations. or something like that...

So this causes me to wonder if you would ask for a description of actions taken in:
Attack rolls
DEX based skill checks (Or any skill other than a CHA skill)
Spell Casting
or anything OTHER than CHA based skill checks...

That's the root of my question.

Social interaction skills (as opposed to your blanket Cha based skill description) need special handling. They're not simple skill checks, nor are they attack rolls in combat. I have seen players who expect diplomacy to be handled with NOTHING save d20 rolls. that won't fly with me.

The Exchange 5/5

FLite wrote:
nosig wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
Yes, I do, actually.

Welcome to the club! Want a T-shirt? (serious question - I actually have T-shirts made up with the Take 10 rules on them, though I've been told not to wear them when I am a player anymore, just as a judge). What size are you?

edit: some of my old T-10 threads

Why-cant-we-take-10-on-1-day-job-roll..

Can-I-Shirt-Reroll-a-take-10-check.

Taking 10 and taking 20.

Take-10-again.

Yes, but where is the link where I can buy the Tee (10) shirt?

sorry - not for sell.

:-)

very unique.

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:

@DrakeRoberts

The thing that especially doesn't make sense about not letting you take 10 when looking for traps is how time consuming (real time, I mean) it is. I mean, if a player says to you (as I always do):

"Okay, GM, I'm just going to be taking 10 to look for traps as we traverse through the dungeon, so for each square my result is X,"

are you going to be like "ok", or are you going to have them actually roll the dice for every single square as they go through. Tediousness at its greatest.

sign....

Perception does not require you to check "every single square" to locate traps (or anything else for that matter). It hasn't sense 3.5 rules....

some judges just haven't yet made the transition from Search/Spot rules (3.5) to Perception rules.

ah... or was that sarcasm? and I just missed it?

The Exchange 5/5

LazarX wrote:
nosig wrote:

Sorry - your post hit a hot button for me. It is just that it looks like you are treating CHA based skill checks different from other skill checks, something many judges do (and that kind of leads to the story above).

you stated "I always ask players to describe what they're doing. " and I assumed you ment I always ask players to describe what they're doing in social situations. or something like that...

So this causes me to wonder if you would ask for a description of actions taken in:
Attack rolls
DEX based skill checks (Or any skill other than a CHA skill)
Spell Casting
or anything OTHER than CHA based skill checks...

That's the root of my question.

Social interaction skills (as opposed to your blanket Cha based skill description) need special handling. They're not simple skill checks, nor are they attack rolls in combat. I have seen players who expect diplomacy to be handled with NOTHING save d20 rolls. that won't fly with me.

this horse has been beat to death on many other threads.... and I'm not even going to reply to it here.


nosig wrote:

sign....

Perception does not require you to check "every single square" to locate traps (or anything else for that matter). It hasn't sense 3.5 rules....

some judges just haven't yet made the transition from Search/Spot rules (3.5) to Perception rules.

ah... or was that sarcasm? and I just missed it?

Oh, it's not that you need to check all the squares around you, but rather that it has to do with the penalties for distance. If you don't make a check every time you move one square forward, you are suffering distance penalties.

Actually, technically, you only need to do it every 10 feet to avoid distance penalties.

Not that most PFS GMs apply distance penalties to perception checks on the part of either party.

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:
nosig wrote:

sign....

Perception does not require you to check "every single square" to locate traps (or anything else for that matter). It hasn't sense 3.5 rules....

some judges just haven't yet made the transition from Search/Spot rules (3.5) to Perception rules.

ah... or was that sarcasm? and I just missed it?

Oh, it's not that you need to check all the squares around you, but rather that it has to do with the penalties for distance. If you don't make a check every time you move one square forward, you are suffering distance penalties.

Actually, technically, you only need to do it every 10 feet to avoid distance penalties.

Not that most PFS GMs apply distance penalties to perception checks on the part of either party.

I always do... most of the judges I play with in St. Louis do... it's what normally set's the encounter distance.

Perception is modified by Distance/Doors/walls/etc....

but normally it's put into an SOP and handed off to the judge.... and I have my PC Perception bonus on my Table Tent, so that the judge never even has to ask. He glances over and sees it along with the Sense Motive bonus...

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I usually just use the distance penalty as "how far away are you when you spot the trap/enemy /whatever"

just have them roll, subtract the dc (without range penalty) that gives you the range penalty corresponding to how far away they are when they see it.


FLite wrote:

I usually just use the distance penalty as "how far away are you when you spot the trap/enemy /whatever"

just have them roll, subtract the dc (without range penalty) that gives you the range penalty corresponding to how far away they are when they see it.

It's a neat solution, but technically you can't stop them from making a perception check every five feet, which is better than just getting the one perception check that you are offering them.


nosig wrote:

Perception is modified by Distance/Doors/walls/etc....

but normally it's put into an SOP and handed off to the judge.... and I have my PC Perception bonus on my Table Tent, so that the judge never even has to ask. He glances over and sees it along with the Sense Motive bonus...

Your group is much more correct in these things that mine tends to be; I have yet to see the GM that makes perception checks for the players. Only some do the sense motive checks.

I try and keep up with the perception modifiers when I run, but I probably screw up the distance ones sometimes.

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:
nosig wrote:

Perception is modified by Distance/Doors/walls/etc....

but normally it's put into an SOP and handed off to the judge.... and I have my PC Perception bonus on my Table Tent, so that the judge never even has to ask. He glances over and sees it along with the Sense Motive bonus...

Your group is much more correct in these things that mine tends to be; I have yet to see the GM that makes perception checks for the players. Only some do the sense motive checks.

I try and keep up with the perception modifiers when I run, but I probably screw up the distance ones sometimes.

well, we all make mistakes sometimes...

but I normally play with an Init card that I give to each player to fill out at the start of the game (when I judge). This card has 6 blanks for random d20 rolls - and the players fill them in. it has a blank for Perception and another for Sense Motive (the only two skills I normally get from the players) each with the note "10?" that the players are told "to cross out if you never take 10 on passive checks, or circle if you always take 10 or leave it blank and I'll try to check with you if it comes up." This let's me glance down at a players card to see what their Perception will be long before the encounter starts... so I can "set it up". If the player doesn't take 10 on one of those skill checks, I take one of his random rolls. I also tell the players I use the random rolls to determine who to shoot at... if I need to pick a random target, I pick the highest roll. The only player to really object to that, also happened to be the guy who always seemed to have 6 numbers above 15 on his "random" rolls.

As a player I tell the judge "I always take 10, unless I take a minute to take 20, so just add it into my perception to get my check result. You don't even have to tell me when I'm makeing a check, just tell me when I see something...." If my PC has the talent TrapSpotter, I normally ask the judge to roll that for me and don't tell me when he does it. That way if I miss something it's a surprise to me....

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:
FLite wrote:

I usually just use the distance penalty as "how far away are you when you spot the trap/enemy /whatever"

just have them roll, subtract the dc (without range penalty) that gives you the range penalty corresponding to how far away they are when they see it.

It's a neat solution, but technically you can't stop them from making a perception check every five feet, which is better than just getting the one perception check that you are offering them.

If they are always taking 10, it works. The result is never changes, so the detection takes place at an easily calculated range.

And I can roll less than a 10 a lot of times in a row. Recently I rolled a nat. "1" four times in a row (for a save) for my VC... with 4 different dice. I am sure I could easily roll a series 9, 8 , 7, 6, 5, etc. all the way down to a "1" to walk into a trap that I could easily get with take 10.


True, but in a sense, for perception checks, "taking 10" is sub-optimal. I take 10, as established, but it's "better" to roll, because you can always... roll again if you roll poorly.

I personally think this is abusing the system, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent a player from rolling three times for every square when not under time pressure. This is not as time consuming as "taking 20", but still highly likely to produce a better result than 10. Or, if a player wanted to be really cheesy, they could just roll until they got a roll of 15 or higher, or whatever number suited them. On average, this wouldn't take too long.

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:

True, but in a sense, for perception checks, "taking 10" is sub-optimal. I take 10, as established, but it's "better" to roll, because you can always... roll again if you roll poorly.

I personally think this is abusing the system, but there is nothing in the rules to prevent a player from rolling three times for every square when not under time pressure. This is not as time consuming as "taking 20", but still highly likely to produce a better result than 10. Or, if a player wanted to be really cheesy, they could just roll until they got a roll of 15 or higher, or whatever number suited them. On average, this wouldn't take too long.

LOL! I can (and have) gone an entire scenario and never roll a number above 15! There's a good reason I take 10 whenever I am allowed... my dice hate me. (oh, by the way, some judges feel that taking 10 is "abusing the system")...

;-)

By the way, did you get a look at the T-shirt pic?


Well, another strategy I have seen used for perception checks is: First, roll. If you get below a 10, then take 10. This strategy takes 1.5 times as long in game time, since half the time you make two checks, but it can get you more effective results in many cases.

I don't do this myself, because I think it's abusive, but if not under time constraints it is definitely "better".

I replied to the message just now :)

The Exchange 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:

Well, another strategy I have seen used for perception checks is: First, roll. If you get below a 10, then take 10. This strategy takes 1.5 times as long in game time, since half the time you make two checks, but it can get you more effective results in many cases.

I don't do this myself, because I think it's abusive, but if not under time constraints it is definitely "better".

I replied to the message just now :)

actually, I have found (and would rather) that the judge never even brakes the flow of the game... never even pauses in his description of the adventure. Good ones often weave my PCs actions into the story as it unfolds for us....

"the scout holds his hand up to halt the party and points down at something in front of him on the ground. Looking closer, you see a hair-line crack in the stone flooring... perhaps it's a pressure plate?" change out of narrative voice "So - you've detected a trap, what do you want to do?"


I'm in complete agreement with you, my only point is that always taking 10 on perception checks is "sub-optimal" from a mechanics perspective. From a narrative perspective, it's much, much better, since, as you say, there are no interruptions.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 ****

So reading through, I've gathered that making actual Knowledge checks is not allowed by consnsus, which is slightly disappointing to me given that I'd hoped otherwise. I liked the idea of my Azata-blooded Aasimar Bard who worshiped Shelyn and was the greatest opera singer in Absalom. He would know so much about all of the random creatures because of having sung songs about them, using Versatile Perfomance to use Perform(Sing) for Bluff for Knowledge. Sure it's maybe not fair that I could just buff sing rather than all the Int checks, but the character idea was built solely around doing that to the point of doing very little else that a wizard, witch, alchimist or investigator could do to make them more useful in other ways. Alas, I'll have to modify it to a less interesting Bard that I probably won't play.

4/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrParty06 wrote:
So reading through, I've gathered that making actual Knowledge checks is not allowed by consnsus, which is slightly disappointing to me given that I'd hoped otherwise.

I don't believe there is any such consensus. I think that people who want to do something about the pageant being absurdly overpowered but feel confined to running as written have found a position they feel comfortable resting their hat on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrParty06 wrote:
So reading through, I've gathered that making actual Knowledge checks is not allowed by consensus

I wouldn't say it's a consensus it's at least split 50/50 I for one says that it does what it says on the tin allows you to make Intelligence and Intelligence related skill checks using bluff what others have been saying is nothing more than what the bluff skill can do by itself it wouldn't need the line about Intelligence checks.

5/5 *****

Dread Knight wrote:
DrParty06 wrote:
So reading through, I've gathered that making actual Knowledge checks is not allowed by consensus
I wouldn't say it's a consensus it's at least split 50/50 I for one says that it does what it says on the tin allows you to make Intelligence and Intelligence related skill checks using bluff what others have been saying is nothing more than what the bluff skill can do by itself it wouldn't need the line about Intelligence checks.

Pretty much this.

I think it is badly written but it seems pretty clear what it actually does and that is allowing you to make actual knowledge and other Int based checks using Bluff. It wont do much for monster ID in combat as I doubt it is really worth the standard action to activate once the dice start flying. Outside of combat it is pretty monstrous and could certainly do with a nerf.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I feel like the +4 to bluff should last the ten minutes while you have to spend a round of bardic performance each time you replace an Int-based check with a Bluff check.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I feel like the +4 to bluff should last the ten minutes while you have to spend a round of bardic performance each time you replace an Int-based check with a Bluff check.

This is basically the result of the closest thing we have to a consensus I believe. And yes, for those wondering, the same said 'consensus' is that the checks are real.

Basically the +4's last the 10 minutes, the int check (while real) is only 1/masterpiece use. So if you have already made a check, and wish to do so again, you stop the performance and spend another standard action and performance round to start it over.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 ****

DrakeRoberts wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I feel like the +4 to bluff should last the ten minutes while you have to spend a round of bardic performance each time you replace an Int-based check with a Bluff check.

This is basically the result of the closest thing we have to a consensus I believe. And yes, for those wondering, the same said 'consensus' is that the checks are real.

Basically the +4's last the 10 minutes, the int check (while real) is only 1/masterpiece use. So if you have already made a check, and wish to do so again, you stop the performance and spend another standard action and performance round to start it over.

I like this interpretation a lot. I feel like it is super useful in a way that is taxed to make it reasonably balanced. I will now be focusing everything on maxing numbers of performance rounds and Perform checks for the character, since really that's all I want to do with that character (+ UMD and some control spells so it's not completely useless in combat).


Just be careful; just cause most of us agreed on an interpretation, doesn't mean it will be universal in PFS.

Lantern Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My 2 cents.

For those that believe PotP is limited to only for ‘convincing others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement’ with Intelligence-based checks…

“Heroism: This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks.”

…so then this spell only gives benefits in combat? As the spell clearly implies?

“Expeditious Retreat” (spell)

…so this spell only works when you’re retreating? As the spell name clearly implies?

“Deadly Aim: You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.”

…so this feat doesn’t work when your target has concealment, since it clearly implies it is precision-based damage?

“Deceitful: You are skilled at deceiving others, both with the spoken word and with physical disguises.”

…so this feat doesn’t apply benefits when you use a magical item to disguise yourself, such as a hat of disguise? Since it clearly states benefits only to spoken word and physical disguises?

I believe the wording of PotP is clear enough for most reasonable people – you can use your Bluff check for intelligence-based skill checks. Simple enough.

A different issue is whether people feel the ability is overpowered or not. I think some people are using their personal opinion of the ability being overpowered to try and ‘interpret’ away what the magical ability does for a character.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My only comment is this:

If you, as DM, don't like it when the players twist and convolute the wording of an ability so that it becomes broken, then don't do the same to them in reverse.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:

So... I've GM'd a few games for PFS, and recently had a Pageant of the Peacock using Bard character. I decided I won't do that again.

What I want to know is, how do I handle this? ...

The thread is TL;DR. But put me down with those who have said that:

"and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check."

doesn't mean you can replace any intelligence-based skill check with the Bluff skill. No, what that clearly means is you can Bluff (ie, lie convincingly) in place of an intelligence-based skill check.

Want to use Knowledge/Nobility to identify the seal in the broken wax? Bluff doesn't give you the answer, Bluff makes people you tell THINK you know the answer.

Want to use Knowledge/whatever to identify monster capabilities? Bluff won't do that, using the Bluff skill in place will only make your party think your made up information is true.

5/5 *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:

My only comment is this:

If you, as DM, don't like it when the players twist and convolute the wording of an ability so that it becomes broken, then don't do the same to them in reverse.

The problem with this is that the most natural reading of the ability leads to the broken ability. No twisting required.

5/5 *****

deusvult wrote:

Want to use Knowledge/Nobility to identify the seal in the broken wax? Bluff doesn't give you the answer, Bluff makes people you tell THINK you know the answer.

Want to use Knowledge/whatever to identify monster capabilities? Bluff won't do that, using the Bluff skill in place will only make your party think your made up information is true.

Except that Bluff already does this, you don't need to give up a level 2 spell known to be able to do either of these things. This makes no sense.

Sovereign Court 5/5

andreww wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Want to use Knowledge/Nobility to identify the seal in the broken wax? Bluff doesn't give you the answer, Bluff makes people you tell THINK you know the answer.

Want to use Knowledge/whatever to identify monster capabilities? Bluff won't do that, using the Bluff skill in place will only make your party think your made up information is true.

Except that Bluff already does this, you don't need to give up a level 2 spell known to be able to do either of these things. This makes no sense.

It makes sense when the party being deceived by the Pageantry of the Peacock is not getting to roll Sense Motive as normal for being Bluffed. (because Bluff is being used in place of Knowledge/whatever.. and Knowledge/whatever doesn't allow for Sense Motive to rebut it)

And to use the "it doesn't make sense if.." argument, I could turn that around. It certainly doesn't make sense that being great at Bluffing is somehow making you actually know stuff covered by Knowledge skills.

5/5 *****

deusvult wrote:
And to use the "it doesn't make sense if.." argument, I could turn that around. It certainly doesn't make sense that being great at Bluffing is somehow making you actually know stuff covered by Knowledge skills.

It's a supernatural ability, it doesn't need to make sense.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That cuts both ways you know.

"It doesn't make sense that this just does something you can already do with bluff"

It's a supernatural ability, it doesn't need to make sense.

Lantern Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok, pretty sure they just need to take a look at the ability or remove it from the allowed resources... So I vote we all go make PotP bards, as brokenly as possible so that we have 2/3rds of the skills maxed. And then go show them off, so everyone can see how broken it is or how much it needs clarification. Enough people start exploiting it, and it will be sorted out in no time..

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why this is being reopened and debated on after so many from different sides came to a mutually beneficial interpretation. I've said my piece on this, and that is all. I find it sad that people would rather see this banned than use a powerful, yet checked interpretation that follows RAW.

I find it mind-boggling that people have a problem with a bluff/acting-based performance providing you insight to actual truths via supernatural method-acting, but then are perfectly accepting that another performance can allow you to use acting to supernaturally create invisible walls that are only in people's heads... and yet that you can purposely fail your save against the effect to allow you to walk upon those imaginary walls across a chasm.

But this has all been brought up before and talked about ad nauseam. Anyone still protesting this is likely motivated either by trying to balance out an overpowered ability (which I believe the compromise we came to in the past solved) or by trying to enforce the direct logic of an EX ability like Versatile Performance on the indirect/thematic logic of an SU ability. Hopefully the prior paragraph shows why the latter is a bad idea.

551 to 600 of 662 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.