Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock


GM Discussion

51 to 100 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
The other point of confusion is that some people say that you have the right not to GM for any reason, and other people are saying this isn't a valid reason.

Whether or not someone else considers as valid your reason for refusing to GM is immaterial: you have the right to refuse to GM. Period.

Understand, however, that doing so, whether or not you think your reason is valid, could get you excluded from the GM list. MAybe you won't be asked to GM again.

The PFS experience is a shared one. It isn't the experience of the GM, or the players, but of all those combined. No one person gets the right to determine that experience for everyone else. If a player's character is a legal build, you have no right to exclude it.

And, you have to consider this (and this was mentioned upthread): is this such an issue for you that you would potentially deny 4-6 people from playing a scenario because one of those characters had an ability you didn't like? If so, you really need to ask yourself if you should continue to GM. I don't mean that negatively - but if you would place your interest above the 4-6 players who would be turned away if you were the only GM, and you aren't going to run because of this one thing, you have really ask yourself if you should be GMing. I'm not in a position to make that evaluation, only you are.


Disk Elemental wrote:

Be honest, when was the last time a successful knowledge/linguistics/int-based check made or broke a scenario?

In my experience, int-based skill checks have really mattered once or twice, tops. (and both times there were alternate ways of resolving the situation)

What I said earlier:

Quote:

My problem with it is not directly its power, but rather that it completely invalidates huge amounts of character investment on the part of others of those 4-6.

Another player at my table had invested the lion's share of his skill points, and a couple Mossy Ioun Stones, into knowledge skills. He needn't have bothered, since Mr. Bard gave up one 2nd level spell known. That's infuriating.

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

Disk Elemental wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
all of it.

This.

Be honest, when was the last time a successful knowledge/linguistics/int-based check made or broke a scenario?
In my experience, int-based skill checks have really mattered once or twice, tops. (and both times there were alternate ways of resolving the situation)

Refusing to GM because of something that's ultimately meaningless is just... silly.

They can make or break a whole bunch of season 5 scenarios. There are usually another way around it, but the other way is usually hard enough that trying it can result in partial or total mission failure.


Mark Stratton wrote:
And, you have to consider this (and this was mentioned upthread): is this such an issue for you that you would potentially deny 4-6 people from playing a scenario because one of those characters had an ability you didn't like? If so, you really need to ask yourself if you should continue to GM. I don't mean that negatively - but if you would place your interest above the 4-6 players who would be turned away if you were the only GM,...

I think you grossly misunderstand my position. You can see the quote from my last post, but I don't object to players being powerful, or object to them making their skill checks; generally speaking, I'm rooting for the players.

What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that someone's entire character concept is ruined just because someone else does knowledge checks way better than them. Surely the character in question does other things...


Rudy2 wrote:
wakedown wrote:

In this ruling (which I see more and more GMs tending to use), Peacock can be used for a ton of checks, most notably Knowledge checks, but its in this circumstance where they are convincing others about their pedigree with fairly easy to hit DCs versus opposed rolls. It's not being used to identify rare monsters (Knowledge) or translate ancient texts (Linguistics) correctly.

I certainly wouldn't turn down running a table because someone has this. Simply suggest you've visited the forums and that there's a general sentiment of table variation and at the moment you are weighing in on running the ability a certain way. The player can then decide how they want to proceed.

I'm a bit confused now, I admit. If it's kosher for me to do the above, then that completely resolves my issues with the ability, and the problem is gone. Poof. However, a large number of people are saying that that interpretation, along with the semantic one I made, are clearly invalid. So, I'm not really sure what to think.

I'm still trying to figure out the "true" answer to this.

My position is that I'd like to be able to help out where possible, and I don't at all mind risking my ability to GM, but what I absolutely 100% don't want to risk is doing anything that might hurt the group in charge of the location I play at. I don't want my stance coming down on their heads. If that means I shouldn't GM at all, so be it, but it would be better if I could help out, just in games where there is no Pageant of the Peacock.

Many people are saying there are multiple valid interpretations of the feat, with a lot of table variance possible. This is the thing I'd most like to be true, as it would resolve all problems in the neatest possible way, but many others say this is nonsense.

Others are saying that I can choose not to GM, but make vague insinuations of Bad Things happening if I do that.


Just keep on asking for clarification in the Dragonslayer's Handbook thread, rather than in places that Patrick doesn't seem to check.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Rudy2 wrote:

I think you grossly misunderstand my position. You can see the quote from my last post, but I don't object to players being powerful, or object to them making their skill checks; generally speaking, I'm rooting for the players.

What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.

If the issue is that another player would be put out by this ability, then why not let that player decide as to whether or not he or she wants to play at a table where someone's character can use that ability? In that case, one player is making a decision about his character - you shouldn't make that decision for the whole table. And, that's exactly what you would be doing.

"Because Player X will feel put out that someone will steal his or her thunder, I am not going to run for a whole table of players."

In reality, that player should decide whether or not he will sit at that table. It is his or her choice for his or her character. And, generally, that won't affect the entire table's ability to play the way not having a GM would.

Let the player make that decision, not you. That would be more consistent with the argument you have made above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
If so, you really need to ask yourself if you should continue to GM. I don't mean that negatively - but if you would place your interest above the 4-6 players who would be turned away if you were the only GM, and you aren't going to run because of this one thing, you have really ask yourself if you should be GMing. I'm not in a position to make that evaluation, only you are.

Also, please don't be insinuating that I'm kind of selfish jerk. I would, in 100% of cases, rather be playing than GMing. Sometimes, on occasions when I go to play, there are not enough GMs, so I step up to GM when one is needed, exactly so that other people can have a chance to play. I don't particularly want to be doing it, I don't like GMing in situations where free-form adjudication, and going completely off script, is not possible, but my desire to let the game go on overrides that.

There is no default position where I'm required to do this. I haven't committed to doing it in advance, I'm doing it so the game can be played. If there is a situation that would make the game distinctly unenjoyable for me, then I have every right to say "no, thanks".

My ceasing to GM entirely would only increase the number of times when no GM is available for a game.


Cheapy wrote:
Just keep on asking for clarification in the Dragonslayer's Handbook thread, rather than in places that Patrick doesn't seem to check.

Oh? I didn't know there was such a thing. I'll definitely go find it. Obviously the best solution is to get this ability shut down officially.


Cheapy wrote:
Just keep on asking for clarification in the Dragonslayer's Handbook thread, rather than in places that Patrick doesn't seem to check.

Do you know what section that's in? I failed to find it with a forum search.

Sovereign Court 2/5

I would strongly discourage you from trying to find an interpretation that doesn't exist in RAW to limit that ability. If you want to go that route, it would be wise to post on the rules forum and see what people think there.

Keep in mind that you can only have one performance active at a time, so if the bard is doing knowledge checks with pageant of the peacock, they're not providing Inspire Courage, which is probably more useful for them to be doing anyway in combat. Lingering Performance also has no effect on Bardic Masterpieces.


Also keep in mind that Knowledge isn't just used for combat ;)


You can find the discussion thread here.


Mark Stratton wrote:
Let the player make that decision, not you. That would be more consistent with the argument you have made above.

No doubt you will find this needlessly dramatic, but this is a stance I'm taking. I do not want to play or run pathfinder in a situation where such a thunder-stealing absurdly unbalanced ability exists. The player's character build choices being invalidated, along with the absurdity of the ability itself, make the situation unenjoyable for me as well.

Obviously if I leave it to the individual player, they're going to continue playing in almost all cases. They've driven there, so they'll be disappointed at points, but they will still play.

I won't play in a game where someone else has this ability, either. Would people question my rightness in doing so, if I was the 3rd player present, and thus necessary for the game to run?


Acedio wrote:
Lingering Performance also has no effect on Bardic Masterpieces.

The ability lasts ten minutes, so Lingering Performance is irrelevant in any case.


Cheapy wrote:
You can find the discussion thread here.

Awesome. Posted, thanks.

3/5

Mark Stratton wrote:


If the issue is that another player would be put out by this ability, then why not let that player decide as to whether or not he or she wants to play at a table where someone's character can use that ability? In that case, one player is making a decision about his character - you shouldn't make that decision for the whole table. And, that's exactly what you would be doing.

"Because Player X will feel put out that someone will steal his or her thunder, I am not going to run for a whole table of players."

In reality, that player should decide whether or not he will sit at that table. It is his or her choice for his or her character. And, generally, that won't affect the entire table's ability to play the way not having a GM would.

Let the player make that decision, not you. That would be more consistent with the argument you have made above.

I think this is key. Let the individual players decide if they're bothered by it. This isn't really any different than 2 players both investing heavily in combat techniques where one just always seems to supercede/outshine the other. It's part of having random, non-consistent party makeups.

Rudy2 wrote:

My problem with it is not directly its power, but rather that it completely invalidates huge amounts of character investment on the part of others of those 4-6.

Another player at my table had invested the lion's share of his skill points, and a couple Mossy Ioun Stones, into knowledge skills. He needn't have bothered, since Mr. Bard gave up one 2nd level spell known. That's infuriating.

As for the issue being that you feel it's unfair to a wizard who invested heavily in skill points, consider the investment the bard has made too. He's either putting ranks into one of each knowledge as well as fully into bluff, or he's losing 1/2 of his bardic knowledge ability (+1/2 class levels to knowledges). He had to invest ranks into a specific form of performance that he may not otherwise have used. He's giving up a known spell or feat. He's using actions to start his masterpiece, he's using performance rounds to maintain his masterpiece. He's subject to antimagic (corner case, I admit, but true nonetheless).

This is a very good masterpiece, one of relatively few (if the boards are to be believed). It doesn't, in my opinion, follow the general power-level guidelines laid out by the books. But it's certainly not the only overpowered option out there, nor is it the most overpowered. It's also overpowered in an area where the results are not generally the end-all-be-all of a scenario.

3/5

Acedio wrote:

I would strongly discourage you from trying to find an interpretation that doesn't exist in RAW to limit that ability. If you want to go that route, it would be wise to post on the rules forum and see what people think there.

Keep in mind that you can only have one performance active at a time, so if the bard is doing knowledge checks with pageant of the peacock, they're not providing Inspire Courage, which is probably more useful for them to be doing anyway in combat. Lingering Performance also has no effect on Bardic Masterpieces.

Actually, from what I've read, you can have Masterpieces and a Bardic Performance up at the same time. If this isn't true, please show me a ruling on this... I started my first bard last week and it'd be good to know. Thanks.

We now bring you back to your regularly scheduled thread...

The Exchange 5/5

here you go....

When do you cancel the table?.

you might want to go to this thread and add in "when a PC has Pageant to the Peacock" to the list of reasons to cancel a table...

though it sounds like you are being asked to judge the table with little or no prep... which is one of the reasons a lot of people are saying that type of table should be canceled anyway...


DrakeRoberts wrote:
As for the issue being that you feel it's unfair to a wizard who invested heavily in skill points, consider the investment the bard has made too. He's either putting ranks into one of each knowledge as well as fully into bluff, or he's losing 1/2 of his bardic knowledge ability (+1/2 class levels to knowledges). He had to invest ranks into a specific form of performance that he may not otherwise have used. He's giving up a known spell or feat. He's using actions to start his masterpiece, he's using performance rounds to maintain his masterpiece. He's subject to antimagic (corner case, I admit, but true nonetheless).

First, he doesn't need to put ranks in Bluff. He maximizes Perform (act), which he needs for the masterpiece anyway, and then uses versatile performance on Act to substitute his Perform (act) bonus for all the bluff checks he makes in place of intelligence skills.

The performance rounds are almost a non-issue, since 1 round gives you 10 minutes of the ability.

Bardic Knowledge says nothing about losing the +1/2 class level if you aren't trained in the knowledge, so I'm not following you there. You could argue that if he doesn't put a rank in a knowledge skill, it's still counted as "untrained", even if using Bluff for it. But you could argue the other way too. Even in the former case, 1 rank is not a serious investment.

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

Well, unless he traded away bardic knowledge, every knowledge counts as trained anyway.


@DrakeRoberts

I don't see any clear ruling either way whether you can use them both at the same time. JJacobs says yes, so that has some weight (while not being an "official" ruling.

In any case, it's clear it would be difficult to tell a player that they couldn't use both Pageant and Inspire Courage at the same time.

Link 1
Link 2


FLite wrote:
Well, unless he traded away bardic knowledge, every knowledge counts as trained anyway.

Ah, excellent point. There you go. Only one skill needed: Perform (act).

3/5

Rudy2 wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
As for the issue being that you feel it's unfair to a wizard who invested heavily in skill points, consider the investment the bard has made too. He's either putting ranks into one of each knowledge as well as fully into bluff, or he's losing 1/2 of his bardic knowledge ability (+1/2 class levels to knowledges). He had to invest ranks into a specific form of performance that he may not otherwise have used. He's giving up a known spell or feat. He's using actions to start his masterpiece, he's using performance rounds to maintain his masterpiece. He's subject to antimagic (corner case, I admit, but true nonetheless).

First, he doesn't need to put ranks in Bluff. He maximizes Perform (act), which he needs for the masterpiece anyway, and then uses versatile performance on Act to substitute his Perform (act) bonus for all the bluff checks he makes in place of intelligence skills.

The performance rounds are almost a non-issue, since 1 round gives you 10 minutes of the ability.

Bardic Knowledge says nothing about losing the +1/2 class level if you aren't trained in the knowledge, so I'm not following you there. You could argue that if he doesn't put a rank in a knowledge skill, it's still counted as "untrained", even if using Bluff for it. But you could argue the other way too. Even in the former case, 1 rank is not a serious investment.

If he goes the versatile performance route, then he's allocating even more of his class abilities to the specific goal of using this masterpiece, as there are certainly other good (or better) options out there for versatile performance.

10 minutes per shot is a lot in combat or a dungeon crawl. Not so much for some of the scenarios with a lot of footwork. So yeah, he could activate it just in combat, but then again we go back to using up actions to set that up. In a game where action-economy is king, the edge goes to the free-action knowledge of wizards here.

As for the bardic knowledge, the loss of the 1/2 class level is because you're making a Bluff check, not a Knowledge check. When you substitute one check for another, you substitute the whole value as it stands. That 1/2 class level bonus stays with Knowledge, not Bluff. There are, of course, ways to boost Bluff too, but he's giving up partial use of a class ability here still.

As for the needing to be trained part, that was in the case of an archetype which loses Bardic knowledge. While I agree the RAW on that is unclear, there was a clear consensus on the rules forum that you needed to be trained in the knowledge you're substituting for. So to use bluff for knowledge(local) you need a rank in it (or to have bardic knowledge), same for each and every knowledge skill.

1 rank not being a serious investment is character dependent. If we're looking at a bard optimized to abuse PotP, then the character probably has a low intelligence, if not outright using it as a dumpstat. Layer on the needs for various perform types and such, it could in fact be a decent draw on resources. Not as much as for a wizard taking full ranks, but the bard is also using the other resources I mentioned: time, performance rounds, other specific skill allocations and class ability choices, a feat or spell (unless they are human they get relatively few of these), and the use of one or two class abilities (bardic knowledge/versatile performance) in order to power these knowledge checks. There's actually a lot that would go into making that masterpiece work for them.

And of course, there's flavor. While the flavor/reasoning on the masterpiece itself is wonky at best, the idea that bards are the king of knowledges is fairly common. At the very worst, this masterpiece changes the dynamic from potentially being "wizard for depth, bard for breadth"... but that might not be the best generalization anyhow.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, let me make a clear statement. A judge (and a player) always has the option to leave. Always. Whatever the reason. We are all friends here (I hope) and friends DON'T force friends to do things they don't want to. So whatever your reason for leaving a table, you always have that option (IMHO).

BUT...Having the judge decide who is or isn't allowed to play at a table... I personally think (again IMHO) this is a bad idea.

the players police this now the same way we always have. If the guy is a jerk, we don't play with him. Each time we sit at a table, we look around and see... is there anyone here I'd rather not play with?

I do not want the judge to take that ability away from me as a player. Perhaps I like playing with Jo and her over-the-top bardic knowledge machine... and perhaps I don't. I sure as heck don't want to judge to make that decision for me by saying "you, Jo, play something else... or leave my table."

Are you saying you "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock", even if all the other players are fine with it? Did you ask, or just assume you knew what was best for them?

3/5

Rudy2 wrote:

@DrakeRoberts

I don't see any clear ruling either way whether you can use them both at the same time. JJacobs says yes, so that has some weight (while not being an "official" ruling.

In any case, it's clear it would be difficult to tell a player that they couldn't use both Pageant and Inspire Courage at the same time.

Link 1
Link 2

Thanks for the links!

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Acedio wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that someone's entire character concept is ruined just because someone else does knowledge checks way better than them. Surely the character in question does other things...

I have a character who has "painter" as the core of his character concept. The witchy stuff is the boring stuff that lets him survive the weird situations that give rise to his paintings.

A bard shouldn't be able to out paint me.

As others have said, Pageant is broken NOT because it breaks scenarios but because it invalidates other characters.


nosig wrote:

I do not want the judge to take that ability away from me as a player. Perhaps I like playing with Jo and her over-the-top bardic knowledge machine... and perhaps I don't. I sure as heck don't want to judge to make that decision for me by saying "you, Jo, play something else... or leave my table."

Are you saying you "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock", even if all the other players are fine with it? Did you ask, or just assume you knew what was best for them?

Uh, I never once proposed that I would have the power to tell you to play something else, or leave my table. I proposed that I have the justifiable right to not run a game which I would not enjoy running.

As for asking the players whether they are okay with the ability, that's laughable. What player who was not okay with it would not feel metric tons of social pressure from the other players to just keep quiet, so that the game could go on? Especially if the situation is that they know I won't run the game if any of them are not okay with it.

"Bobby here isn't cool with the ability, so I'm not going to run the game." Bobby's not going to say anything, regardless of his feelings, because that has just ruined his social standing.


pauljathome wrote:

I have a character who has "painter" as the core of his character concept. The witchy stuff is the boring stuff that lets him survive the weird situations that give rise to his paintings.

A bard shouldn't be able to out paint me.

As others have said, Pageant is broken NOT because it breaks scenarios but because it invalidates other characters.

The best is when they stack a Deific Obedience to Shelyn on top, getting a +4 to all Perform and Craft checks! ... :/ 4th level human bard with Focused Study can easily get around a +20 to all int-based checks (and Bluff and Disguise). Don't bother painting, paul; the bard can just lie the painting better.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrakeRoberts wrote:
consider the investment the bard has made too.

You aren't really, seriously arguing that the cost of this is sufficient to balance the power, are you? Maybe (just maybe) you have a not completely absurd argument with a non socially oriented bard.

But for a socially oriented bard the cost is almost exactly that second level spell slot. They're using versatile performance so they already have bluff maxed out at a discount. They either have bardic knowledge or they have to invest a whole rank into 10 skills. This from a class that is arguably the best skill class anyway.

I like Bards. A lot. I currently have 6 characters with at least 1 bard level in my stable. Some have versatile performance, some don't. Some have bardic knowledge. Some have relatively low Cha (14). All have decent to excellent bluff scores. Every single one would benefit disproportionately from Pageant.

Heck, if it JUST allowed a +4 to bluff scores for 10 minutes the masterpiece would be quite powerful. Not overpowered, admittedly, but quite powerful. Some of my bards would likely still take it.

It is broken. It makes no sense, it is too powerful, and it invalidates other characters.

It also, unfortunately, is quite clear in what it does. I refuse to play the "it is unclear" game. But I have a LOT of sympathy for the OP. I've been tempted to ban it too. I have NOT done so, but I've been tempted.

4/5 ****

Note, if you're using Versatile Performance to replace bluff, the +4 from Pageant won't do anything.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Rudy2 wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

I have a character who has "painter" as the core of his character concept. The witchy stuff is the boring stuff that lets him survive the weird situations that give rise to his paintings.

A bard shouldn't be able to out paint me.

As others have said, Pageant is broken NOT because it breaks scenarios but because it invalidates other characters.

The best is when they stack a Deific Obedience to Shelyn on top, getting a +4 to all Perform and Craft checks! ... :/ 4th level human bard with Focused Study can easily get around a +20 to all int-based checks (and Bluff and Disguise). Don't bother painting, paul; the bard can just lie the painting better.

In all honesty, I've seriously optimized the character to be good at painting :-) . He has skill focus and Deific Obedience. And access to Crafter's Fortune. By level 9 or so I expect to be able to take 10 on my day jobs and get a 50. You've got to optimize the IMPORTANT things :-)

But a bluffing optimized Pageant Bard is going to almost casually be better. And that is wrong

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Pirate Rob wrote:
Note, if you're using Versatile Performance to replace bluff, the +4 from Pageant won't do anything.

Sure it will. You're still making a bluff check, just using the perform skill to make that check


Hence the Deific Obedience from Shelyn.

4th level human bard, focused study, first skill focus at level one is skill focus (act). Uses versatile performance act. Gets an Ioun stone for a +2 floating competence bonus to any skill, which he assigns to Perform (act). 800gp. Takes Deific Obedience (Shelyn)

Perform (Act) is 4 ranks + 3 trained + 4 charisma + 4 sacred + 3 skill focus + 2 competence = +20. That's assuming that circumstance bonuses don't apply (I think they don't for versatile performance, but I can't recall for sure).

That's +20 for every int-based skill, as well as Bluff and Disguise, at level 4.

Granted, that assumes two feats. But even if you took that away (and I think every Bard with Versatile Performance benefits insanely from Deific Obedience to Shelyn. +4 sacred bonus to all perform and craft checks? Why would you not take that?) you still have a +13 to every int-based skill, bluff, and disguise, with no more investment than a 2nd level spell and a single maxed skill.


Or, if you want to do it without any feat use, 4th level bard, puts 4 ranks into Bluff, 4 ranks into Perform (dance) which qualifies him for the masterpiece. Uses Versatile performance with dance, getting him Acrobatics and Fly (not crucial, admittedly), his bluff check is:

4 ranks + 3 trained + 4 Pageant + 4 charisma + 2 competence = +17 to all int-based skill checks, as well as bluff of course. Investment: 800gp, 8 skill ranks, and a 2nd level spell known. Obviously this becomes progressively more absurd with Circlets of persuasion, etc, etc, and he need only keep one skill, Bluff, maxed.

Sovereign Court 2/5

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Actually, from what I've read, you can have Masterpieces and a Bardic Performance up at the same time. If this isn't true, please show me a ruling on this... I started my first bard last week and it'd be good to know. Thanks.

We now bring you back to your regularly scheduled thread...

Very interesting. According to this post, it would seem that James Jacobs gave the affirmative. But I can't actually find the source post by James.

However, the description text of Masterpieces from the book suggests the contrary (at least to me)

prd wrote:
Talented bards can learn or create masterpieces, unusual applications of the bardic performance ability requiring special training.

There's a pretty large camp of GMs out there that do not consider James Jacobs's rulings from the ">>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<" thread to be official, so with this one YMMV.

3/5

pauljathome wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
consider the investment the bard has made too.

You aren't really, seriously arguing that the cost of this is sufficient to balance the power, are you? Maybe (just maybe) you have a not completely absurd argument with a non socially oriented bard.

Actually, no I'm not. I've said many times (and in basically every post) that I think it is Overpowered. What I am saying is that there are many builds for which this is not as optimized a choice as people are making it out to be, and if the bard wishes to skew his choices to make it work as well as people are saying, it does take some sacrifices. On some builds, those choices will be minimal, on others, not so much.

Lets say we're a base social bard, skewing ourselves for this ability. We max-out Perform (Act) and use Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge along with a feat/spell for PotP. This seems to be the base case being argued. I personally would prefer versatile on something like Dance, where I'll be getting skills that aren't already charisma, but this seems to be the case presented, so I'll run with it.

Perform (Act), 4 ranks, a +4 mod (estimating a charisma of 18) gives you a +11 Perform (Act). That becomes Bluff with versatile, and then your Int-based checks with bardic knowledge. It can be pushed more, of course (skill focus, equipment, etc.) but then you're really starting to specialize a build on this, not just take a spell swap.

A wizard, maxing out ranks will have his int (we'll say +4 also, but lets face it.. the wizard is less MAD and likely should be given a better int mod than the bard's cha mod) plus 4 ranks = +11 bonus in any knowledge he feels he is specializing in... putting them on equal footing.

The wizard has invested his skill points, the bard has invested a spell choice, locking in a versatile performance choice, bardic performance rounds, and the action to 'cast' his masterpiece.

Given preparation, the bard will win. On a scenario where the fights just happen, or knowledges need to be made on the fly unexpectedly, the wizard wins. This is ignoring the MAD nature of bards rather than the SAD nature of a wizard, as the propose bard does nothing but talk and use bardic music... which is a valid way to play a bard.

Wizards have a spell that add up to their CL to their knowledge checks (given the time to do so). The bard can boost perform by 3 with a circlet of persuasion.

So yes, the masterpiece is overpowered. And yes, in some instances it will outshine the wizard. This is particularly true in a dungeon-crawl type situation. But on the fly the wizard is better in his area of expertise. Given enough time for a single knowledge check (some crucial research-type roll), the wizard also wins due to spell backup.

The numbers are close enough that we come to dice rolls more than anything. Honestly, I'd love to be in this situation at the table. Let one person take 10 (if not in combat), while the other rolls. Just to cover our bases.

So there are some numbers, ignoring the issue that there are many stronger bard builds that, by using them, would also weaken this particular masterpiece's impact (such as attribute distribution and archetypes). I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page with the +4 bluff bonus not helping, the +1/2 class level knowledge bonus not helping, etc.


Acedio wrote:
Very interesting. According to this post, it would seem that James Jacobs gave the affirmative. But I can't actually find the source post by James.

The post links to James' post. Go here, then do a page search for 'masterpiece'.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Rudy2 wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Very interesting. According to this post, it would seem that James Jacobs gave the affirmative. But I can't actually find the source post by James.
The post links to James' post. Go here, then do a page search for 'masterpiece'.

Oh there it is, dropping the ball. Thanks!

Shadow Lodge

Rudy2 wrote:
Many people are saying there are multiple valid interpretations of the feat, with a lot of table variance possible. This is the thing I'd most like to be true, as it would resolve all problems in the neatest possible way, but many others say this is nonsense.

I have personally seen table variance with Pageant where some GMs allow it to sub for any Int-check at any time. And I've seen where GMs point to the sentence about "convincing others of your eloquence" as non-optional in the reading. To me, that's social proof of table variation. I see table variation galore in even very black and white areas, it's just the nature of the game.

The Guide to Organized Play says nothing about "RAW" or parsing sentences as a robot would.

It does say:

Guide to Organized Play 5.0 wrote:
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.

As a GM, apply common sense in your interpretation of the rules. In applying my common sense, I look at the name of the feat, the full section of the effect, and similar other feats/spells of a comparable level.

There was a while where if you parsed the rules like a robot you could find combining the mysterious stranger and pistolero archetypes to be legal. An application of common sense highlighted that it was not intended to be possible, yet players still combined those archetypes based on RAW/RAI debate. There was a good amount of discussion where folks said - "hey it's not that overpowering, so I don't object to it." In the end, it was finally made clear after attention was drawn to it. I suspect eventually that will be the case here, too.

You'll need to make your own decisions about when and for whom you GM (by essentially deciding when certain players arrive). Whenever I have adopted a stance on a finicky rule, I'll take the players through my reasoning and thus far I haven't had any riots (thankfully!).

You might find that there's certain folks who will riot no matter what you do - it might be Pageant this week. Next week, the same player is carrying five vials of efficacious medicine (an item with a typo misprinting the price as 700gp instead of 9000gp). If you end up with someone who is always looking for these rules "tricks", bring it up to the local coordinator/VC and express your concerns - which might simply be to request when you run to not be paired with a certain individual who you find to be pushing the rules envelope too hard for you to enjoy your efforts as a GM.

5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd use the Chewbacca defense for this one.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:

Hence the Deific Obedience from Shelyn.

4th level human bard, focused study, first skill focus at level one is skill focus (act). Uses versatile performance act. Gets an Ioun stone for a +2 floating competence bonus to any skill, which he assigns to Perform (act). 800gp. Takes Deific Obedience (Shelyn)

Perform (Act) is 4 ranks + 3 trained + 4 charisma + 4 sacred + 3 skill focus + 2 competence = +20. That's assuming that circumstance bonuses don't apply (I think they don't for versatile performance, but I can't recall for sure).

That's +20 for every int-based skill, as well as Bluff and Disguise, at level 4.

Granted, that assumes two feats. But even if you took that away (and I think every Bard with Versatile Performance benefits insanely from Deific Obedience to Shelyn. +4 sacred bonus to all perform and craft checks? Why would you not take that?) you still have a +13 to every int-based skill, bluff, and disguise, with no more investment than a 2nd level spell and a single maxed skill.

You've now gone from "this masterpiece makes any bard insane" to "I'm building for this one ability". You've locked in multiple feats, a deity, archetype choices, versatile performance choices....

And what you've shown is that there is a way to build a powerful focused character without relying upon skill points. You've shown that there is a way to break this masterpiece to bloody pieces. You've shown... in essence... that there is a way to become really really good at something that you put a LOT of INVESTMENT to. Why should that investment not pay off, while the wizard's should? More to the point, why should that character with so much invested in making this one trick work, get completely hosed by GMs refusing to run the masterpiece as RAW or by not being able to play because GMs decide they don't like the fact that they have so much invested into this trick?

There are many many many builds out there that break things to all heck. Many of them overshadow other players or tactics. As GMs it is our job to try to encourage (both ic and ooc) players to share the limelight, not invalidate the choices of a player because we personally don't like it. That's fine for a home game where you can openly tell a player at your table ahead of time that this is how something will be ruled. It is in no way proper to just screw over such a player/character concept for thinking differently (I'm not saying this is what you're suggesting, but there are some who basically are).

The long and short of it comes down to communication of expectations. The discussion shouldn't be "I'm not going to run if you play that character" it should be "I'm worried about you potentially stealing all the limelight, is there a way we can make sure that others can shine too." This isn't remotely a unique situation. Consider the heaven oracle/sorceror color sprayer. That'll trivialize a number of encounters. Or just a table with optimized and non-optimized characters mixed in. There are threads on how to GM such things, I suggest looking around at those threads if you can find them. Everyone's there to have a good time, yourself included, and if you're up front with your players (not about refusing to run, but rather about how the group can work together in a way that trivializes nobody) then everyone will have more fun.

4/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
I'd use the Chewbacca defense for this one.

Without even looking, "THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE." :-)

</threadjack>

3/5

wakedown wrote:
If you end up with someone who is always looking for these rules "tricks"

While there certainly are some 'tricks' out there, this isn't one of them. This is using a masterpiece for exactly what it says it does. It's not like this theoretical person is mixing or matching abilities in unexpected or unintended ways.

It's also not about robotic parsing or taking some but not all of the text into account either. In what world does it make sense that Bluff could let you 'know' anything? None. Doesn't make any more sense if the int-skill is knowledge (nobility) or knowledge (engineering). You can bluff about something about facts without this masterpiece. So what, besides a +4, does your reading let you do that you couldn't already do with just the bluff skill?

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

DrakeRoberts wrote:
wakedown wrote:
If you end up with someone who is always looking for these rules "tricks"

While there certainly are some 'tricks' out there, this isn't one of them. This is using a masterpiece for exactly what it says it does. It's not like this theoretical person is mixing or matching abilities in unexpected or unintended ways.

It's also not about robotic parsing or taking some but not all of the text into account either. In what world does it make sense that Bluff could let you 'know' anything? None. Doesn't make any more sense if the int-skill is knowledge (nobility) or knowledge (engineering). You can bluff about something about facts without this masterpiece. So what, besides a +4, does your reading let you do that you couldn't already do with just the bluff skill?

My reading of the feat is that portion is all about faking the ability well among experts allowing you to avoid the penalties associated penalties for telling unlikely, far-fetched, or impossible lies around people who know what they are talking about.

If it let you make all those checks, then the masterpiece wouldn't be making you seem to be more than you are (like the flavor description describes it), you would actually be more than you are. The feat would make you the Pretender rather than a pretender and while I can see a reading of the mechanics of the feat in that way, that isn't the way I see the feat working as a whole.


I think what I'll do is speak with the organizers of the games where I play. If they are cool with it, I'll do what wakedown does in terms of the interpretation of the ability. If they aren't okay with that, but are okay with me running whenever someone doesn't have Pageant of the Peacock, I'll do that. And if they're not okay with that, I just won't run at all.

Shadow Lodge

DrakeRoberts wrote:

This is using a masterpiece for exactly what it says it does. It's not like this theoretical person is mixing or matching abilities in unexpected or unintended ways.

It's also not about robotic parsing or taking some but not all of the text into account either. In what world does it make sense that Bluff could let you 'know' anything? None. Doesn't make any more sense if the int-skill is knowledge (nobility) or knowledge (engineering). You can bluff about something about facts without this masterpiece. So what, besides a +4, does your reading let you do that you couldn't already do with just the bluff skill?

I'm not reading it as letting you do anything more than you suggest above. I read it in the strict sense that you are simply "peacocking" and not suddenly that any bard who reserves a 2nd level slot is now the Lore Oracle's bigger, more powerful brother.

There are GMs/players out there who read this as allowing a bard to use Bluff in the place of all Int-based skills, anytime anywhere - including but not limited to monster lore checks to gain actual data about monsters (weaknesses, immunities, special attacks) or to decipher ancient languages or runes (linguistics), etc. This interpretation is the original one that caused Rudy2 angst and kicked off this thread, which is probably the sixth or seventh of such threads since Dragonslayer's Handbook was published.

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

Acedio wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that someone's entire character concept is ruined just because someone else does knowledge checks way better than them. Surely the character in question does other things...

I am currently playing a very skill heavy investigator. While he currently can do many things, many of his abilities boost his skills and most of his skill investment is in intelligence based skills. Even his best intelligence based skill would see no better than a 50/50 chance of a better result pitted against a maxed out bluff with a +4 bonus.

My character also has some extracts, studied combat, and will get other abilities as he levels, but I think that it would be fair to say that he would very likely be redundant in a group/scenario where he doesn't have to make an Intelligence based check.

3/5

I am now at a total loss as to what this masterpiece supposedly does. If it doesn't let you make your int-based checks with bluff, what does it do? It lets you make a bluff check to fake knowing something at a knowledge dc of the actual knowledge rather than by using bluff rules vs a sense motive check? That's about the closest I'm getting to understanding the effect as you guys are phrasing it, and I'm finding it very hard to find where the rules are actually supporting that.

51 to 100 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.