Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock


GM Discussion

201 to 250 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
3/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
I believe that the Masterpiece in question is a magical effect, and should do more than a Bluff check, even more than a very good one.

In all honesty, I was sincerely hoping you'd join this discussion, Chris. I'd like to know how you specifically would handle this ability at your table (both in how it would work mechanically, and if necessary, how you'd make sure that its use didn't ruin the fun of others)? I ask as you are one of the best GMs I've seen when it comes to balancing RAW and intent, as well as player dynamics and interactions at a table.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Quote:
SO... because I sing really good, I have a +34 Sense Motive... How is this possible?

You're hyper aware of the subtleties in tone, pitch, and timber and can tell when someone is taking that miniscule pause in the pattern of their speech to lie.

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
SO... because I sing really good, I have a +34 Sense Motive... How is this possible?

You're hyper aware of the subtleties in tone, pitch, and timber and can tell when someone is taking that miniscule pause in the pattern of their speech to lie.

nah... it's because I have Versatile Performance (Sing) and the rules say I get to use my "... total Perform skill bonus, including class skill bonus, in place of its associated skill's bonus,..." and sing gives me Sense Motive.

It doesn't have to make sense in real life, it's the rules. So many things in this game "make no sense in real life", and we go with them anyway, because we all agree to play by "the rules".


GM Bold Strider wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

Making up random facts about Osirion's history, and trying to convince an Osirionologist that they are true things, in direct opposition to his expertise, falls under this category in my games.

Pageant of the Peacock lets you fool him, though.

How? Isn't that exactly what you are claiming you are doing with PotP? Bluffing about Osirion's history. I fail to see where the differences lay between regular Bluff and how you interpret PotP. If you want to handwave it away as magic, that's fine, but you could equally handwave away the other interpretation of knowing the knowledge as magic. You could even rationalize PotP as "You've Bluffed for so long, you were bound to start learning something."

Honestly, I never would have reached this interpretation after reading it 100s of times for my bard. He has that masterpiece and not once has anyone said "Wow over-powered" or "Hmm... that's not what that does." Doesn't make them or me right, but at the beginning I just couldn't fathom your argument. I think I see your argument now, but it still seems like you are just splitting hairs with Bluff.

No, no; sorry, I'm not being clear. PotP doesn't make you able to do impossible lies in general.

Normally, in the example I gave, if you wanted to pass yourself off as an expert in Osirion's history to the Osirionologist, and have an actual conversation about it with him, a GM might require a Knowledge (history) check in order to make the Bluff check even allowable, with the reasoning that if you didn't actually know anything about the history, no matter how good you are at lying the Osirionolgist knows the things you are saying about history are directly false. This is what LazarX was saying about Bluff checks not even being possible if you don't know the fundamentals (at least, I believe I've interpreted him correctly there).

PotP would allow you to instead bypass that Knowledge check with a Bluff check in its place; the fluff being for example that your refined aura, posture, way of speaking, etc. makes you seem so knowledgeable that the Osirionologist is distracted from the fact that you don't actually know anything. Perhaps it combines this with a way of picking up words from the historian in order to mimic them. That's fluff, though, so up to you.

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
If you created a painting, and tried to tell people it was great, it doesn't matter how high your bluff skill is; they look at the actual painting and see that it's crap.
That's just patently false. If you have a high enough Bluff, you can convince anyone of anything. That is the whole purpose of the Bluff ability. Even if it is impossible, you only take a -20. If someone came to me with this ability and said it worked in your way, then you better believe I would apply all of the Bluff modifiers to the checks. If all you are doing is lying, then of course the lying modifiers come into play.

You are clearly not reading the same Bluff skill as the rest of us.

Or you are trying to use your own bluff skill.

bluff wrote:


The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).


EDIT: I also think the difference in wording between this ability and Versatile Performance is not insignificant. Versatile performance lets you use a bonus in place of a bonus, according to the ability. You're still making whatever kind of check that you're substituting for.

PotP, in contrast, lets you make a Bluff check in place of another check. In other words, it lets you Bluff instead of knowing something.


FLite wrote:

You are clearly not reading the same Bluff skill as the rest of us.

Or you are trying to use your own bluff skill.

bluff wrote:


The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).

Yeah; an astounding number of players and GMs seem to forget about that last clause.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Rudy2 wrote:
GM Bold Strider wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

Making up random facts about Osirion's history, and trying to convince an Osirionologist that they are true things, in direct opposition to his expertise, falls under this category in my games.

Pageant of the Peacock lets you fool him, though.

How? Isn't that exactly what you are claiming you are doing with PotP? Bluffing about Osirion's history. I fail to see where the differences lay between regular Bluff and how you interpret PotP. If you want to handwave it away as magic, that's fine, but you could equally handwave away the other interpretation of knowing the knowledge as magic. You could even rationalize PotP as "You've Bluffed for so long, you were bound to start learning something."

Honestly, I never would have reached this interpretation after reading it 100s of times for my bard. He has that masterpiece and not once has anyone said "Wow over-powered" or "Hmm... that's not what that does." Doesn't make them or me right, but at the beginning I just couldn't fathom your argument. I think I see your argument now, but it still seems like you are just splitting hairs with Bluff.

No, no; sorry, I'm not being clear. PotP doesn't make you able to do impossible lies in general.

Normally, in the example I gave, if you wanted to pass yourself off as an expert in Osirion's history to the Osirionologist, and have an actual conversation about it with him, a GM might require a Knowledge (history) check in order to make the Bluff check even allowable, with the reasoning that if you didn't actually know anything about the history, no matter how good you are at lying the Osirionolgist knows the things you are saying about history are directly false. This is what LazarX was saying about Bluff checks not even being possible if you don't know the fundamentals (at least, I believe I've interpreted him correctly there).

PotP would allow you to instead bypass that Knowledge check with a Bluff check in its place; the fluff being for example...

"...a GM might require a Knowledge (history) check in ..."

yes. And a judge might require a Liguistics check using Anchient Osirioni... or he might just require me to read/speak Anchient Osirioni (speak the language). Or it is also possible that he might require me to make a disguise check or one of any number of other checks (heck even appraise to see if an artifact is real), all of which I would try to avoid/explain away with fast talk and bluff... even with out the Masterpiece in question being used.

3/5

Rudy2 wrote:


PotP would allow you to instead bypass that Knowledge check with a Bluff check in its place; the fluff being for example that your refined aura, posture, way of speaking, etc. makes you seem so knowledgeable that the Osirionologist is distracted from the fact that you don't actually know anything. Perhaps it combines this with a way of picking up words from the historian in order to mimic them. That's fluff, though, so up to you.

Umm... wasn't the whole argument for why this masterpiece doesn't actually give you knowledge use etc. that the line of:

Pageant of the Peacock wrote:
By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Somehow had to be treated as mechanical (despite not containing mechanics) rules rather than just fluff? If so then it's explicitly not picking up and mimicking words nor a way of speaking. It is purely a way of holding yourself/moving. Are you telling me that it makes complete logical sense that your posture suddenly convinces this expert that the bullocks you're spouting that contradicts facts he knows makes you completely believable when, without said posturing, it was literally impossible to fool him? That sounds like a very weak argument.

The fix, of course, is that this is supernatural, and not bound by the same notions of sensibility at skills. But if you allow that fix, you need to ask yourself why if supernatural ability can do that, it can't do what the text actually says.

Again, I will repeat, I think that this is silly and overly-powerful. I think that the way you and others want it to work may be how it was originally conceived to work by the author. The mechanics and rules text that actually made it into the book, however, don't support that in my opinion.

As for the matter of getting this banned from PFS... I think that's extreme. It's unclear (many things in the Pathfinder rules are), and it'd be lovely to get an errata one way or another. But such clarifications are the realm of Paizo's developers, not Mike and John. Things aren't generally banned for being unclear, as much as I know, and I don't think that the game effect of this as written is so broken as to warrant banning. There are plenty of other things out there that are just as overpowering and have a greater effect on most scenarios. Should they all be banned? That's a whole different discussion, but I certainly don't think this is the place to take a stand and start trimming away first.

3/5

Rudy2 wrote:
FLite wrote:

You are clearly not reading the same Bluff skill as the rest of us.

Or you are trying to use your own bluff skill.

bluff wrote:


The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Yeah; an astounding number of players and GMs seem to forget about that last clause.

I addressed this, at least in part, here.

The bluff rules use the term 'impossible' for apparently 2 different things... that or they both confirm and deny that impossible lies can be made successfully with bluff (table lists modifiers for 'impossible' lies). Also the improbability/impossibility of a lie is based on the content of the lie "The rock in front of you only looks white, it's actually magenta with neon green stripes" and not who is being lied to. Note that even the text part about GM discretion on lies says ".. that it is impossible to convince anyone.." rather than "...someone...". These impossible lies are in themselves so flawed that nobody can be fooled by them, not just an expert.


Katisha wrote:
yes. And a judge might require a Liguistics check using Anchient Osirioni... or he might just require me to read/speak Anchient Osirioni (speak the language). Or it is also possible that he might require me to make a disguise check or one of any number of other checks (heck even appraise to see if an artifact is real), all of which I would try to avoid/explain away with fast talk and bluff... even with out the Masterpiece in question being used.

Nope. If you're passing yourself off as a historian of osirion, and the osirionologist shows you a tablet written in ancient osiriani, asking your opinion, and you can't read it, then you fail at my table, full stop. He at least becomes suspicious, no matter how high your Bluff skill is. That's long been the way I've run it, before PotP even existed.

PotP would allow you to replace the Linguistics check with a Bluff one.

@DrakeRoberts The "By gracefully..." line was the mechanics argument advanced by some. My mechanics argument is that there is a real difference between substituting a bonus for a bonus, and substituting a check for a check. Both arguments lead to the same mechanical outcome, though, as to how the ability is supposed to work.

If that doesn't make sense, then we're talking past each other. I'll be following the posts by Andrew Christian, LazarX and others, and running this in that way, until further clarification from the Powers That Be comes along.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is going to sound snarky, but it isn't ment that way...

perhaps we should go back to the first option?

"Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock...", check to see if anyone at the table has this Masterpiece. If they do, don't run.

At the very least, determine how they think this Masterpiece works, and if it disagrees with your view, tell them how you rule it works before play so they have the option to switch PCs (or to drop the table).

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, Pageant of the Peacock isn't a problem. Either:

a.) You want to see players fail because the Bard using it is the only one able to make the checks anyway, or
b.) The player is hogging the spotlight.

In the case of a.) does it really matter if they're a PotP Bard or a Mindchemist getting 10 skills/level with 2x int to knowledges? Skill checks are meant to be passed, they're an opportunity to give more of the story to players. And if players sometimes make seemingly impossible skill checks? Well, it's still less anticlimactic than critting and killing the BBEG before he gets to act.

b.) is something we all have to learn to deal with and what trick the specific player is using at the time is really immaterial: Spotlight hogging happens and we have to learn how to deal with it in order to improve our GMing. For something like Pageant of the Peacock, it can be as simple as what order you choose to acknowledge players, forcing them to wait until their turn to act, and making sure they keep track of resources used. Sometimes the PotP bard will still make the check before the Wizard or succeed when the wizard failed, but nobody has a monopoly on skill checks so that's reasonable. If you follow the rules, don't allow players to step over each other and give everyone a chance to contribute, your table will have fun. Sometimes the PotP bard will identify the monster, sometimes the Wizard will and you can tell the Bard "you don't get anything else," or maybe "<monster> typically lives in temperate climates and groups of 3-12 are called gaggles."

You don't, however, have the leeway to interpret rules creatively to stop someone from hogging the spotlight. That's one of the bedrock rules of the Pathfinder Society. If a GM at one of my gamedays ruled the way you want to, I would explain this to them, give them some pointers about dealing with spotlight hogs, and start questioning whether or not I want them GMing for me. It's simply not how PFS does things.

How do you know if you're trying to interpret a rule creatively? If you're spending multiple paragraphs, like several posters above, to rule that a sentence without any conditionals actually has conditionals, that's a really, really good sign.

Pageant of the Peacock wrote:


Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

"By gracefully weaving your body... refinement," describes what your character does, but does not provide any actionable rules. What kind of modifier does elegant weaving give me? Doesn't say.

"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," provides specific rules. "May attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check." Full stop. Not "may attempt a bluff check to convince someone they know something," not "may attempt a bluff check when interacting with someone," not "may attempt a bluff check in furtherance."

May attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

You really cannot honestly read it any other way, there are no conditionals in that phrase, there simply isn't any wiggle room.

But really, you don't need to. If you want to have fun GMing PFS you'll have to get over getting bent out of shape when PCs auto succeed at things you thought they were going to fail at, regardless of the situation. More importantly, there are plenty of techniques to prevent players from hogging the spotlight, and you're going to need them because spotlight hogging isn't a rules problem, it's a player problem.


@Katisha: I fully intend to make it clear to the players how I run it before the game begins.

@Akerlof: Your long post not withstanding, there is at least one Venture Captain in this thread, along with many other PFS GMs, who say I am perfectly reasonable to interpret it the way I am. That's more than enough for me. If I ever end up running a game with you organizing, that might be a different matter, but I don't see that happening.

As far as "several paragraphs", for me it's very simple. Substituting a check (PotP) is not the same thing as substituting a bonus (Versatile Performance).

The Exchange 5/5

Akerlof wrote:

As a GM, Pageant of the Peacock isn't a problem. Either:

a.) You want to see players fail because the Bard using it is the only one able to make the checks anyway, or
b.) The player is hogging the spotlight.

In the case of a.) does it really matter if they're a PotP Bard or a Mindchemist getting 10 skills/level with 2x int to knowledges? Skill checks are meant to be passed, they're an opportunity to give more of the story to players. And if players sometimes make seemingly impossible skill checks? Well, it's still less anticlimactic than critting and killing the BBEG before he gets to act.

b.) is something we all have to learn to deal with and what trick the specific player is using at the time is really immaterial: Spotlight hogging happens and we have to learn how to deal with it in order to improve our GMing. For something like Pageant of the Peacock, it can be as simple as what order you choose to acknowledge players, forcing them to wait until their turn to act, and making sure they keep track of resources used. Sometimes the PotP bard will still make the check before the Wizard or succeed when the wizard failed, but nobody has a monopoly on skill checks so that's reasonable. If you follow the rules, don't allow players to step over each other and give everyone a chance to contribute, your table will have fun. Sometimes the PotP bard will identify the monster, sometimes the Wizard will and you can tell the Bard "you don't get anything else," or maybe "<monster> typically lives in temperate climates and groups of 3-12 are called gaggles."

You don't, however, have the leeway to interpret rules creatively to stop someone from hogging the spotlight. That's one of the bedrock rules of the Pathfinder Society. If a GM at one of my gamedays ruled the way you want to, I would explain this to them, give them some pointers about dealing with spotlight hogs, and start questioning whether or not I want them GMing for me. It's simply not how PFS does things.

How do you know if you're trying to...

+1+1+1!

"...because spotlight hogging isn't a rules problem, it's a player problem."

bravo! Someone understands! wow!

5/5 *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:

@Katisha: I fully intend to make it clear to the players how I run it before the game begins.

@Akerlof: Your long post not withstanding, there is at least one Venture Captain in this thread, along with many other PFS GMs, who say I am perfectly reasonable to interpret it the way I am. That's more than enough for me. If I ever end up running a game with you organizing, that might be a different matter, but I don't see that happening.

As far as "several paragraphs", for me it's very simple. Substituting a check (PotP) is not the same thing as substituting a bonus (Versatile Performance).

Hmm, holding a VC rank is no indication whatsoever that the person has much understanding of how the rules actually work. Many of them do, quite a few appear not to.


Akerlof wrote:
If you want to have fun GMing PFS you'll have to get over getting bent out of shape when PCs auto succeed at things you thought they were going to fail at, regardless of the situation.

Also, further willful misunderstanding. I want the players to succeed. I am very, very upset when one of them dies, for example, to a degree that some other GMs find weird. This isn't about me versus the players, so don't try and make it about that.


andreww wrote:
Hmm, holding a VC rank is no indication whatsoever that the person has much understanding of how the rules actually work. Many of them do, quite a few appear not to.

I'm not esteeming a VC for superior rules interpretations, but rather because they have greater authority to say what is or is not kosher within PFS. I'm quite comfortable with my own rules interpretation here (bonus v. check), from a technical standpoint.

5/5 *****

nosig wrote:

+1+1+1!

"...because spotlight hogging isn't a rules problem, it's a player problem."

bravo! Someone understands! wow!

While this can be true it might be nice if the published mechanics didn't make it quite so easy to do quite so often. It is also something that can happen quite by accident.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:

All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."

The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. You can convince them that your Knowledge is the correct Knowledge. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.

This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.

Sure it does. Bluff isn't just a roll vs a sense motive. There are modifiers, some quite heavy, based on how dubious your lie is.

Pageant of the Peacock let's you mitigate the dubiousness of the lie, by effectively making up info that's believable. So that instead of potentially getting a -10 or -20 on your bluff check, you get a +4 with either no or less of a penalty.

5/5 *****

Rudy2 wrote:
andreww wrote:
Hmm, holding a VC rank is no indication whatsoever that the person has much understanding of how the rules actually work. Many of them do, quite a few appear not to.
I'm not esteeming a VC for superior rules interpretations, but rather because they have greater authority to say what is or is not kosher within PFS. I'm quite comfortable with my own rules interpretation here, from a technical standpoint.

Then I would reiterate the previous advice, running PFS is not a good idea for you if you need to go through the sort of mangling of the language necessary for that interpretation to actually stand. Pageant does what it does. Its a bloody stupid ability and should probably have never been published but we are stuck with it. Twisting it like this is simply going to piss off people who sit down at your table expecting it to work in the way it says it does.

I should add that I have no real stake in how it works, if anything the reverse. I am quite used to crushing knowledge checks with my Lore Oracle and then I ran Hall of Drunken Heroes with a bard using it who routinely hit 50+. It was mildly annoying but he was enjoying himself and Casomir has plenty of other stuff he can do.


@Andrew Christian: ooooh... that just clicked for me. That's an even better way to look at it than what I was thinking.

@andreww: No mangling required. "check" != "bonus" is all I need.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Akerlof's post, other than the parts that may insinuate less-than-noble intentions on Rudy2's part, pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue completely, and leaves me with a good-to-the-soul feeling. I think, therefore, I am done with this conversation now. Thank you for the intellectual stimulation and distraction from work. Great fun and adventures to you all!

Scarab Sages 5/5

Sigh...

I wasn't going to take this masterpiece... I had no real interest in Knowledge checks (don't even have Bardic Knowledge as a Street Performer). And I normally just leave those to my traveling companions... but if it's a form of BLUFF... well, maybe I should look into it.

I currently have 6 Masterpieces, so it should be simple to just add another...

Bard Masterpieces:

Triple Time
The Dance of Kindled Desires (yes, exactly what it sounds like, only more so).
Symphoney of the Elysian Heart
At the Heart of it All
Requiem of the Fallen Priest-King
Pallavi of Nirvana's Blooming

I do have a +34 Bluff (and I can always T10, and can T20 twice per day), (I get the high bluff because I sing good), so maybe I should look into this Materpiece too? I always like a good bluff... and if it's just a Bluff...

Nah... not in character.

Sovereign Court

Katisha wrote:

Sigh...

I wasn't going to take this masterpiece... I had no real interest in Knowledge checks (don't even have Bardic Knowledge as a Street Performer). And I normally just leave those to my traveling companions... but if it's a form of BLUFF... well, maybe I should look into it.

I currently have 6 Masterpieces, so it should be simple to just add another...

** spoiler omitted **

I do have a +34 Bluff (and I can always T10, and can T20 twice per day), (I get the high bluff because I sing good), so maybe I should look into this Materpiece too? I always like a good bluff... and if it's just a Bluff...

Nah... not in character.

Heh. Nice.

My Bard is still only level 1, but I have slated this Masterpiece for him. Not to use it for any Knowledge checks (although if the PFS GM allows me to, I may use it for that; all depends on the circumstances); but rather, he will be using it to ensure everyone believes he is really a Prince.

And for that use, this Masterpiece is totally worth taking for me ;)


Disagreements aside, that sounds like a very fun application, Arassuil. :)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entilzha wrote:
Katisha wrote:

Sigh...

I wasn't going to take this masterpiece... I had no real interest in Knowledge checks (don't even have Bardic Knowledge as a Street Performer). And I normally just leave those to my traveling companions... but if it's a form of BLUFF... well, maybe I should look into it.

I currently have 6 Masterpieces, so it should be simple to just add another...

** spoiler omitted **

I do have a +34 Bluff (and I can always T10, and can T20 twice per day), (I get the high bluff because I sing good), so maybe I should look into this Materpiece too? I always like a good bluff... and if it's just a Bluff...

Nah... not in character.

Heh. Nice.

My Bard is still only level 1, but I have slated this Masterpiece for him. Not to use it for any Knowledge checks (although if the PFS GM allows me to, I may use it for that; all depends on the circumstances); but rather, he will be using it to ensure everyone believes he is really a Prince.

And with the bonus to your disguise skill, you can use it to convince everyone that you are the bard formerly known as prince.

Sovereign Court

Rudy2 wrote:
Disagreements aside, that sounds like a very fun application, Entilzha. :)

Thanks Rudy :)

Sorry to hear your bad experiences with PotP. I learned long ago that if there's an ability which could be interpreted different ways, I always err on the side of caution and ask the GM (regardless of home play or organized play). It makes my life less stressful. And I'm happy about that, since I could use less stress in my life. ;)

Here's hoping that should you ever encounter a Bard who appears to be of Keleshite descent, claims to be a Prince, and looks like Jamie Farr wearing a burnoose, you'll be ok with him having PotP ;)

FLite wrote:
And with the bonus to your disguise skill, you can use it to convince everyone that you are the bard formerly known as prince.

LOL. I could do that I suppose. But I didn't base him off of that 80s person. :)

5/5

There needs to be a trait that gives a bonus for stabbing a bard during a masterpiece.


Kyle Baird wrote:
There needs to be a trait that gives a bonus for stabbing a bard during a masterpiece.

"Encore No More"?

Sovereign Court 2/5

From the perspective of the player, I will tell you that it is incredibly irritating when a GM imposes their own ruling on an ability because the RAW interpretation goes against their conceptions of how things should work.

A couple of examples:

1. Rage Cycling. There are several people I've run into who argue that it makes no sense to be able to rage cycle prior to barbarian 17, or will tell you that rage cycling does not make any sense from an RP perspective, and will wind up making a huge fuss over something that is fundamental to certain builds. And all that complaining comes down to "I don't like it for some irrational reason."

2. The Death Domain 8th level power Death's Embrace. Some GMs refuse to accept that the ability very clearly lets you heal from channeled negative energy to harm AND channeled negative energy to heal because of their preconceived notion of how channel rules work. That's great and all, but that's not what the class ability says.

Similarly, I've seen GMs who have openly complained to someone who had a clear spindle ioun stone. I share their dislike for the CSIS, but for a GM to stop the game to literally complain to the player that they took an over powered item, feat, what have you is a waste of time and just causes unnecessary friction. Old crane wing was also something that was frequently complained about. Frostbite is another. Ice Tomb, Ice Crystal Teleport, you can take your pick of controversial, weird content. Ultimately, the content is legal so they are allowed to use it as it is written.

The ability in question here blatantly and clearly says you get to substitute a bluff check for an intelligence skill check. Period. It may not make sense, it may be way too strong, but that's how it's written. If you want to change it, make an appeal for it in the boards.

Consider that at some point, we need to push our personal opinions about certain PFS content aside and let people use the content that they've paid money to use. As was said previously, changing how stuff works is not the correct way to handle spotlight hogging.


Right. It says you get to make a bluff check instead of an int-based check. It doesn't say, like Versatile Performance does, that you can substitute your Bluff bonus in place of, say, your knowledge bonus.

When you use Versatile Performance, the ability clearly says that you can substitute one bonus for another. So, when you're using Versatile Performance (Comedy) to do an Intimidate check, you are still, by the language of the ability, making an Intimidate check, which therefore does all the things an Intimidate check can do.

When you use PotP to substitute a Bluff check for a Knowledge check, you are no longer making a knowledge check. It doesn't say "use your Bluff bonus instead of your int-based skill bonus", like Versatile Performance does, it says "you may attempt a Bluff check". Therefore, you are not making a knowledge check anymore, and the check cannot do what a knowledge check can. It does what a Bluff check does.

I understand you don't agree with this interpretation, but it is not changing or going against a clear, RAW interpretation. There is none here. If the input from this thread, from all levels of PFS, makes only one thing clear, it's that the RAW isn't straightforward.

5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
something that is fundamental to certain builds

I find this part of the statement disappointing.

I'm constantly amazed by people who design their characters around the very fringes of a system and then are taken aback when people challenge it.

Acedio wrote:
we need to push our personal opinions about certain PFS content aside

Then why play a collaborative game with other people?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
The ability in question here blatantly and clearly says you get to substitute a bluff check for an intelligence skill check. Period. It may not make sense, it may be way too strong, but that's how it's written. If you want to change it, make an appeal for it in the boards.

You can only make that assumption by narrowly interpreting a couple of lines in the text of the masterpiece and blatantly ignoring the context that the beginning of the text sets it in.

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

You can not ignore this line, especially it's bolded part. The purpose of the masterpiece is essentially to enhance a bluff, a disguise, a fabrication, or as I've shown before, make such a bluff possible where it would not have been otherwise, not to turn dance into the Library of Congress.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rudy2 wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
There needs to be a trait that gives a bonus for stabbing a bard during a masterpiece.
"Encore No More"?

"Et tu Brute"?

5/5

LazarX wrote:

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

You can not ignore this line, especially it's bolded part. The purpose of the masterpiece is essentially to enhance a bluff, a disguise, a fabrication, or as I've shown before, make such a bluff possible where it would not have been otherwise, not to turn dance into the Library of Congress.

This. Favorited for reference until further clarification from Paizo.

4/5 Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
There needs to be a trait that gives a bonus for stabbing a bard during a masterpiece.
"Encore No More"?
"Et tu Brute"?

"Art Critic"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
There needs to be a trait that gives a bonus for stabbing a bard during a masterpiece.
"Encore No More"?
"Et tu Brute"?

"Art Critic"?

You sir, win the Mel Brooks Merit Badge for World History.


Also, people really complain about a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone? The one that just makes it so you don't need food or water? For 4,000gp?

Sovereign Court 2/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
I'm constantly amazed by people who design their characters around the very fringes of a system and then are taken aback when people challenge it.

Rage Cycling is a reasonable example of a fringe ability. Something like Death's Embrace is not. There's no obscure combination of rules to get that online, that's how it works out of the box. Yet people find that it offends their basic conceptions of how stuff works and don't accept it. And that's kind of crappy.

Kyle Baird wrote:
Then why play a collaborative game with other people?

When I get to play a table with people who won't sit and rules lawyer for 5 hours, then it's still fun. But the attitude of "you took something powerful, it's irritating, and I don't like it" puts a sour taste in my mouth.

EDIT: Sorry, don't mean to get off track, but the issue with the CSIS is the resonance bonus for having it in a wayfinder. It basically gives you permanent prot from evil for certain types of mind control.

Sovereign Court

Rudy2 wrote:
Also, people really complain about a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone? The one that just makes it so you don't need food or water? For 4,000gp?

The Ioun Stone isn't by itself what some people complain about, I suspect. But rather, when put into a Wayfinder, the resonance ability is to give you a constant Protection from Evil effect.

5/5

Entilzha wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
Also, people really complain about a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone? The one that just makes it so you don't need food or water? For 4,000gp?
The Ioun Stone isn't by itself what some people complain about, I suspect. But rather, when put into a Wayfinder, the resonance ability is to give you a constant Protection from Evil effect.

This...it's only the protection against mental control part, but that neuters a number of powerful options against the low will fighter/barbarian types.


Acedio wrote:
EDIT: Sorry, don't mean to get off track, but the issue with the CSIS is the resonance bonus for having it in a wayfinder. It basically gives you permanent prot from evil for certain types of mind control.

Ah, right. I tend to keep this post at hand to make sure people don't go to far with that. Seems powerful, but not too problematic to me.

EDIT: I'm also find it less problematic when people have powerful abilities to protect themselves; in general, this Ioun Stone won't cause a player to overshadow other players. I'm always rooting for the PC team, so if they find a way to protect themselves from a major weakness, more power to them.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the general interpretation that limits the use of this ability, based on the language that precedes the mechanical language in the same sentence:

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

But, as a GM, might there be occasions where the ability COULD be used to grant a knowledge check to learn monster abilities? You know, I just might. I don't think I'd let it work with unintelligent monsters, but intelligent monsters? Maybe.

Here's a rough example - the party has happened upon a vampire.

Bard: Ah, lo, evil creature of the night! I am Arglebargle, hunter of the unliving, grandson of Erglebergle, the slayer of Vampires! I have with me one of his famous wreaths of rosemary, bane of vampires everywhere! Cower, fiend, cower!

[Uses PotP, makes knowledge (Religion) check]

Vampire: No! It cannot be! He was destroyed and...Rosemary? You fool! Rosemary has no power over my kind! It bears not the horrific stench of garlic and has no power over us.

(Okay, the example is sort of lame, but I COULD envision, against some intelligent creatures, that ability could be used to sort of trick the creature into giving up information about itself.) It's not an elegant solution, and it muddies the water, but under those circumstances, maybe it would be okay. So, for me, maybe it will be more of a case by case basis.

Shadow Lodge

The full description of abilities is something that is part of the rules and players can't selectively decide which parts of the ability they wish to omit.

This happens sometimes...

For example, the pearl of power doesn't have anything about it's activation cost in the actual text of the pearl of power. This requires going to the section at the very beginning of magic items where you're told it's a standard action to activate them. You can't simply take the pearl out of context and say that it's a free action (well you can, but you're ignoring a rule).

Another different example is the vivisectionist. It comes with all sorts of text which talk about how the archetype enjoys torture and knows the ins-and-outs of the human body because of their fairly evil outlook. I imagine this is the main reason why it is disallowed in PFS, because PFS rules generally look at the full text and are run with them in mind. In home games, folks can reskin the crunch of the vivisectionist all they want ("I'm a doctor! I'm an acupuncturist!").

I believe yet another example is witch hexes (memory foggy). The DCs, ranges and/or actions required to invoke them are at the beginning of the section and can't be ignored when you read just the snippet for the hex's mechanical effect (".. there's no range listed in the hex, I guess it's unlimited").

Pageant is no exception to this general method of handling rules. You use the rule in it's entirety. You don't get to cherry pick a single sentence that relates a universal mechanical effect without the conditions under which that mechanical effect apply (the prior sentence).

Folks may debate this, but then through an application of "common sense" (prescribed by the Guide to Organized Play), you can compare this to all other 2nd level masterpieces and see that most give a +4 bonus to a very specific, very conditional ability, like your ability to disbelieve illusions. Thus, you end up with common sense that Pageant should be something similar, and a +4 Bluff bonus in social situations passes the common sense check.

My first read through of the ability with my "RAW cap" on, I didn't imagine this to apply to monster lore checks, for example (unless they are in a social setting where you're trying to impress Sir Alex Trebeck about your monster lore). It wasn't until I saw a player attempt it, that my immediate response was, "no, it doesn't work the way you think it does..."

If you think it should work on monster lore checks during combat, you should certainly click FAQ on the original post or Kyle or LazarX's above.


@Mark Stratton. That's elegant. I think the best way to approach that would be to make it clear from the outset that in general the ability can't be used to get real knowledge, but that there may be some circumstances in which your ability to fake it causes real knowledge to come about.

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

I'm just trying to find a way to sort of...I don't know...harmonize the two sides, so the ability is still useful (or has the potential to do so), doesn't really invalidate other characters (though, honestly, it happens all the time so this ability really isn't unique in that regard), and still work with the way the ability is written without attempt to distort it.

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't work, but for me, it could bridge the gap of the two sides, at least and until something more formal and official comes along.


Andrew Christian wrote:
GM Bold Strider wrote:

All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."

The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. You can convince them that your Knowledge is the correct Knowledge. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.

This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.

Sure it does. Bluff isn't just a roll vs a sense motive. There are modifiers, some quite heavy, based on how dubious your lie is.

Pageant of the Peacock let's you mitigate the dubiousness of the lie, by effectively making up info that's believable. So that instead of potentially getting a -10 or -20 on your bluff check, you get a +4 with either no or less of a penalty.

This, all of this. Thank you. :)

It's a Buff to Bluff effectively in certain situations/circumstances.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
But, as a GM, might there be occasions where the ability COULD be used to grant a knowledge check to learn monster abilities? You know, I just might.

This... +1

If there's a pitched battle, I'd allow a creative player to deviate from the rules slightly to do something creative.

For example, I'd allow a character with 10 ranks in Profession (courtesan) perhaps to use that skill to know something about a succubus. Or allow a character with 10 ranks in Profession (barber) to identify the properties of a magic war razor.

In this same vein, I'd potentially allow a person with Peacock to strut about and make a check to convince their fellow party members about some knowledge in a tight situation. I wouldn't deviate from the rules every scenario (i.e. a monster lore check every fight), but I could see creative use where the bard player wants to convince her fellow barbarian player about her breeding and eloquence as they gazed across a ravine at some otherworldly monster. As a GM, I might give out an actual true bit about the otherworldly monster massaged a bit for whatever personality that bard exhibited. "Oh, that? Well *puffs chest*. That's a snibblygorbit and it can conjure brain-feathers that tickle your ears and confuse you into biting the ears off your allies" (true fact: confusion). In this case, the barbarian is probably impressed about the bard's breeding/eloquence and as a GM you throw the party a bone about the impending fight and tweak the CR to be more manageable if they needed preparations to avoid a TPK (and lacked a true Knowledge character to have effected that tweaking).

4/5

LazarX wrote:


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

You can not ignore this line, especially it's bolded part. The purpose of the masterpiece is essentially to enhance a bluff, a disguise, a fabrication, or as I've shown before, make such a bluff possible where it would not have been otherwise, not to turn dance into the Library of Congress.

So, what's the mechanical definition of "convince others of your breeding, eloquence and refinement?" Where's my "breeding" stat on the character sheet? What kind of check is that, what skill, what modifiers, what's the result? Also, you want us to remember this line, but you focus only on two words in the whole sentence. "Convince others" is directly referencing "of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement." What's that got to do with Intelligence-related checks?

"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," is a very clear mechanical rule:

For the duration of this 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.

No reference to convincing others, simply a circumstance bonus and the ability to use one skill check to substitute for another skill or stat-based check. I don't even have to add words to identify what it does.

It's not our job, as PFS GMs to harmonize between sides, that's for the Devs to do. Is it more powerful than similar abilities? Sure, but when have PFS GMs been allowed to negate rules at the table that they think are overpowered? We need to follow the rules and give players a consistent environment in which to build characters. This isn't even a corner case or vaguely worded. How can you interpret "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," as saying anything other than it does?

If you don't like it, petition to have it banned from PFS or FAQ'd by the Dev team or both. But until one or the other happens, I don't see any convincing reason to rule it does anything other than exactly what it says it does.

And quite frankly, at least in the areas I've played, Pageant of the Peacock is going to help the table make checks that either the Bard would have made anyway, or that nobody would have been able to make far more often than it will end up stealing an "Int skill specialist's" thunder.

I don't see a problem with that.

------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to look at the general rule for Masterpiece performances, let's look at those rules:

Masterpieces wrote:


Masterpieces
Talented bards can learn or create masterpieces, unusual applications of the bardic performance ability requiring special training. Masterpiece descriptions adhere to the following guidelines.

Masterpiece Name: In addition to the name of the masterpiece, this line indicates which Perform skill or skills the masterpiece relies upon.

Prerequisites: Like feats, masterpieces have prerequisites that a bard must meet in order to learn them. Only bards may learn masterpieces.

Cost: Each masterpiece has an associated cost to learn it. Typically, a bard must spend one of his bard spells known of a specific spell level or select it in place of a feat. The bard can spend a bard spell known of a level higher than the listed level to learn a masterpiece (for example, spending a 4th-level spell known to learn a masterpiece that requires spending a 3rd-level spell known).

Effect: This brief description summarizes what occurs when a bard performs the masterpiece. Unless otherwise stated, a masterpiece's effects are supernatural. Unwilling creatures may attempt a Will save against the effect of a masterpiece; the save DC for masterpieces is equal to 10 + 1/2 the bard's level + the bard's Charisma bonus. Masterpieces that duplicate spells use the bard's caster level for the spell's caster level.

Use: This line specifies how many bardic performance rounds the bard must use to activate the masterpiece. In some cases, the bard can extend the duration of the masterpiece by expending additional rounds of bardic performance, just as if it were any other use of bardic performance. The bard expends the listed number of bardic performance rounds when he starts performing the masterpiece; if he is interrupted, the attempt fails and the spent performance rounds are lost.

Action: This line indicates the type of action performing the masterpiece requires. If it only requires a standard action to activate, being able to activate a bardic performance more quickly (at 7th level, activation is a move action, and at 13th, it becomes a swift action) applies to the masterpiece as well.

Unless otherwise stated, effects or feats that extend the duration of bardic performance (such as the Lingering Performance feat) do not apply to masterpieces.

GMs can use these masterpieces to inspire their own ideas for other masterpieces. 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 (a masterpiece requiring 7 ranks in Perform requires a 7th-level bard, and thus should not be more powerful than a 4th-level cleric or sorcerer/wizard spell).

Pageant of the Peacock wrote:


Pageant of the Peacock (Act, Dance)
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

Prerequisite(s): Perform (act) or Perform (dance) 4 ranks.

Cost: Feat or 2nd-level spell known.

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check.

The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Use: 1 bardic performance round per 10 minutes of the effect's duration.

Activation: 1 standard action.

We're looking at the "Effect" section. Is there any guidance we can get from the general rules for Pageant of the Peacock? The general rules state "Unwilling creatures may attempt a Will save against the effect of a masterpiece; the save DC for masterpieces is equal to 10 + 1/2 the bard's level + the bard's Charisma bonus." Is this affecting another creature directly where they would get a save? No more than Dance of the 23 steps, so it doesn't look like a creature gets a save to disbelieve what you know about it.

It's not duplicating a spell, so we don't need a caster level for it.

It's an SU ability, that's about all we get from the main rules for effects. But that's actually kind of important: The Masterpiece is magic, it doesn't have to make sense in the real world any more than a spell does.

It might violate the "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," statement. Though, being context sensitive, that's in a paragraph about GMs creating their own masterpieces. So, that might be good ammunition to get it removed from PFS or FAQ'd/Errata'd, but it's not a legitimate justification for an individual GM ruling it works differently than it explicitly says it does at the table.

However, remember that the comparison is to a _Cleric or Wizard spell that would be available at the level the Bard gets the Masterpiece._ (7 skill ranks equates to a 4th level spell in the example, so PotP should be equal to a 2nd level spell.) Knock is an iconic second level Wizard spell that lets you make a caster level check instead of use a Dex-based, trained only skill, and it gives you a +10 bonus to boot. That's the closest cognate because it; a.) Allows you to substitute a check from a completely different thing for a skill check; and b.) Gives you a bonus; and c.) Allows you to do something that's normally a trained-only skill; and d.) Is a second level spell (as opposed to Identify which is first level but only gives you the +10 bonus.) I think there's an argument that, mechanically, Pageant of the Peacock is in line with Knock. There's also a counter argument that, practically, Pageant of the Peacock applies to much more common situations than Knock does, so it is stronger after all.

201 to 250 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.