Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 662 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

What I want to know is, how do I handle this? I never volunteer to GM at my store, but I'm on the "ask" list to GM when there isn't enough. I don't want to create problems unnecessarily, but I will not run another game where a character substitutes one skill for 15 or so by giving up a single spell known (does whomever wrote that still work for paizo, by the way?). I'd rather never play PFS again than do so, as it encapsulates everything that's bad about PFS with nothing that is good about it.

Go ahead and call me petulant or whatever, as you wish. There are a great many gripes I have about PFS, but this is the first thing that's actually been bad enough that I would not be willing to run a game with it.

My options as I see it are this, when asked to GM a game:

1) "Yes, as long as none of the players use Pageant of the Peacock"; ask around the players, determine whether they have it, etc.

2) Use a thin semantic argument to prevent players from substituting one skill for 15 or so. In that case, I would of course make it clear to any players at the beginning of the game that this was my decision.

The semantic argument goes like this:

Spoiler:
Versatile performance states that you substitute your bonus in one skill in place of the bonus in another skill. In contrast, Pageant of the Peacock says you may make a Bluff check in place of intelligence based skill check. Since it is a Bluff check, and not, say, a Knowledge check, by definition you are bluffing, and the information you are spouting is a lie.

Which is the better path to take, in general? Are there explicit rulings from PFS, FAQs or otherwise that would clearly render the semantic approach illegal?

Grand Lodge 4/5

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

Go with number one.

Sovereign Court 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I understand that it is a powerful ability, I'm not convinced that it is so game breaking that it warrants denying 4-6 people the chance to play at game day.

You of course always have the right to not GM for any reason, so just decline.

Your reasoning behind limiting it is in contrast with the Pageant of the Peacock ability description, and will likely make your players angry and cause a lot of arguments. It's basically a custom rule, which is obviously not allowed in PFS. Sorry, but there's no basis for that ruling. You'll probably wind up hearing from your VO if you choose the second option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

I won't run a player who can do that; that's set. I'm more concerned now with determining which of the two options is the least objectionable. So far, one vote for number one.


Number one seems set, then. Thanks for the input. With any luck, this will be removed from additional resources, as I know it's been mentioned. *crosses fingers*

One follow up. If I refuse to run a game because a player has Pageant of the Peacock, and the player who has the ability volunteers not to use it in order to play (suppose there are no other GMs available), can that player later get me in "trouble" for not letting him use it? If so, I'd like to know, so I can just not run it at all in that case.

Sovereign Court 2/5

I would avoid that by just not running it. As a GM in PFS you do not have the right to tell a player not to use an ability that is allowed by the additional resources. If the player ends up feeling like you bullied them into not using that ability by holding the game ransom you will probably get in trouble and in the worst case you may not be welcome to volunteer.

Honestly though, saying "I won't run this game because you have pageant of the peacock" will probably not be appreciated either.


Good to know; thanks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand I won't make friends, but I'm set on this. This is an ability that should not exist. I am willing to risk my ability to GM on that proposition, though I'll try to avoid conflict where possible.

2/5

If they player indicated they felt coerced into agreeing not to use the ability you'd likely hear from your venture officer. You should probably bring this up to them anyway even if they are not the organizers who are asking you to GM games.

Silver Crusade 2/5

For what it is worth, I feel much the same way. Fortunately, I haven't run up against the ability.

I do have a 10th level wizard with feats, 70 or so skill ranks, and quite a bit of items tied up in intelligence based skills. The masterpiece is very frustrating, and I can't even understand how it is supposed to work thematically.

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

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rudy2 wrote:
There are a great many gripes I have about PFS,

Sounds like PFS may not be a good fit for you. If you are starting from that position, you probably aren't going to get much traction.

Rudy2 wrote:
Which is the better path to take, in general?

Get an errata pushed through, ala crane wing style, weapons cords, etc.

Paizo staff does listen. But if you were listening, which would actually spur you to action?

"I hate PFS, and if you don't change this thing, among all the things I hate, I will leave"

Do nothing? The person leaves.
Fix it? The person demands another fix, or leaves anyway. And you make other people unhappy.

"I love PFS, but there is this one thing that really bothers me. It looks like it is meant to work this way, but it is written to work this other way."

Do nothing? The person gets more and more people unhappy.
Fix it? The person is happy and makes more people happy. Hopefully enough to make up for the people your fix upset.

In the mean time:

Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

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.

clearly, the Intelligence check in question is to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Done, moving on.

For example, you are trying to pass yourself off as a noble. People ask you what your title is. You do not have knowledge (nobility) to come up with the name of a noble sufficiently obscure that they would not have met, but well known enough that they would have heard of him. So instead you execute an incredible dancer's bow, and confidently state "I am the Marquise de Carabas, surely people as noble and well traveled as you will have heard of me." And no one wants to admit that they are not well traveled enough to have heard of you.

Clearly, you are not the Marquise de Carabas. There is no Marquise de Carabas, but you are so stunning that no one questions your knowledge check.

Silver Crusade 2/5

FLite wrote:


In the mean time:

Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.

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.

clearly, the Intelligence check in question is to convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Done, moving on.

For example, you are trying to pass yourself off as a noble. People ask you what your title is. You do not have knowledge (nobility) to come up with the name of a noble sufficiently obscure that they would not have met, but well known enough that they would have heard of him. So instead you execute an incredible dancer's bow, and confidently state "I am the Marquise de Carabas, surely people as noble and well traveled as you will have heard of...

So, you are saying that Pageant of the Peacock can't be used for things such as identifying the powers and abilities of monsters? That... would fix all the issues I see with it. Could you elaborate a little more, perhaps?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(More detailed system mechanic break down.)

Without Pageant
Player: I want to bluff that I am actually a noble
GM: Okay, do you know the name of any of the noble houses? Roll knowledge (Nobility.) (Decides the DC is 15.)
Player: I don't have that knowledge.
GM: Okay, that is going to be a pretty unbelievable lie if you can't give your pedigree. That's -10 to the check.
Player rolls at -10;

With Pageant
Player: I want to bluff that I am actually a noble, and I am using pageant
GM: Okay, do you know the name of any of the noble houses? Roll knowledge (Nobility.) (Decides the DC is 15.)
Player: I don't have that knowledge, but Pageant, I make up something convincing. (rolls perform +4, easily makes it.)
GM: Okay, that seems pretty plausible, make your bluff check.
Player rolls at +4 using perform...

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DesolateHarmony wrote:


So, you are saying that Pageant of the Peacock can't be used for things such as identifying the powers and abilities of monsters? That... would fix all the issues I see with it. Could you elaborate a little more, perhaps?

Technically, I am saying that there is a valid rules arguement that Pageant of the Peacock can only be used to make it seem like you are someone who knows those things.

And then I am invoking the following paragraph from the guide to organized play:

GtOP page 32 wrote:

We understand that sometimes a Game Master

has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with
unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely
unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience.

If Mike Brock or John Compton want to tell me that my understanding is incorrect, and that PotP is intended to replace all Int skills with a single bluff check, then I will of course be overruled.

But I am banking on that they will look at the masterpiece, realize that my reading is what it is supposed to be, and will confirm it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

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).

Flite, thank you so much!

I, like Rudy, was taking the bolded section out of context, and seeing this as a horribly overpowered and overshadowing ability. It really did invalidate much of what other characters put into it.

With this reading, it makes sense, holds together, and is appropriately useful. Thank you again.

3/5

Of course Pageant of the Peacock can be used to identify monsters. The ability is very clearly defined. You can substitute a Bluff check for any Intelligence-related skill check. There is no valid rules argument for limiting Pageant of the Peacock against monsters. You quoted it yourself. The crunch of the ability is: "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 Knowledge an Int-skill? Yes, ergo, the Bard can use it.

Pageant of the Peacock is strong, but honestly who cares. Bards are supposed to be the knowledge guys. They have a skill named Bardic Knowledge. It's not a big deal. Can't remember the last time a successful knowledge check ruined a scenario. All of this hyperbole and grandstanding is ridiculous.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Bold Strider wrote:
There is no valid rules argument for limiting Pageant of the Peacock against monsters.

Actually, since "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement." is listed under the effect, you can argue that the ability to use a Bluff check in place of an Int-based check is limited to checks involving convincing others, which identifying monsters weaknesses does not fall under.

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

Further example:

A certain scenario requires a PC to make a series of knowledge checks to identify if certain objects are genuine of fake before an NPC will trust them. Each successful knowledge check identifies a specific test that can be used to determine if the object is a fake. (The PC then has to have the resources to execute the test.)

It is not really important to the PCs whether the items are real or fake, only if they can convince the PC that they know.

Without Pageant:
Player: I want to bluff that I know that the objects are fake, even though I don't know anything about them.
GM: Okay, give me your bluff. But it is unlikely since you didn't even try to test them. (rolls the NPC's ridiculously high sense motive, player rolls bluff at -5)

Player: I have Pageant of the Peacock. I pear at each item in turn, a knowledgeable sneer on my face. (Perform for one round.) Then, for each item, I use bluff to come up with a test that I know I can do (or at least fake.)
Rolls Bluff+4: in place of knowledge History: At this time, they used an ink that reacted by glowing when a certain acid is poured on it to authenticate royal signatures.
Rolls Bluff+4: in place of craft alchemy: Look, I have poured the acid, and the paper does not glow.
Rolls Bluff+4(+5 to 10 for convincing proof): Clearly this object is a fake!

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:

Of course Pageant of the Peacock can be used to identify monsters. The ability is very clearly defined. You can substitute a Bluff check for any Intelligence-related skill check. There is no valid rules argument for limiting Pageant of the Peacock against monsters. You quoted it yourself. The crunch of the ability is: "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 Knowledge an Int-skill? Yes, ergo, the Bard can use it.

Pageant of the Peacock is strong, but honestly who cares. Bards are supposed to be the knowledge guys. They have a skill named Bardic Knowledge. It's not a big deal. Can't remember the last time a successful knowledge check ruined a scenario. All of this hyperbole and grandstanding is ridiculous.

No. The crunch of the ability is "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. "

It then gives a mechanic for doing this. But the mechanic can only be used for doing this.

I agree, that the ability is ambiguous. And you are free to rule it as broadly or narrowly as you like. I will be ruling it narrowly at my table.

3/5

So, then, explain to me how Pageant of the Peacock is different than Bluff at this point in your argument. You can also use Bluff to convince others of your breeding, eloquence and refinement. Where at, in this stilted hypothetical, does the need for a Knowledge check arise? Need to know a noble's name? Bluff to make one up. Need to know which spoon to use? Bluff to say that this is the proper spoon in your home city of Terranovia. What exactly is this spell adding to the repertoire of the Bard who is already excellent at Bluffing?

Also, if this masterpiece was to be limited to only refinement and eloquence, then why say all Intelligence check and Intelligence-based skill checks? Why not just Knowledge(Nobility)? Is there another skill that could be used here that is Intelligence-based?

@Flite: You aren't actually using an Intelligence-based skill check, you are just Bluffing which anyone can already do.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GM Bold Strider wrote:
Also, if this masterpiece was to be limited to only refinement and eloquence, then why say all Intelligence check and Intelligence-based skill checks? Why not just Knowledge(Nobility)? Is there another skill that could be used here that is Intelligence-based?

Appraise

Knowledge (Anything else)
Linguistics
Spellcraft

Any actual Intelligence checks the GM calls for.

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:

So, then, explain to me how Pageant of the Peacock is different than Bluff at this point in your argument. You can also use Bluff to convince others of your breeding, eloquence and refinement. Where at, in this stilted hypothetical, does the need for a Knowledge check arise? Need to know a noble's name? Bluff to make one up. Need to know which spoon to use? Bluff to say that this is the proper spoon in your home city of Terranovia. What exactly is this spell adding to the repertoire of the Bard who is already excellent at Bluffing?

Also, if this masterpiece was to be limited to only refinement and eloquence, then why say all Intelligence check and Intelligence-based skill checks? Why not just Knowledge(Nobility)? Is there another skill that could be used here that is Intelligence-based?

@Flite: You aren't actually using an Intelligence-based skill check, you are just Bluffing which anyone can already do.

Actually, technically, the above bluffs are all part of your single bluff check, and having to make those extra lies act as a penalty on your bluff check. (making your lie more and more unbelievable.)

Normally you would get a bonus to your bluff for every piece of supporting evidence you have. Normally, you would need to create or find that evidence using an int based skill.

PotP lets you substitute Bluff (at +4) for all those tests, and then gives you +4 on Bluff *and* Disguise for a specific use.

Sounds about right for a feat or 2nd level spell equivalent.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rudy2 wrote:
I understand I won't make friends, but I'm set on this. This is an ability that should not exist. I am willing to risk my ability to GM on that proposition, though I'll try to avoid conflict where possible.

You don't GM in PFS, Mike Brock and his folks are the GMs, We are Judges. If you can't live with a decision made by campaign management, then maybe you should consider whether PFS is right for you.

It is the height of arrogance to say that you're going to turn away players using an approved rules set. And you are making a mountain out of a molehill. For all the hullabaloo over this ability, I've yet to run a single table with a bard choosing it. I'll save my banning of them for when I'm running my own.

I'm not ecstatic with a lot of things approved in the campaign. But it it is out of place for us as Judges to decide which rules we're going to abide by, and which rules we're going to flout.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To expand on TOZ's post:

Need a letter of introduction? No need to forge one, just wave your shopping list at the butler and shoo him on. (Replace linguistics with Bluff+4)

Need to gain entry to the blacksmiths guild? but they won't let you in unless you present a master's badge or demonstrate your skill? Sniff haughtily, say "what am I? an apprentice to be treated this way? See my friends masterwork sword? I forged that." (Replace Craft: weapon with bluff +4)

(Think Doctor Who, everytime he shows up somewhere and people ask him who he is. For that matter, there is a fair bit of evidence that Doctor Who uses Pageant of the Peacock in place of the "Pilot Tardis" skill, which explains why he almost never seem to wind up where he means to go, but he can almost always convince people that he meant to end up where he did.)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

FLite: Except that every check that you mentioned in your last example is a bluff check without Pageant of the Peacock.

FLite wrote:

Rolls Bluff+4: in place of knowledge History: At this time, they used an ink that reacted by glowing when a certain acid is poured on it to authenticate royal signatures.

Rolls Bluff+4: in place of craft alchemy: Look, I have poured the acid, and the paper does not glow.
Rolls Bluff+4(+5 to 10 for convincing proof): Clearly this object is a fake!

History check - the player doesn't know anything about the properties of the ink, he just cares that the NPC thinks he does. Because the PC is trying to deceive someone, that's a bluff check.

Alchemy check - what the player made isn't an acid, which means that again, he's trying to deceive the NPC, a bluff check.

The fact is, the first sentence of Pageant of the Peacock doesn't line up with the second part, because convincing someone that you are something you aren't isn't an Intelligence-based check - it's bluff.

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

LazarX wrote:

I've yet to run a single table with a bard choosing it. I'll save my banning of them for when I'm running my own.

Well, it's not exactly common knowledge that it exists if you are working out of the core books. I have yet to meet anyone using Dragonslayer’s Handbook, which only came out less than a year ago, and was only added to AR more recently than that.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've posted on other threads about Pageant.

@Rudy2: This ability encounters significant table variation, and as a GM you can decide where your ruling of this falls until there's more official guidance.

I read it within the "Effect: .." line already quoted and that it's in a circumstance where you're convincing others of your breeding, refinement, etc.

The big difference between using Bluff and Peacock is a Bluff check would involve an opposed Sense Motive. If a noble holds up the jeweled necklace and asks the Peacocker, "Oh, you're really noble? How much did this cost then?", a typical Bluffer would roll Bluff opposed by the noble's Sense Motive.

In this case, he only needs to hit a DC15 Appraise check and can use Bluff via Peacock in order to do despite having no ranks in Appraise, all without the noble getting any chance to roll Sense Motive.

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.

3/5

FLite wrote:

Actually, technically, the above bluffs are all part of your single bluff check, and having to make those extra lies act as a penalty on your bluff check. (making your lie more and more unbelievable.)

Normally you would get a bonus to your bluff for every piece of supporting evidence you have. Normally, you would need to create or find that evidence using an int based skill.

PotP lets you substitute Bluff (at +4) for all those tests, and then gives you +4 on Bluff *and* Disguise for a specific use.

Sounds about right for a feat or 2nd level spell equivalent.

So +4 to Bluff and Disguise (when was the last time that was ever needed in PFS) is the equivalent of a 2nd level spell slot? I don't think so.

Glibness, a third level spell slot, gives you +20 to Bluff, lasts 10 min. per level instead of 10 min. and lets you have the potential to avoid magical truth sensing.

If you want to say that something is of high-value, you don't need your convoluted way to do it. As a Bluff-based character (which is who would be using PotP), you just Bluff and say "Damn, that's an expensive piece." How many PFS NPCs have Sense Motive over +5? Hardly any.

If PotP didn't apply to all Int-related skill checks, then no one would ever take it. Bards are already goods at Bluffing and Knowledges, this just makes them a bit better and requires them to sacrifice a spell slot.

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

James McTeague, the way I have seen this sort of thing written in PFS scenarios:

"The PCs must make a bluff check against SoandSo's Sense motive of +14. If they can make a knowledge History DC 14, add +2 to their check. If they can make a Craft Alchemy, add +2 to their check. If they cannot make either subtract a -5 as SoandSo is disinclined to believe them in the absence of evidence."

Or "for each piece of evidence the PC's present, give them one check at the listed bonus. Examples of evidence:
(+2)If the PCs make a Knowledge <redacted> DC X and an Appraise Y they can mention that <redacted>
(0 or less) If the PCs make up evidence, they can try to present a case, but for each piece of evidence they make up, penalize their check by a cumulative -1 as they have more lies to keep track of."

A character with PotP could sub bluff at +4 for each of those.

According to the scenario authors, that is the way it works, you get 1 bluff attempt, and if you want to boost it you have to have corroborating evidence from a Int based skill.

3/5

FLite wrote:

Need a letter of introduction? No need to forge one, just wave your shopping list at the butler and shoo him on. (Replace linguistics with Bluff+4)

Need to gain entry to the blacksmiths guild? but they won't let you in unless you present a master's badge or demonstrate your skill? Sniff haughtily, say "what am I? an apprentice to be treated this way? See my friends masterwork sword? I forged that." (Replace Craft: weapon with bluff +4)

Both of those are just Bluffs. Waving your shopping list at someone and saying it is a letter of introduction is a reskin of the classic Bluff. "Here's my badge" *Flips wallet open for half a second* Claiming you made something is a Bluff, not a Craft check. None of your examples are actually Int-based skill checks. They are all just Bluffs.

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:


Glibness, a third level spell slot, gives you +20 to Bluff, lasts 10 min. per level instead of 10 min. and lets you have the potential to avoid magical truth sensing.

You are saying this is not as good as a second level spell because there is a better 3rd level spell?

Show me a feat or second level spell that is better at boosting your bluff.

Also, remember that if you are in a confrontation, and you cast glibness, all the NPC's are going to see is you casting a spell. (or worse, they might actually make their spellcraft, at which point who is going to believe you?)

PotP doesn't require chanting magic words to cast it.

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:
FLite wrote:

Need a letter of introduction? No need to forge one, just wave your shopping list at the butler and shoo him on. (Replace linguistics with Bluff+4)

Need to gain entry to the blacksmiths guild? but they won't let you in unless you present a master's badge or demonstrate your skill? Sniff haughtily, say "what am I? an apprentice to be treated this way? See my friends masterwork sword? I forged that." (Replace Craft: weapon with bluff +4)

Both of those are just Bluffs. Waving your shopping list at someone and saying it is a letter of introduction is a reskin of the classic Bluff. "Here's my badge" *Flips wallet open for half a second* Claiming you made something is a Bluff, not a Craft check. None of your examples are actually Int-based skill checks. They are all just Bluffs.

My point is that normally, the guild will not let you in unless you have a badge, or you *actually* make something in front of them. This lets you substitute bluff.

Normally the butler will not let you in until he makes a linguistics check and examines your letter. This lets you bypass this.

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

Anyway, I have to hit the hay, so I will finish with this for the night:

I agree, that the ability is ambiguous. And you are free to rule it as broadly or narrowly as you like. I will be ruling it narrowly at my table.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
FLite wrote:

James McTeague, the way I have seen this sort of thing written in PFS scenarios:

"The PCs must make a bluff check against SoandSo's Sense motive of +14. If they can make a knowledge History DC 14, add +2 to their check. If they can make a Craft Alchemy, add +2 to their check. If they cannot make either subtract a -5 as SoandSo is disinclined to believe them in the absence of evidence."

Or "for each piece of evidence the PC's present, give them one check at the listed bonus. Examples of evidence:
(+2)If the PCs make a Knowledge <redacted> DC X and an Appraise Y they can mention that <redacted>
(0 or less) If the PCs make up evidence, they can try to present a case, but for each piece of evidence they make up, penalize their check by a cumulative -1 as they have more lies to keep track of."

A character with PotP could sub bluff at +4 for each of those.

According to the scenario authors, that is the way it works, you get 1 bluff attempt, and if you want to boost it you have to have corroborating evidence from a Int based skill.

1. I don't seem to remember that construction anywhere - what scenarios are they in?

2. Regardless, those checks are to see if you actually know anything about the situation at hand and can use that evidence. According to you, PotP only applies if you're trying to convince people that you know something, not if you're trying to figure out actual facts. While you may be making the checks as part of a bluff to deceive someone, those knowledge checks are gaining actual knowledge, which doesn't fit under your interpretation.

And for anyone doubting how often it's used - I have seen repeated use of it in Philly and online. While it may not be in your region - it's out there.

3/5

Skill Focus(Perform) gives +6 at level 10 and +3 at level 1 to three different skills as a Bard. Bam, better than PotP.

Innocence (spell) gives +10 to Bluff for innocence and blamelessness. Equally as narrow as what you are proposing and it is a first level spell. Tap Inner Beauty gives a +2 to all Charisma-based checks as a first level spell. +2 to Perform, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, UMD. Much better than PotP. Cultural Adaptation gives a +2 to Diplomacy and Disguise and increase charm DCs by +1 on the people you choose to look like. Better than PotP.

Glibness is so far ahead of PotP in your interpretation that it makes PotP silly especially when there are better spells (for the cost) at the first level for Bards than PotP. Heck, just Charm Person whomever you need to convince. Suddenly, no Bluffs needed!

As to your examples, let me get this straight, the blacksmith's guild is going to make you craft a sword to gain entrance to talk to the boss or the butler is going to look at your shopping list to let you gain entrance? Suddenly, you know how to craft a sword when PotP is active, but you don't know a monster's weaknesses?

As for the second example, let's assume you meant you can forge a letter of introduction with PotP. Suddenly, you know how to forge letters of introduction when PotP is active, but you can't tell if a bridge is structurally sound or if the spell the enemy cast was Greater Invisibility?

Your argument assumes that you suddenly gain skill and knowledge far beyond what your character would normally know, but this isn't applied universally. What if the situation was that you were at an Ulfen feast and you had to convince the leader that you were an expert fighter Ulfen prince? He asks you about the weaknesses of Remorhazes. Would you know enemy weaknesses then? If you know the weaknesses then, then why would you not know them when actually fighting Remorhazes?

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another way to win at Pathfinder! Great!

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

I really did mean to go to bed. This is what I get for refreshing.

James

scenario name:
The second is more or less word for word from Scars of the Third Crusade. I don't have it on this computer, or I would give more details. The first is aggregated from several scenarios.

GM Bold Strider.
Please stop and reread my examples.

No, you don't know anything. You are just so (supernaturally) self possessed and graceful, that people bend the rules and let you get away with things without proof. Rules they wouldn't be willing to bend if you did not have Pageant of the peacock. Guards who would normally check all your papers wave you through, because you have Pageant of the Peacock.

Actual Example:

Quote:
our argument assumes that you suddenly gain skill and knowledge far beyond what your character would normally know, but this isn't applied universally. What if the situation was that you were at an Ulfen feast and you had to convince the leader that you were an expert fighter Ulfen prince? He asks you about the weaknesses of Remorhazes. Would you know enemy weaknesses then? If you know the weaknesses then, then why would you not know them when actually fighting Remorhazes?

Scenario: Ulfenson (as has previously been revealed to the players) considers anyone beneath the rank of prince to be beneath him. If the players decide to tell him they are in fact pathfinders, He is unfriendly, and the DC to influence him is 25. If they chose to pretend to be Ulfen Princes the DC is only 15 and he starts as indifferent. This requires at least one PC to make DC 15 disguise check due to the high standards he holds princes to. (A sloppy prince is worse than no prince at all.) Additionally, he has a test he uses to weed out the unworthy. He asks them about the weaknesses of a Remorhaze. It requires a DC 20 Knowledge (whatever) to know the weakness he is asking about. If the players do not know, they can try to come up with a convincing lie about some other weakness the Remorhaze supposedly has. The DC for this is 25. (Even if not written into the scenario, this is in line with several season 5 scenarios where the players can substitute alternate skills at a +5 increase in DC and the guidelines elsewhere for create use of skills.)

Player: Pagaent of the Peacock:
Makes Disguise at +4 vs DC 15.
Makes a Bluff at +4 vs DC 20 (as opposed to DC 25) to tell a lie about some previously unknown weakness that you personally discovered.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I'll be honest, FLite. I'm not seeing anything in your examples that isn't already covered by the Bluff skill without assistance. "Making hard bluffs easier" is already covered by PotP by the fact that it increases your Bluff. And nothing in the description implies that it would make people bend the rules for you any harder than normal.

Anyway, regarding your spoiler:

Spoiler:
The only non-bluff/diplomacy checks that matter in that case are checks to find the evidence to begin with. Under your version of PtoP it wouldn't help in the slightest, although I suppose you could use it to bluff about the letter. Which you can already do with the bluff skill, without having to dedicate extra resources to it.

3/5

Quote:
You are just so (supernaturally) self possessed and graceful, that people bend the rules and let you get away with things without proof. Rules they wouldn't be willing to bend if you did not have Pageant of the peacock. Guards who would normally check all your papers wave you through, because you have Pageant of the Peacock.

This is the very definition of a high Bluff. PotP under your interpretation is essentially a +4 to Bluff and Disguise (which is largely not useful) for a spell slot and Bardic Performance rounds. It's definitely worse than Charm Person (1st level spell). Way worse than Innocence (1st level spell) if you are trying to look innocent. Worse than Tap Inner Beauty (1st level spell) for the range of abilities powered, but slightly better if you only care about Bluff. Worse than Skill Focus(Perform(String)) for Bards with Versatile Performance at all levels unless you only want Bluff for your whole career. Worse than Prodigy (feat) at all levels for the same reason. It is slightly better than Cultural Adaptation which is a 1st level spell (when you factor in the bonus to charming, which I think is better when tag-teamed Charm Person, but to each their own).

So, yes, PotP, under your interpretation, is terrible and not worth a feat at 5th level or a 2nd level or higher spell slot, especially when you gain Glibness at level 7.

3/5

wakedown wrote:

In this case, he only needs to hit a DC15 Appraise check and can use Bluff via Peacock in order to do despite having no ranks in Appraise, all without the noble getting any chance to roll Sense Motive.

Under Flite's notion that it becomes a Bluff check and you don't actually know anything (thus not an Appraise check), then you would definitely have to allow a Sense Motive. You are Bluffing about knowing the price. That is the exact situation for Sense Motive. Just like in Flite's made up Remorhaz situation, the Ulfen king would get a Sense Motive and pretty high modifier because he has fought tons of Remorhazes in his day.

As you wish to rule it, you are effectively making PotP a +4 buff to Bluff and Disguise which is worse than many other options for all the reasons I described above.

Shadow Lodge

GM Bold Strider wrote:
.. then you would definitely have to allow a Sense Motive. You are Bluffing about knowing the price. That is the exact situation for Sense Motive.

I'm just saying how I rule it. I haven't looked for intersections in FLite's interpretation.

I can speak to how I arrive at my interpretation, and can respect other GMs who interpret it differently:

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.

Here's how I read the above:

1) The character weaves their body. They take on a posture. Gracefully. (Thus, they can't hold perfectly still, they can't make this check while bound or held, etc.)
2) The effect of this ability is to convince them of breeding, eloquence and refinement.
3) This is useful where in order to do #2 an Intelligence check would have worked. This could be in an adventure as an "Appraise" check, "Knowledge (nobility)" check or a "Knowledge (local)" check with some DC set. As an Intelligence check, there was no need to roll for the others to roll Sense Motive.

In practice, the Peacocker rolls his Bluff, takes on some postures, smiles and the observer(s) are suitably impressed of their breeding, eloquence or refinement and it's just as if the Intelligence check was made (if they are successful).

This is potentially useful if you are in front of a crowd of 20 people. One Bluff check and the crowd is impressed by your stature. There's no standard use of Bluff versus 20 Sense Motive checks.

In most cases, folks at this party will look at you kind of funny if you start grabbing material components, gesturing and reciting arcane words.

I understand at many tables, a level 5 PC can have a +5 or higher Bluff and they shrug at the thought of twenty nobles with +5 Sense Motive opposing them. In general, I read rules in the broader/wider sense of optimization and that there's applicability because the system is built around PCs with skills at level+5 (or a level 5 PC having a +10 Bluff being a reasonable Bluffer for a written adventure).

GM Bold Strider wrote:
As you wish to rule it, you are effectively making PotP a +4 buff to Bluff and Disguise which is worse than many other options for all the reasons I described above.

I'm not basing how I run it off trying to set a value for a masterpiece. Most other 2nd level feat/spell slot masterpieces are really giving a very situational +4 bonus. For the price of a 2nd level spell/feat, Illusion's Decree grants a +4 bonus to disbelieve illusions. I feel like how I read Pageant of the Peacock sets its value very similarly to Illusion's Decree. As the bulk are highly situational, most of the masterpieces are useful maybe once every handful of adventures (or if you are running PFS, maybe they would see a use once every half-dozen scenarios if you are lucky). The broad interpretation of Peacock makes it applicable not just every scenario, but every single combat. It would nearly be required fare for all bards. That's pretty potent power creep for as obscure of a supplement as Dragonslayer's Handbook is. :)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wakedown wrote:


Here's how I read the above:
1) The character weaves their body. They take on a posture. Gracefully. (Thus, they can't hold perfectly still, they can't make this check while bound or held, etc.)
2) The effect of this ability is to convince them of breeding, eloquence and refinement.
3) This is useful where in order to do #2 an Intelligence check would have worked. This could be in an adventure as an "Appraise" check, "Knowledge (nobility)" check or a "Knowledge (local)" check with some DC set. As an Intelligence check, there was no need to roll for the others to roll Sense Motive.

Here's the problem with your interpretation - The verb in #2 is "convince." Trying to convince someone of something is always a Charisma-based check, in this case Bluff because we're talking about situations that aren't true. This means that the is never an Intelligence check that could apply to the situation since Bluff is Charisma-based.

Now don't get me wrong, I think PotP is broken beyond belief. But you are making the same mistake the author did and having it try to only apply to situations that don't exist.

Shadow Lodge

James McTeague wrote:
Here's the problem with your interpretation - The verb in #2 is "convince." Trying to convince someone of something is always a Charisma-based check...

Well in this case, it's still a Charisma based check!

And I wouldn't suggest you always need to make a Charisma check in order to convince someone of something.

"I'm a spellcaster."

"Prove it."

*casts burning hands*

(no Charisma check required if I'm GMing a table in this case)

Paizo's newest designer makes his case here. If we nudge him (or simply let him start his workweek and check the forums when he's not busy writing epic class previews), we could maybe lure him into chiming in again... perhaps finally in FAQ form.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've got to say that this thread kind of shocked me. Not just the OP.. I actually understand that, although I think his best bet would be to have an ooc discussion about sharing the spotlight with others so that everyone can have fun rather than just banning an ability at a table he's at. There are plenty of other abilities (slumber hex, while not the best example, comes to mind real quickly from my own experience) that can destroy elements of a game rapidly and lead to other players feeling useless. Knowledge skills, the fruits of which are generally allowed to be instantly known among everyone based on the best roll of the players (not that it should realistically work that way, but it often is from what I've seen... for ease), are an odd place to take a stand in my opinion. Particularly since, from what I've seen, bards (w/o the PotP) tend to be top tier for knowledges anyhow. It's kind of their schtick, after all, they get all sorts of class abilities to support it.

What shocks me though is the responses. Do I think it's a powerful ability that makes little real-world sense? Yup. Do I think it's magic? Yup. Does magic make sense? Not usually. Beyond that though, some people seem to be advocating to blatantly ignore the RAW for an assumption of RAI. One that isn't supported by the wording. This is something that isn't done in PFS. It's one thing to make a ruling when the rules are unclear, it's another matter entirely to fabricate excuses to change clear rules because you don't think its RAI. That's what this comes off as, and it stuns me.

I recently polled people in the rules forum and the results were pretty much unilateral: Using bluff in this way does not negate the trained/untrained restrictions of using knowledge skills. Either the bard keeps bardic knowledge (in which case he's using a class ability to help him make these checks as well as the feat/spell for PotP and giving up the ability-given boost to knowledge skills in exchange for the bluff substitution) or if he trades it away in an archetype, then he needs to put at least 1 rank in each knowledge he wants to use this for. That gives him a basis of knowledge to work off of that keeps everything from being drivel. The bluff is more 'filling in the blanks' in that case.

Again, yes... it's a bit screwy. At home games, feel free to nerf or nix it. But this is PFS, where people can't just go to a single GM for an interpretation of a rule when building a character. Taking away the value of a chosen option of a character because you don't like it screws over a player who sits down unknowingly at your table. That's why PFS relies on RAW when available, the table consistency tries to make up for not being able to make choices in conjunction with help from your GM. There are enough issues with this due to questionable RAW wordings, please stop encouraging more where they aren't needed.

Petition for an errata. Until then, play it as written. If you find it's overshadowing people and reducing the fun of other players, take it ooc and ask the player if they'd be willing to tone it down or let others make their rolls first or whatnot.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If pageant of the peacock trips your ejector seat you're going to want to bail on a LOT of PFS options.

Summoners
Druids
Summoners
Animal companions
Gunslingers
Color spraying heavens oracles
Two handed weapon users

I am very much not a fan of the feat. What it does by raw is amazing, allows you to drop barding knowledge like a bad habit, and the flavor text and actual effect are completely at odds. But playing PFS means accepting that someone else has said that a feat is legal and you have to accept that or not DM. Not DMing because of such a trivial reason is petulant.


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.

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.

3/5

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.

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.

You have the right not to GM. You're a person, you make up your own mind as to where you want to spend your time and energy, you're not under contract. That said, you need to realize that if you sign up to GM and then suddenly refuse, 4-6 players are going to be without a table and rather put out. What you can't do, is you can't kick someone out of your table for using PotP. Either you GM the game, or you don't... and you deal with the hurt feelings, anger over wasted time, etc. that that entails. If it's a con you're GMing at, your restrictions may be even tighter (particularly if someone's say, paying for your con ticket in exchange for you GM'ing). This doesn't seem to be the case with you though, you seem to be a go-to last minute GM. If so, yes, you can refuse to GM anyone, given the above stipulations.

The player has the right to play the character. You have the right not to GM any game. You do not have the right to exclude just that character if they're following the Organized Play rules.


Cons aren't an issue, as I don't go to them, and don't plan to.

I also never sign up to GM in advance where I play, it's more: I show up to play, sometimes there aren't enough GMs, and I'm asked to do it. So, it's not something I would be "suddenly refusing".

Shadow Lodge 4/5

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.

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

GM Bold Strider wrote:
wakedown wrote:

In this case, he only needs to hit a DC15 Appraise check and can use Bluff via Peacock in order to do despite having no ranks in Appraise, all without the noble getting any chance to roll Sense Motive.

Under Flite's notion that it becomes a Bluff check and you don't actually know anything (thus not an Appraise check), then you would definitely have to allow a Sense Motive.

No you don't. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying it becomes a bluff check. I am saying "In the case of a situation where you are trying to convince someone that you are more than what you are, and convincing them of that would normally take an Int skill, you can use your bluff score at +4 in place of that int skill."

In the same way that versatile performance (keyboard) does not require you to pull out a keyboard to use your perform skill to make diplomacy checks, this does not require you to turn int checks into bluff checks. They keep their same DC and are not opposed by sense motive unless for some reason they already would be.

I do not understand why it is so hard for you to understand this. Several people have tried to explain this to you and you keep coming back to it. Are you deliberately trying to distort my argument in an attempt to discredit it?

1 to 50 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.