Pageant of the Peacock


Advice

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I was recently asked about this by one of my own players. I read the description provided for Pageant of the Peacock, and promptly advised that the use of Bluff for Knowledge implicitly means his Bard PC would be making stuff up and persuading other people he knew what he was on about. And that he should be fully aware that relying on anything I told him after a use of Bluff in place of Knowledge would be unwise.

Golarion appears to run on slightly different rules than reality, but it does NOT run on rules that different. Suspension of disbelief is ruined when any Bard can potentially know anything with simple performance. From my perspective, the 'this does allow Bluff to provide real Knowledge' interpretation is being pursued by people who want it to be true, without any apparent consideration for the consequences.

One major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.

My reason for posting this? I am unhappy with both the performance itself, and my handling of it, which seems to nerf it. What have other people done with it?


Just keep in mind that the effect in question is supernatural in nature. The bard is not, in fact, just making stuff up. He/she has to consume performance rounds, which are inherently magical in nature to manifest this ability.

Another thing to note is that the house rule you employed is essentially the bog standard bluff skill in action, albeit with a circumstance bonus, which offers no mechanical benefit to the player so invested whatsoever.


Indeed. Besides, what knowledge check is it to know the color of my socks?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What Knowledge skill is it to know what color socks someone chose to wear? And what's the DC? Your basic bard can make any Knowledge check untrained, after all, so the only difference Pageant of the Peacock would make in *that* regard would be a matter of degree, not capability.

Remember, Bardic Performances are magical abilities--all the ones on the standard bard list are supernatural or spell-like. So yes, the Bard with Pageant of the Peacock may be a quack--but by weaving a bit of magic, he can imbue himself with an ability to not only brazen through, but get actual results.


If you're looking for advice on how to house-rule it to get rid of the thematically ridiculous pulling knowledge from thin air, I suggest the following: keep the bonuses to bluff checks and disguise checks as they are, first of all.

Second, allow the bluff checks replacing int checks to only be used to convince others that he knows something, rather than to have it produce real knowledge BUT have it give the added bonus of removing any penalties that might otherwise apply from the lie being "impossible" or something.

An example might be if he was trying to convince a historian that he knew a lot about history, despite having no ranks in knowledge (history). Without the Pageant of the Peacock, he might need to make a Bluff check with the "impossible" modifier, or perhaps you might just say he can't do it at all. With the Pageant, he could use a Bluff check to "simulate" Knowledge (history), and make the check without any negative modifiers based on it being impossible.

This avoids the irritation of lies producing real knowledge (an irritation which I share with you), but still lets the ability do something that could not normally be done.


Sure, that could work, but I would offer your player the option to retrain the ability for nothing because Rudy2's suggestion is hugely situational(like on the verge of never going to see this happen, and if said opportunity does arise, the player with the ability doesn't even remember they have it any more).... Though that may be what you want?


It depends on how roleplay-centric the game is. Thematically, it is a roleplay-heavy ability.

But yes, in any case, if you're going to place an interpretation of this sort on it, I definitely agree the player should have the option to retrain it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gozreh's Beard! Another Peacock thread?!

@Ozy: There's a lengthy discussion on the PFS GM Forums that goes into great detail about the wide variety in which various GMs run Peacock at their tables... I'm sure you can find at least 1 or 2 GMs that run it in a way that meshes with what you're looking for.


Rudy2 wrote:

It depends on how roleplay-centric the game is. Thematically, it is a roleplay-heavy ability.

But yes, in any case, if you're going to place an interpretation of this sort on it, I definitely agree the player should have the option to retrain it.

Right, but I would point out that your "roleplay-centric" game simply benefits more from keeping the spell, because at least it will see use more than once a year... or four.


wakedown wrote:

Gozreh's Beard! Another Peacock thread?!

@Ozy: There's a lengthy discussion on the PFS GM Forums that goes into great detail about the wide variety in which various GMs run Peacock at their tables... I'm sure you can find at least 1 or 2 GMs that run it in a way that meshes with what you're looking for.

Don't worry; we're not arguing about the RAW here, just ways to run it in a home game. :)


Trogdar wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:

It depends on how roleplay-centric the game is. Thematically, it is a roleplay-heavy ability.

But yes, in any case, if you're going to place an interpretation of this sort on it, I definitely agree the player should have the option to retrain it.

Right, but I would point out that your "roleplay-centric" game simply benefits more from keeping the spell, because at least it will see use more than once a year... or four.

Maybe. At worst, it just places it in the same realms as 90% of feats/abilities in Pathfinder: something that is only taken for a very specific character build. Really, I think you're just not being creative enough.

Use 1: Spellcraft. You can use this to convince an NPC that the awesome sword of awesomeness in his hands is really a horrible cursed sword that you should let him take off your hands, with no penalty to the bluff, since you "know" how to identify items after all. OR, you can convince the band of orcs you are facing that the Dancing Lights you are juggling is really a band of fireballs that you're ready to let loose.

Use 2: Monster "identification". The ability to easily fool NPCs that a monster is something other than what it is is an enormous boon, that could show use in many situations. I'm actually shocked that this hasn't occurred to anyone. For example, you can sow dissent among foes by "identifying" their compatriots as actually being dopplegangers, due to the "obvious" signs.

More to come...


Use 3: Appraise. Oh my goodness. If you can bluff, without any penalty, that items are worth whatever you want them to be worth?


Use 4: Infiltrate any religious order. By "simulating" Knowledge (religion) checks, you can easily pass suspicions that might otherwise arise for you screwing up the rituals of the faith.


God, I'm getting to the point where I think that my version may be the broken one.


yeah... still just bluff. I think your player is just better off by planning to take glibness to eat the impossible lie penalties and buy himself a ring of wizardry.


Use 5: Linguistics. Convince an NPC that any writing that he cannot read himself is anything you want it to be, with no penalty.

Grand Lodge

Wait, your version counts as lying?


Or you could use this ability all day long, to convince people of your expertise on anything, and that they should listen to you about it, and stack Glibness on top of this, when you want to have 0 chance of failing, ever.


Still. Just. Bluffing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, your version counts as lying?

Yes; though I would disallow the stone-mask whatever for this ability, since it is so thematically inconsistent.

Please bear in mind that I am not arguing about RAW here.

Grand Lodge

If Glibness works, then the Mask of Stony Demeanor works, and adds an additional +10.


Trogdar wrote:
Still. Just. Bluffing.

Yes. And? It's awesome bluffing, much better than you could otherwise do.


More importantly, the claim that it has like one use per year is obviously nonsense.

Grand Lodge

Okay, so your version works, with your playstyle, works with your houserules.

How does that translate for others?


So if your lying and get 100 on the dc, its better than lying and getting a 40? The ability is supposed to grant benefits to your intelligence based checks, your house rule does nothing of the sort.

Diminishing returns...


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, so your version works, with your playstyle, works with your houserules.

How does that translate for others?

I'm offering advice to the OP, specifically, who like me doesn't like the idea of generating real knowledge from lies. That's who my version is aimed at. That kind of person.

Grand Lodge

Well, if it's flavoring only, then that is a simple fix.

Reflavor.


Trogdar wrote:

So if your lying and get 100 on the dc, its better than lying and getting a 40? The ability is supposed to grant benefits to your intelligence based checks, your house rule does nothing of the sort.

Diminishing returns...

I don't agree that the intent of the ability is to give you real intelligence skill bonuses, so I disagree that it's "supposed" to do anything of the sort. Note that this is not a RAW claim.

The rest depends on the GM, so the OP should talk to his players about what kinds of lies he would normally allow. There are all sorts of lies I flatly would not allow, not even with an 'impossible' modifier. In the description of Bluff, the GM can disallow lies that are too "out there". For example, if a player was trying to convince as Osirionologist that he was also an Osirionologist, despite having no knowledge of it, I would say "No. You can't do that; you don't any knowledge of it. Period." It's not like passing yourself off as an expert to a non-expert. However, with this ability, I would allow it.

Also, if your glibness is just cancelling out the -20, I'm not sure where you're getting a 40 so easily from.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, if it's flavoring only, then that is a simple fix.

Reflavor.

You'll note that the OP is concerned that this ability can be used to generate knowledge from, essentially, nothing. "Reflavoring" doesn't fix that. He doesn't want it to generate knowledge.

Grand Lodge

I never understood that.

Every DM I game with, likes it when there are PCs with high Knowledge.

Even though we play with a few "thespians", we can never seem to get a player to put any investment into Knowledge.

I usually end up as the sole Knowledge guy.

Even when playing a Barbarian.


Okay, so basically you have a whole series of complex house rules to prevent bluff from working.

I would then have to suggest that no one lie, its a waste of time.


Rudy2 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, if it's flavoring only, then that is a simple fix.

Reflavor.

You'll note that the OP is concerned that this ability can be used to generate knowledge from, essentially, nothing. "Reflavoring" doesn't fix that. He doesn't want it to generate knowledge.

Reflavoring does fix it though. It's not coming from nothing you're...

1. Tapping into the unknowable powers beyond the stars, a la Contact Other Plane.
2. Remembering from a past life.
3. Speaking randomly and reality is subtly altering itself to make your words true without anyone noticing.
4. Etc.

If you mean in a mechanical sense you think the character should not be able to make a knowledge check because it is beyond his in game personal experiences, you don't really have a point either because that's essentially what the Knowledge Skill does: Doesn't matter how obscure or how much it has nothing to do with my characters life path, I got the ranks and I beat the DC, I know it.


It's not really a complex house rule, it's just actually paying attention to the line where it says "GM discretion", which many GMs ignore.

And my players know exactly my stance on it. A lie that directly contradicts large amounts of knowledge held by the target cannot be done. In my game, an "impossible" lie is something like "there's a dragon behind you!" in the middle of town. It's insanely unlikely, but it doesn't directly contradict knowledge of the target, so it's attempt-able. But if you tell them "Your name isn't actually Joe, it's Bob. And you're an Orc, not a human.", it would be absurd to allow them to even attempt the roll.

In any case, a lot does depend on the OP's view of these matters of the Bluff skill.


chaoseffect wrote:
If you mean in a mechanical sense you think the character should not be able to make a knowledge check because it is beyond his in game personal experiences, you don't really have a point either because that's essentially what the Knowledge Skill does: Doesn't matter how obscure or how much it has nothing to do with my characters life path, I got the ranks and I beat the DC, I know it.

Let me rephrase it: the OP believes that the ability in question's mechanic for generating knowledge is too powerful. He wants a way to deal with this.

This is the Advice subforum. He's looking for Advice on how to deal with this.

The rest of you are trying to tell him is that he is wrong to want what he does.


@OP: It'll probably be easier and less of a hassle to just ban the masterpiece. The creation of this ability is not one of Paizo's finer moments.


Rudy2 wrote:

It's not really a complex house rule, it's just actually paying attention to the line where it says "GM discretion", which many GMs ignore.

And my players know exactly my stance on it. A lie that directly contradicts large amounts of knowledge held by the target cannot be done. In my game, an "impossible" lie is something like "there's a dragon behind you!" in the middle of town. It's insanely unlikely, but it doesn't directly contradict knowledge of the target, so it's attempt-able. But if you tell them "Your name isn't actually Joe, it's Bob. And you're an Orc, not a human.", it would be absurd to allow them to even attempt the roll.

In any case, a lot does depend on the OP's view of these matters of the Bluff skill.

And yet, these could actually be done. It might be hard, but a persuasive person could convince people of these things.


No, I just think that it should grant some sort of bonus to int based skills... maybe the circumstance bonus or something, and that it should grant real benefits to those skills because, again, that is the point.


"Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."

'You are an orc, not a human', falls under this category by my discretion, barring mind-affecting effects. I don't know how the OP handles it, a lot depends on that.


King.Ozymandius wrote:
One major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.

All Pageant of the Peacock does is save the Bard some skill points. That's it. It provides nothing more than what a Bard with okay intelligence and Bardic Knowledge could get if he decided to take max ranks in his knowledge checks. So that's why I'm saying it "generating knowledge and making you omniscient" doesn't really make sense as it isn't any different than just taking the Knowledge skills directly besides being more efficient with skill ranks.

If you would let me essentially read minds with a high enough Knowledge Local check (as per what your examples amount to), you're kinda going a bit beyond what knowledge does and that has nothing to do with Pageant of the Peacock.


Trogdar wrote:
because, again, that is the point.

Opinion. RAW reading is not proof of the intent of an ability, and there is so much conflict between the fluff of this and the way people read it, that it is doubly the case here.

Grand Lodge

So, some of the Advice, is to try looking at a different way, or reflavoring.

Hell, he asks how other feel, or otherwise handled it.

Maybe, he just needs your Advice, and hear your opinions, and how you handle it?

Is it okay if others have, different Advice, or different experiences, or different way they handled it?


chaoseffect wrote:
All Pageant of the Peacock does is save the Bard some skill points. That's it. It provides nothing more than what a Bard with okay intelligence and Bardic Knowledge could get if he decided to take max ranks in his knowledge checks. So that's why I'm saying it "generating knowledge and making you omniscient" doesn't really make sense as it isn't any different than just taking the Knowledge skills directly besides being more efficient with skill ranks.

Being insanely more efficient; don't forget Spellcraft & Linguistics, as well. Especially when you use traits (Clever Wordplay and Pragmatic Activator) to make some other skills int-based skills as well.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is it okay if others have, different Advice, or different experiences, or different way they handled it?

Of course, but it feels like you're gaining up on his point of view to tell him how wrong he is.


Caedwyr wrote:
@OP: It'll probably be easier and less of a hassle to just ban the masterpiece. The creation of this ability is not one of Paizo's finer moments.

Yeah, this is probably the best solution in the OP's case, it's true.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am saying, look at it from a different angle.

It is not an "all powerful ability".

It's basically extra skill points, with a change in the ability score used.

A dip in Lore Oracle gets you the same basic effect.


Rudy2 wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
All Pageant of the Peacock does is save the Bard some skill points. That's it. It provides nothing more than what a Bard with okay intelligence and Bardic Knowledge could get if he decided to take max ranks in his knowledge checks. So that's why I'm saying it "generating knowledge and making you omniscient" doesn't really make sense as it isn't any different than just taking the Knowledge skills directly besides being more efficient with skill ranks.
Being insanely more efficient; don't forget Spellcraft & Linguistics, as well. Especially when you use traits (Clever Wordplay and Pragmatic Activator) to make some other skills int-based skills as well.

I'd counter with "so what?" What's wrong with someone being an awesome skill monkey?


I think I can almost agree that it is not an "all powerful" ability, as long as not put into the hands of a master optimizer.

Clever Wordplay (Perform [Oratory]), Pragmatic Activator traits.

At level 6, with two Versatile performances (Act & Oratory) you can have Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Perform (Oratory), all Knowledge skills, Appraise, all Craft skills, and Linguistics all being based on Perform (Act).


chaoseffect wrote:
What's wrong with someone being an awesome skill monkey?

What's wrong with it is when it outshines by far all other possible skill monkey builds. The fewer "best" options there are, the more limiting the system becomes. Players become shoehorned into certain paths if they want to be the "best" at something.


To be fair if being good skills made you "all powerful" then Rogue wouldn't be considered bad. But he is. Skills are useful and good to have, but they are hardly the best thing to be good at in the game. If by "all powerful" you meant in comparison to other skill monkey options, then you have a point but I'd say Lore Oracles still come up on top when it comes strictly to knowledge.


Rudy2 wrote:
At level 6, with two Versatile performances (Act & Oratory) you can have Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Perform (Oratory), all Knowledge skills, Appraise, all Craft skills, and Linguistics all being based on Perform (Act).

Forgot UMD.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Pageant of the Peacock All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.