|
As long as you exercise restraint in a group where others want their knowledge checks to matter, I see no reason as to why this ability had to be let go.1) not everybody even tries to exercise restraint
2) Exercising restraint without appearing condescending (unless you choose to just not use the ability) is somewhere between difficult and impossible. Once you succeed at a check that my highly knowledgeable character failed I'll know that your character is just letting me try in order to be nice. While I DO appreciate the effort it just doesn't work for me.
Until you need to use the ability, why use it? It takes up actual resources. After that, if your knowledgeable character can't make a check, but another character at the table can, what's the harm? I know the fluff doesn't support the character being knowledgeable, but my character at least put a lot into making Pageant good. Did I get a large return on my investment? Surely. But it was still an investment I had to make. I invested a trait, a racial trait, a feat, two items, and one second level spell known in order to make my character good at Pageant. Honestly that does not seem broken at all to me. My Bluff score may have been a bit higher than the average Pageant user, but I enjoyed being good at what my character did. Now that has fallen to the wayside for me, and about one quarter of my characters mechanical benefits are gone off one ban. It is very frustrating and exercising restraint is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be, at least not for myself. As I said I rarely had other knowledgeable characters at the table, but when I did I waited to reveal my abilities until they were necessary, as I attempt to do with all my characters, outside of friendly games of course where I goof off a bit more.
Tl;dr: Just not using it when it wasn't needed should have been the go to for the players. Bardic rounds are a resource anyway. Between people laughing at their abusiveness and the wonky flavor of the ability, one of my favorite abilities mechanically, that I purchased a book for, is banned and I am upset.
|
This fallout was sort of similar when the Crane Style tree was revamped. There were many people who felt nipped in the back on the change. Kurth, you know at least two people whose characters was affected by this (with one person having two characters that have the style).
As for the Pageant of the Peacock, my current bard is affected, as she had spent what little ranks she has into Knowledge skills that can NOT be changed. This made my archetype less utility and more combat focused, since I can not supply my party with sufficient knowledge skills. I understand that it is my choice for choosing the masterpiece, but it would be nice if we can swap out the skill points.
Because I can make a wizard, dip into bard for four levels,There you go, fixed that for you.
I'm not sure I follow. A wizard 3/bard 1 can have 4 ranks of perform (dance) and give up a feat to take the masterpiece, right? Just because you have the option of sacrificing a second level spell doesn't mean you have to be able to.
Which actually means that this is possibly even more silly in the hands of a wizard x/bard 1 character, since it frees up all your skill points for non-int-based skills... Of course, wizards don't really need the extra skill points.
Are you sure that's not broken?Eh, I'd be more concerned about the bluff -> craft if crafting was allowed in PFS.
On a whole I am really just not worried about the int based skills. The social skills are more important, but it's not PotP that lets you do those substitutions.
Suppose there is a feat called "Improbable Knowledge". This feat reads "Choose a Knowledge skill. You get a +4 bonus to that skill, and may use that skill to make any Knowledge check".
That feat is always significantly better than the feat Scholar. While Scholar is not an amazing feat, comparing to existing feats is a standard balance metric.
If Pageant were only available as a feat, instead of by sacrificing a spell (which costs less than a feat), it would still be more powerful than Improbable Knowledge.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Now that is a level of table flipping I have not seen before.
First of all:
my current bard is affected, as she had spent what little ranks she has into Knowledge skills
How low do you dump int as a bard to be able to describe what you have as "what little ranks she has"
it is just that my character has shifted from support to now "Murder-hobo" status
I can't decide if this is:
"I can't knowledge check everything into next week, so I will just kill everything instead."
or
"You took away my toy, so I am going to play as disruptively as I can, so you regret it."
|
Crafting items is not allowed, but I've been in several scenarios where a Craft skill was useful. Also, isn't one allowed to use a Craft skill for a day job check?Are you sure that's not broken?Eh, I'd be more concerned about the bluff -> craft if crafting was allowed in PFS.
On a whole I am really just not worried about the int based skills. The social skills are more important, but it's not PotP that lets you do those substitutions.
Ah, but because the performance has a duration of 10 minutes, and a day job is understood to be compensation for a long period of work, you cannot get a bonus to day job rolls from PotP as you would run out of performance rounds (despite the long duration).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Are you sure that's not broken?Eh, I'd be more concerned about the bluff -> craft if crafting was allowed in PFS.
On a whole I am really just not worried about the int based skills. The social skills are more important, but it's not PotP that lets you do those substitutions.
Sure it does. Just use a trait to turn perform oratory into an int based skill. Now peacock lets you replace oratory with bluff, which in turn lets you replace diplomacy and sense motive. And since you don't need to spend skill points on knowledges or spellcraft, you have 5+int to spend on all the rest of the skills, so indirectly it does buff all the rest of you skills by freeing up resources.
|
|
Wow. Now that is a level of table flipping I have not seen before.
First of all:
my current bard is affected, as she had spent what little ranks she has into Knowledge skillsHow low do you dump int as a bard to be able to describe what you have as "what little ranks she has"
it is just that my character has shifted from support to now "Murder-hobo" statusI can't decide if this is:
"I can't knowledge check everything into next week, so I will just kill everything instead."
or
"You took away my toy, so I am going to play as disruptively as I can, so you regret it."
...well, that escalated quickly...
I have an Intellect of 10, however with placing ranks into Diplomacy, three performs to gain masterpieces, UMD, Spellcraft and the like, as well as not gaining Versatile Performance, allocation is very limited. As I stated in the previous post, I am aware of Archetype selection and such, so it is my decision to do this.
I do have Diplomacy and Bluff, and will continue to do so. I can still inspire courage and such, but I am in the same FLGS as Kurthnaga, where Knowledge skills are not as emphasized in the group as much as Damage output by players. I do not seek to be disrespectful or disruptive to my local group, as I GM in the group.
As for me assuming to "table flipping" because of this, not really. I already swapped out (Yay free Gallant Inspiration), and prepping for my local convention.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I have an Intellect of 10, however with placing ranks into Diplomacy, three performs to gain masterpieces, UMD, Spellcraft and the like, as well as not gaining Versatile Performance, allocation is very limited. As I stated in the previous post, I am aware of Archetype selection and such, so it is my decision to do this.I do have Diplomacy and Bluff, and will continue to do so. I can still inspire courage and such, but I am in the same FLGS as Kurthnaga, where Knowledge skills are not as emphasized in the group as much as Damage output by players. I do not seek to be disrespectful or disruptive to my local group, as I GM in the group.
As for me assuming to "table flipping" because of this, not really. I already swapped out (Yay free Gallant Inspiration), and prepping for my local convention.
In other words, you sacrificed a lot of the standard bardic powers to get lots of nifty toys, but avoided having to pay the cost of that choice by having PotP just go in and backfill all of them for you for next to free.
As for table flipping, you are the one who said this reduced your (Charisma 20, maxed(?) diplomacy and bluff) character to a murder hobo. That seems like a pretty extreme statement. I apologize if that is not how you meant it, but I don't see how losing the knowledges makes this character a murder-hobo unless you decide you want to play them that way.
I am sorry that it sounds like you are stuck in a region that plays PFS as a "kill the monster" hunt, frankly out here people cringe when there is not a face and a knowledge build in the party. And especially in season 5, with 4 hour slots (do to closing time limitations at the FLGS) anything that can prevent going into initiative is *far* more valuable than any amount of damage output.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Yeah, it's cool. I think we may also have different definitions of murder hobo. Out here, murder hobos are the guys who say "I attack" as soon as the GM describes an NPC, get you into unnecessary fights, cause you to fail missions, and cost you prestige points, then expect you to heal them.
|
|
Over here I'd like to think that those of us who murderhobo are more due to our gamist views and preference for system mastery, and thinking what would be fun to play, rather than coming up with extremely complex backstories. All of my characters have backstories at this point, usually with light drops from them dripping into scenarios, but my characters are generally play concept first with character concept following. Rarely does any one PC cost others their prestige, and the attempt to reign in murder is one I undertake regularly.
Finlander hits the nail on the head. I would not mind if this ability had been banned in the first place. But banning while my character is in play, and this is a core part of her identity not only mechanically, but flavorfully at this point. It's a blow to lose it.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*places clay cup in the waters, brings it slowly to his lips and sips gently*
Player tears are sometimes salty but they are always delicious.
I have no stake in this argument, as I have no characters with this Pageant, but I will say this:
You disappoint me, Andrei. This sort of smug, condescending post is unnecessary, unhelpful, and unbecoming a Venture Officer.
|
|
*places clay cup in the waters, brings it slowly to his lips and sips gently*
Player tears are sometimes salty but they are always delicious.
I have no stake in this argument, as I have no characters with this Pageant, but I will say this:
You disappoint me, Andrei. This sort of smug, condescending post is unnecessary, unhelpful, and unbecoming a Venture Officer.
I believe that Mr. Buters is no longer a VO, and that the change is merely taking awhile to take effect. It still is unwanted however, even if intended to be humorous.
What I find interesting about the ruling is that clearly the ability worked exactly the way so many people argued that it did, otherwise it wouldn't need to be banned...
|
|
I understand the idea of removing the option from the game.
Although banning things after they were once legal punishes the players that did take those options unfairly.
I have to agree. I have been saying that with my local audience for years; even if we can't, don't, and shouldn't act upon what we believe, since it would be against the rules. It is very disappointing to lose your schtick with no real recourse for the loss, especially when those that were opponents of the ability openly mock those who made such characters. Unfortunately, that's how it is.
What I find interesting about the ruling is that clearly the ability worked exactly the way so many people argued that it did, otherwise it wouldn't need to be banned...
I have to agree...partially...with this. RAW seems pretty clear on the issue, however, I felt this masterpiece was causing too much dissent among gamers, which is why I'm glad it's gone. Whether that was the actual reason...who knows, but it does seem that the intent of the ability was muddled, evident from all the responses it drew and anger it garnered from GMs. Also, the stories of GMs giving false information to players for this ability does not sound good at all. I do feel for those who purchased product to use this ability however, but cannot come up with more than condolences.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Yeah, it's cool. I think we may also have different definitions of murder hobo. Out here, murder hobos are the guys who say "I attack" as soon as the GM describes an NPC, get you into unnecessary fights, cause you to fail missions, and cost you prestige points, then expect you to heal them.You say this like it's a bad thing?
:| <-poker face
Ever been to Tracy Hickman's seminar on How To Play The Game?
|
|
I'm a bit saddened by the removal of Pageant of the Peacock, as I'd had a couple of character concepts that I'd wanted to use it with. It's the perfect ability to create a "Pretender" style of character or to re-flavor for an interesting character quirk. Unfortunately, for those people that used it as a "build around" ability, a feat or a spell probably won't adequately replace it... which is probably a justification for why it was removed.
Objectively, PotP was far too powerful for the cost to the point that it was an "auto-include" for most Bards and could justify a multi-class dip in of itself. From a design perspective, there were several ways it could have been toned down for PFS play, but given the polarizing effect that it had, it's probably for the best that it was removed. On the other hand, I feel for anyone that purchased the source just for one ability and have a character that had a cornerstone of the build removed. I'd have probably been in the same boat a week from now myself.
|
|
I will miss this terribly.
It isn't about the lost knowledge checks its about convincing the rest of the party that the Schir they see is in fact called a Siracha Demon or that the Stone Statue thing with wings and horns and claws is a Gargle Demon.
I think the reason behind this was straightforward compared to similar abilities it was stronger than intended, perhaps to strong. In most situations I would let others make knowledge checks and just leave Pageant for those few crucial moments (like spending my first standard action in combat to identify whatever that thing is cause no one else knows, then calling it a Snarfleblat) and let other characters shine (except Rich's Alchemist, but thats a long story).
Know the question is, what spell do I take so many awesome 2nd lvl bard spells...
|
|
I understand the idea of removing the option from the game.
Although banning things after they were once legal punishes the players that did take those options unfairly.
I have to agree. I have been saying that with my local audience for years; even if we can't, don't, and shouldn't act upon what we believe, since it would be against the rules. It is very disappointing to lose your schtick with no real recourse for the loss, especially when those that were opponents of the ability openly mock those who made such characters. Unfortunately, that's how it is.
My complaint is that you legally build somethign and take archetypes, feats and skills to match and work around it. Now a piece you relied on for your build is removed. You are stuck with options you never would have taken had they been banned from the start.
To me this is the PFS staff making a mistake by not banning it in the first place, and then punishes the players for having picked other features to use with it.
I would argue if rules get changed allow player to petition their VC that if their character was significantly effected allow to rebuild the features effected.
*places clay cup in the waters, brings it slowly to his lips and sips gently*
Player tears are sometimes salty but they are always delicious.
I have no stake in this argument, as I have no characters with this Pageant, but I will say this:
You disappoint me, Andrei. This sort of smug, condescending post is unnecessary, unhelpful, and unbecoming a Venture Officer.
That sort of post is also most obviously intended as humorous. Informing the writer that they disappoint you for attempting humor comes off as rather condescending, however. To be disappointed in someone implies some form of superiority (which may sometimes be the case), but is not evident here.
if such a core facet that defined a character's build were banned shortly after it was allowed, please allow them to fully rebuild their character from scratch because they most likely built a gross mountain of their capabilities around having that one core ability. imagine a Yu-Gi-Oh tournament where some guy banned dark magician halfway into the tournament, but still allowed all the dark magician support cards, halfway into the tournment where a significant amount of players played dark magician themed decks. effectively a sudden rules change would make the deck unplayable and should entitle the players to a full rebuild, because the dark magician ban occurred halfway through the tournament instead of at the start, and made dark magician themed decks highly unplayable, because while dark magician isn't a very powerful monster, it is literally a deck foundation you build around 15-20 cards of your 40 card deck around supporting and put the limit of 3 in.
banning the pageant this late is like banning the dark magician in a yugioh tournment that is half over, as an errata when it was initially allowed at the tournments beginning
just like many dark magician users will pick up the support cards to build their deck around, many pageant of the peacock users likely built a heavy amount of their character around this one defining masterpiece. by taking supportive options they wouldn't have taken if they couldn't use this masterpiece
pageant isn't simply a 2nd level spell or even a feat, it is a character defining performance. it is something you center a build around, much like the summoner's eidolon defines the summoner.
|
if such a core facet that defined a character's build were banned shortly after it was allowed, please allow them to fully rebuild their character from scratch
Are you still avoiding PFS like the plague, and if so, why does it matter to you?
because they most likely built a gross mountain of their capabilities around having that one core ability.
I would suggest that this is a good warning sign that the ability is unbalanced and likely to be banned.
(Reading comments from people saying they bought the whole book just to make use of this one ability is probably another warning sign.)
|
|
Assuming you already have Heroism, but if not, Heroism.Gallant Inspiration*Pulls up Level 2 Bard Spell List* Support spell....support spell...Suppress Charms and Compulsions?
I already use Gallant Inspiration.
Heroism is a close Candidate.Burning Invective Sounds like a fun quirk, since I'm now going to want to re-train my Skill Focus from Bluff to Intimidate. But that's not a support spell.
But there's always Cure Moderate.
Still working it out. Thanks for the suggestions. ^_^
|
|
because they most likely built a gross mountain of their capabilities around having that one core ability.I would suggest that this is a good warning sign that the ability is unbalanced and likely to be banned.
I would argue that is missing the point of the post. People make options based on an ability, which is not uncommon. Let me give a more PFS example. I have a sensei/qinggong/ki mystic monk. Let's say that one day, sensei was deemed too powerful and was banned (probably will never happen, but run with it).
Well, my strength and dexterity are very low, but my wisdom is high. Losing that archetype would render my character completely useless, since I lose wisdom to attack, lose my inspire courage, and with my character specializing in stunning fist, I probably would have never made a high wisdom character to specialize in stunning fist in the first place if I couldn't hit anything with a high wisdom.
I feel that every time an ability is taken away, a character concept is ruined. Yeah, you could say "Well, you should have known better," but is that really a valid excuse? People aren't always aware of how many people have taken the ability, or that it has been discussed. Not everyone is a rabid Paizo forum viewer. And even if they are, why should they believe that an ability is going to get banned? And further, why should they have to worry about it getting banned? The two reasons for worry are because of the current trend of guidelines on retraining a lost ability, and the lost purchase of a book.
|
|
because they most likely built a gross mountain of their capabilities around having that one core ability.I would suggest that this is a good warning sign that the ability is unbalanced and likely to be banned.I would argue that is missing the point of the post. People make options based on an ability, which is not uncommon. Let me give a more PFS example. I have a sensei/qinggong/ki mystic monk. Let's say that one day, sensei was deemed too powerful and was banned (probably will never happen, but run with it).
Well, my strength and dexterity are very low, but my wisdom is high. Losing that archetype would render my character completely useless, since I lose wisdom to attack, lose my inspire courage, and with my character specializing in stunning fist, I probably would have never made a high wisdom character to specialize in stunning fist in the first place if I couldn't hit anything with a high wisdom.
I feel that every time an ability is taken away, a character concept is ruined. Yeah, you could say "Well, you should have known better," but is that really a valid excuse? People aren't always aware of how many people have taken the ability, or that it has been discussed. Not everyone is a rabid Paizo forum viewer. And even if they are, why should they believe that an ability is going to get banned? And further, why should they have to worry about it getting banned? The two reasons for worry are because of the current trend of guidelines on retraining a lost ability, and the lost purchase of a book.
I do think that Pageant was OP and should be banned. (or at least have been nerfed)
However - I do think that whenever an ability like that it banned, or perhaps even nerfed, that characters who already have it should be allowed a limited rebuild. (amount of rebuild differing based upon what was banned)
For Pageant - I could see allowing a rebuild of skill points (probably didn't worry about Int skills much with Pageant), though probably not a lot else. The lack of Pageant isn't as much of a total character nerf (beyond getting rid of the OP ability) as losing Sensei would be in your example.