I warms my heart to see this thread resurrected again... but breaks my heart to see that it needed to be resurrected again.... XD
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sphere Singer PrC: she has a bardic effect that lets her sprout butterfly wings that can propel her into space. If she wants. It lasts hours. It's a bardic effect that she pays with her 'rounds per day scheme'
You pay up front, then you're good for hours.
Makes zero sense that she shouldn't be able to inspire courage AFTER she sprouts the magnificent, inspiring wings that make her look like DESNA.
This is not even a masterpiece. It's a bardic effect.
Simple? no.
GM territory? I'm fine with that.
If anyone is interested, the intention was that once the five minutes of initial performance was completed and the overland flight activated, Butterfly would no longer "take up" your performance "slot". I did my best to make sure the text reflected that intention. (As always, however, I'm not a rules authority.)
That said, I agree with the general thrust of your post. ^_^
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone is interested, the intention was that once the five minutes of initial performance was completed and the overland flight activated, Butterfly would no longer "take up" your performance "slot". I did my best to make sure the text reflected that intention. (As always, however, I'm not a rules authority.)
That said, I agree with the general thrust of your post. ^_^
And you said they can go in the vacuum of space too, if I recall! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I officially vote that they write a masterpiece in your honor :)Instead of a wait and complain cycle, I was thinking of a wait and filk cycle. You know, keep the dream alive with the power of music. Because we're bards!
♫ There was a time when rules were kind
Masterpieces soared aloft
Their magic inviting
There was a time when songs combined
Our world was drenched in song
And the song was exciting
There was a timeThen it all went wrong
I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
Masterpieces worth having
I dreamed that bardic rounds would fly by
I dreamed the PDT would be forgiving
Then I was young and a bit naiive
Our choral works were made unchastened
Our lutes and voices played
No song unsung
No wine untastedThen the changes came one night
To steal the bardic thunder
They questioned masterpiece's part
"Are all performances the same?"
Now we check the flowing tide
Which way will it go, I wonder?
Will the songs go side by side?
Or will they part from once they came?
And I still dream they'll come to me
Our songs will live the years together
But this thread has no end I see
Oh well... We'll wait it out together ♫
The Hymn of Hmm. For the cost of 20 rounds of bardic performance you can use Bardic masterpieces and Bardic Performance at the same time.
|
Hehehe, those women at the tavern won't believe my thickness, when portrayed so skillfully by said bards ;)
But anyway... Yes, simple.
I'd say it's perfectly fine to say you could combine a masterpiece with another performance. Especially if one is dance and the other song, but even if both use the same instrument. For example: The elder scrolls 3, 4, and 5 have the same intro tune, but a vastly different 'feel' to the song. They could be different inspirations combined with the same masterpiece.
On the other hand, one could say that it's impossible to combine them, because you also can't use two inspirations at the same time, so why would you be able to use a second effect, created through a masterpiece?
The wing thing (cool, btw) has the same arguments pro and against.
Is it not simple for the devs to just cut the knot and choose between the two? How is that hard?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving a “simple” universal yes would most likely lead to certain unintended actions or consequences for some combinations. There’s a bunch of Masterpieces out. Reviewing this and trying to go over every possible combo and corner case is one of the reasons it’s taken so long.
A “simple” no, while fast and easy... is very much not what anyone wants to hear on this, player or designer alike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ESPECIALLY because the designers... keep producing more...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Risky and Wei Ji,
I get the feeling that I now would have to defend my opinion on how an answer would be simple to find.
I would gladly do so, because I like benign arguments.
However, I do feel that arguing over this is futile. The point is, mostly, that after two years, the dev team is horribly late in responding with either a simple or a complicated response. If I would be working excruciatingly slow, I could easily review every single ability (masterpiece or otherwise) paid with in performance rounds and write a ruleset for each of them individually, within a week. At a normal working pace, it would take me a day. A simple solution would take me an hour or less.
If you ask me, it is unjustifiable that no single member of the dev team had a day (or week), somewhere in the past two years, to just solve this problem. Not doing so is willfully ignoring the problem. Willfully ignoring the problem is perfectly understandable if only 10 people ask for a clarification. But with a thread like this? I believe that to be rude and snobbistic towards the community.
So, to the dev team: either cut the knot or carefully untie it. Either way, solve the problem. You're late.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A FAQ request, no matter how many clicks it gets, is just that, a request. Them not giving an answer yet is neither rude nor snobbish, they've even posted in this thread, they're not ignoring this. Whereas making demands and insulting the people being asked to work on the issue at hand outside their normal workload is obscenely rude and detrimental to actually getting the issue FAQ resolved.
This isn't the only FAQ they've been working on for 2 years, there's other things that have needed clarifications and answers. That's again in addition to everything else they have to do before they can work on FAQs, their normal day to day work. They work, and then when they have time and all of the Design Team together then they pick a FAQ to work on. FAQs aren't assigned to singled Designers to answer, it's made by the Design Team.
If you think you can solve absolutely everything within a day to your and your player's liking do so and implement it in your own game. But your assumption that you can in one day solve a question that's been going on for over 2 years to everybody's satisfaction is just that, an assumption.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Viondar and Rysky
You're BOTH right. Paizo has a lot of stuff on its plate. But there are a LOT of customers who believe that this particular issue is important enough that it warrants Paizo spending some of their valuable time on.
And we ARE customers. Letting Paizo know that something is important to its customer base is a GOOD thing. And, as customers, we're perfectly justified in politely expressing frustration that this issue has not been solved in over 2 years.
I KNOW that the following isn't actually true, but it DOES sometimes seem that Paizo is almost taunting us by constantly producing MORE bardic masterpieces without solving the underlying issue of how they're used. Bardic Masterpieces are NOT something that lie in the past, that Paizo has moved on from.
The customers DO deserve to get this solved in a timely fashion.
That said, I still think that I personally hope they never address it since I think the FAQ will be to nerf masterpieces into the "totally unusable crap for a normal bard who inspires courage" ground. But I'm a pessimist :-)
|
|
Risky, I suppose you're right. We cannot presume to make demands, but Pauljathome has perfectly stated my opinion in this. Paizo is a company and the Paizo community are customers.
And this is not a wishlist for some addition to the game, it is the request for a bugfix.
Ignoring two years of clamour for a bugfix while at the same time writing new additions that include the same bug of unclarity is questionable policy at best.
I know my way of saying this can be viewed as appallingly direct. That's just my Dutch culture, I suppose; we tend to be blunt and businesslike, even towards people we have the greatest respect for (and I have a huge amount of respect for the Paizo team). However, that doesn't mean I'm wrong in my criticism.
Fix this, Paizo, it should have priority by now.
|
|
Ignoring two years of clamour for a bugfix while at the same time writing new additions that include the same bug of unclarity is questionable policy at best.This is an assumption you are having, again, Mark has come into this thread and stated they're trying to work out an answer, just that said answer takes a LOT more effort than a normal FAQ meeting between the Design Team.
Fix this, Paizo, it should have priority by now.
It and dozens of other FAQs. I don't know if it was Mark that said it or someone else on the Design Team but if they have a FAQ that's rising really quick that can be answered in one go, there gonna get that out of the way rather than something as encompassing as this.
Ignoring two years of clamour for a bugfix while at the same time writing new additions that include the same bug of unclarity is questionable policy at best.This is an assumption you are having, again, Mark has come into this thread and stated they're trying to work out an answer, just that said answer takes a LOT more effort than a normal FAQ meeting between the Design Team.Fix this, Paizo, it should have priority by now.It and dozens of other FAQs. I don't know if it was Mark that said it or someone else on the Design Team but if they have a FAQ that's rising really quick that can be answered in one go, there gonna get that out of the way rather than something as encompassing as this.
I've read my fair share of this thread, and I fail to see how this takes so much effort to answer.
Either they were written with the intention of functioning as a Bardic Performance (and therefore effects which work with Bardic Performances work with the Masterpieces, and can't be done in conjunction with another Bardic Performance), or they were written with the intention of being a whole different mechanic that only functions with Bardic Performance rounds (and therefore effects which work with Bardic Performances don't work with Masterpieces, but can be done in addition to Bardic Performances, Bardic Performance rounds permitting of course).
While I've never seen the value of a Bardic Masterpiece at work, I think the benefits of them being a Bardic Performance for abilities and effects related to it are minimal on average (oooh, Lingering Performance applies), to nichely helpful (Ooooh, Master Performer and its Greater counterpart applies, too bad it's a PFS option only).
They're still producing them because lack of a FAQ here doesn't make them completely unusable, it just falls into "You and your GM decide how they work",
Well... that depends on your GM haha :) The absolute worst part of the game is when the GM and the players argue, and it's not even about "getting your way" or anything like that it just makes it hard to plan a 2 year character if you cant use it the way you thought once you get there you know? But thank goodness for retraining rules am I right???
I would say my GM is easily one of the more reasonable/easy to talk to GM's out there and we often come to great compromises but not every GM is like mine so I can be sympathetic to the pain when people give the "ask your GM" reply. Specific and well documented rules will literally keep some groups together (believe me there is plenty of other things in the world to argue over, rules for your favorite game don't need to be on that list hehe).
I'm not mad at the designers at all and I think in general they do a good job. It definitely feels as if they have some sort of reason for not answering this question formally yet so I will continue to patiently wait, I think I even have a calendar event set on my phone to resurrect this thread twice a year.... ;) I do recognize that they need to keep making money so they mostly look forward with new content, but I wouldn't mind seeing a little more looking backward (you know quality over quantity, support existing to give value to the new stuff). Heck if they crowd funded getting old rules clarified, I bet it could be super lucrative! I would happily throw 10 bucks at getting this FAQ answered :D TAKE MAH MONEYS!!! <3 <3
|
|
Either they were written
This is almost certainly untrue. They were written by many different authors over quite a long time period. It is very, very likely that different authors had different assumptions about how they would work.
If Paizo had a shared understanding on how Masterpieces should work then they WOULD have answered this FAQ a long time ago. They're not stupid, they KNOW that this issue is one of the things what causes unrest. If they had a single answer internally they'd have just cleaned up the wording and told us what that answer is.
|
|
They're still producing them because lack of a FAQ here doesn't make them completely unusable, it just falls into "You and your GM decide how they work",
That argument is fundamentally unsound. It applies to ALL rules questions, ALL FAQ entries. Rule Zero literally means that any and all questions can be answered by "you and your GM deciding how they work".
There are lots of GMs out there who don't like to make House Rules. There are lots of people who play PFS.
|
|
Sphere Singer PrC: she has a bardic effect that lets her sprout butterfly wings that can propel her into space. If she wants. It lasts hours. It's a bardic effect that she pays with her 'rounds per day scheme'
You pay up front, then you're good for hours.
Makes zero sense that she shouldn't be able to inspire courage AFTER she sprouts the magnificent, inspiring wings that make her look like DESNA.
This is not even a masterpiece. It's a bardic effect.
Simple? no.
GM territory? I'm fine with that.
If anyone is interested, the intention was that once the five minutes of initial performance was completed and the overland flight activated, Butterfly would no longer "take up" your performance "slot". I did my best to make sure the text reflected that intention. (As always, however, I'm not a rules authority.)
That said, I agree with the general thrust of your post. ^_^
Folks, if you read between the lines of Isabelle's post here, we pretty much have a fix for this at this point:
--> Pay up front long duration effects don't prevent the use of other bardic performances.
Thus, if you have effects or masterpieces that are paid round by round, those wouldn't mingle. Anything else is good to go.
This makes masterpieces worth it as a spell known substitute in some cases. However, you'll still be hard pressed to make them worthwhile as a 'feat'.
|
If it were a simple Yes/No answer, more than likely by now we would have an answer.
I think the problem has come up with the way the Masterpieces are created. Different authors each have a different understanding of how Masterpieces work. Sometimes, over time, this "understanding" changes, and we can get the SAME author/developer changing their mind on how Masterpieces work...
Realizing that any all embracing answer will invalid some of those different understandings/viewpoints ... and so to NOT answer leaves all the (contradictory) views as "semi-legal"/"sorta valid"... and we see why this is likely never to be resolved.
We need an entirely different approach here. And being human, I have real trouble resisting offering a "fix"... so here's my suggestion
Have all existing Masterpieces and all new ones created divided into sub-groups...
pièce de résistance,
chef-d'œuvre,
masterwork,
magnum opus,
tour de force,
each of these have different rules on how they interact with each other... and each must be addressed individually.
Perhaps a "pièce de résistance" can combine with a "chef-d'œuvre" or a "masterwork", but not with a "magnum opus", a "tour de force" or another "pièce de résistance". Maybe a "tour de force" can combine with another "tour de force" - but only if combined with a "magnum opus" first. etc.
I can easily see an entire new Splat Book devoted to describing how these interactions/combinations work... perhaps even a hardback entitled "Ultimate Masterpieces" or something like that... and as each new Masterpiece is introduced, it is described as belonging to one of these sub-groups (or perhaps even a new sub-group... maybe a "Mastersong" or a "Magnum Rhythm")...
|
|
Either they were written
This is almost certainly untrue. They were written by many different authors over quite a long time period. It is very, very likely that different authors had different assumptions about how they would work.
If Paizo had a shared understanding on how Masterpieces should work then they WOULD have answered this FAQ a long time ago. They're not stupid, they KNOW that this issue is one of the things what causes unrest. If they had a single answer internally they'd have just cleaned up the wording and told us what that answer is.
This is the crux of it, there's dozens and dozens of Masterpieces written by designers and freelancers, all most likely with their own opinion about how Masterpieces work.
|
|
They're still producing them because lack of a FAQ here doesn't make them completely unusable, it just falls into "You and your GM decide how they work",That argument is fundamentally unsound. It applies to ALL rules questions, ALL FAQ entries. Rule Zero literally means that any and all questions can be answered by "you and your GM deciding how they work".
There are lots of GMs out there who don't like to make House Rules. There are lots of people who play PFS.
In a vacuum it may be unsound but your post read like Masterpieces were nigh-unusable without the Design Team stepping in, which just isn't true.
And there's a difference between a houserule and a GM making a ruling when a concern pops.
Player: "Hey does this work like A or B?"
GM: "Let's go with A."
This is a ruling.
Player: "Well the book/FAQ says C."
GM: "Well I like A better so we're gonna keep with that."
This is a houserule.
And PFS has GMs in it, those are kinda needed. For a Player it's simple to go with "Hey, I have Masterpieces and me and the last GM I played with agreed it worked like [this], is that okay?".
Can we answer these questions:
1. What's the scope of the issue?
The minimum skill number required is 3 here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/
No masterpiece is available then until you are level 3.
The spell Virtuoso Performance is available at level 10. If you are really gung-ho about doing the two simultaneously, and the two do not normally work together, this spell should permit at least 2 performances/masterpieces once you get to 10th.
2. How many of these are even that questionable?
Yes, allow simultaneous use:
Cat-Step:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/the-cat-step-dance
"When you complete the performance" for the Cat-Step (and it continues on) nearly guarantees that you would then be able to run another performance while the Cat-Step effect is in place [at least after the Cat-Step set-up time has passed].
Triple Time:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/triple-time-percussion-string-wind
"When you complete this performance" for the Triple Time (and it continues on) nearly guarantees that you would then be able to run another performance while the Triple Time effect is in place [at least after the Triple Time set-up time has passed].
No, don't allow these to run concurrent with another performance:
Ancients Flight:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/ancients-flight
It says the dragons "perform the epic alongside you" and "The effect ceases as soon as you end your bardic performance." I am sure you aren't having the dragons doing Inspire Courage as the performance; they are stuck in the Ancients Flight performance.
Illusion's Decree:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/illusion-s-decree-comedy-oratory
"While performing this masterpiece" and it runs 1 round per round of performance spent; it is your performance for the round. This is similar enough to Countersong to treat it as a performance that cannot be used simultaneously with another.
Canticle of Joy
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/Bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/the-canticle-of-joy-sing
"One target within range is cursed as though affected by bestow curse as long as the bard maintains the performance."
Clamor Of the Heavens:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/bardic-masterpieces/maste rpieces/clamor-of-the-heavens-percussion-sing
Clamor (level 10 minimum) is basically the Dirge of Doom (level 8 minimum) if the evil target makes its save, and much more powerful if they fail. It does not make sense to allow the Clamor to run simultaneous with another performance when Dirge does not, when the 2 abilities are available a mere 2 levels apart. To make Clamor run with another performance, it only makes sense to also require the 4th level spell Virtuoso Performance to have been cast.
These are all from an actual Paizo book (not 3rd party).
Either they were written
This is almost certainly untrue. They were written by many different authors over quite a long time period. It is very, very likely that different authors had different assumptions about how they would work.
If Paizo had a shared understanding on how Masterpieces should work then they WOULD have answered this FAQ a long time ago. They're not stupid, they KNOW that this issue is one of the things what causes unrest. If they had a single answer internally they'd have just cleaned up the wording and told us what that answer is.
Different authors having different assertions doesn't mean that the answer can't be very simple to present, or that the answer isn't different than the assertion that a freelance author has. In fact, this has happened with the Bodyguard FAQ, and I imagine there are others where this is the case.
I don't think they will answer this for multiple reasons. The first is that they don't want to issue a ruling that garners a significantly negative response. Considering they're already dealing with backlash from the release of the Shifter in Ultimate Wilderness, making an answer at this time when their hands are full (and the public opinion doesn't have a great standing with them) isn't going to happen, and if their release trajectory continues in this fashion with later rulebook installments, then I suspect it will forever be left in the dark for fear of further backlash.
The second is that I feel this will be akin to the Sunder FAQ that was issued some years ago, back when it was the most requested FAQ of all time, which resulted in an errata to permit application in place of attacks, instead of being a Vital Strike helper buddy. My guess is that, if they are going to change the Masterpieces, they are struggling with how they would word the errata to reflect the changes (if any) to how they interact with Bardic Performances.
But that's all speculation. In my personal opinion, the FAQ solution is simple, and the ramifications aren't nearly as expansive as people are making them out to be. There isn't too much that works with Bardic Performances, and if they do, their interactions are explicitly spelled out (such as Battle Herald and Spheresinger PRCs).
Honestly, a better question would be if classes who get Bardic Performance can take Bardic Masterpieces...
|
|
(...) In a vacuum it may be unsound but your post read like Masterpieces were nigh-unusable without the Design Team stepping in, which just isn't true.
And there's a difference between a houserule and a GM making a ruling when a concern pops.
Player: "Hey does this work like A or B?"
GM: "Let's go with A."This is a ruling. (...)
It could mean a huge difference in character build, which is, I believe, more than a small aspect of ruling.
For example, if a half orc skald could use "battle song of the people's revolt" to grant the amplified rage feat in conjunction with his inspired rage, he wouldn't have to take three levels of holy tactician to achieve that.
That would mean he wouldn't have to be lawful good, and that would change so much about that character.
If you'd play said Skald in PFS, the ruling 'when the concern pops' would mean the difference of playing the character or not.
That... While circumventable, is definitely a bug in the system.
And I second what has been said about looking back, and quality over quantity. I would have no qualms to lay down €50,- right now for a kickstarter that promises a book solely dedicated to fixing bugs. New content certainly gets boring when promising old content cannot be used to its fullest because of its ambiguous wording.
I bloody love what Paizo is doing. Instead of cranking out edition after edition, like TSR/WoTC, they take their edition and just keep expanding it. However, lately they seem to forget reinforcing the base of their beautiful building. They just keep adding ramshackle attics on top. Judging from the posts in this thread and other threads, I'm not the only one who thinks that's a problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been saying this for over 2 years now. Like page 2 of this FAQ and it's still the fastest and easiest fix.Not that it will matter much but I came to a choice for my own games as far as this goes.
If it requires expenditures of performance to start but none after, it can run side by side a bardic performances.
If it requires a round by round spending it can't.
I really think this is the best option.
I really think this is the best option.I've been saying this for over 2 years now. Like page 2 of this FAQ and it's still the fastest and easiest fix.Not that it will matter much but I came to a choice for my own games as far as this goes.
If it requires expenditures of performance to start but none after, it can run side by side a bardic performances.
If it requires a round by round spending it can't.
Agreed. If any masterpieces are somehow OP with this ruling they should be changed, but I don't really see this as being necessary for the ones I'm aware of.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is just too much information to reference on this. This FAQ reminds me of the damage dice one. It would have been a non-starter until someone compiled a working formula.
Does someone have the time (in this thread) to compile a list of the various, and the most likely intended use of them. In a fair and reasonable way? In other words, "not the most powerful way to interpret".
If someone has that time, the chance this will get answered will go up. If not, it waits until they have months of weekly meetings to devote to it OR nothing else to do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any chance we can have a Pathfinder Society ruling on this? in the interim? dear Venture-Captain Online? :)♫ And I still dream they'll come to me
Our songs will live the years together
But this thread has no end I see
Oh well... We'll wait it out together ♫
Alas, my dear Yanndu, I lack that kind of authority.
I’m quite certain that there are people reading this thread who might be able to do so, but PFS Leadership Team tries hard not to tread on the PDT’s turf.
For the record, as a player, I support Cavall’s Compromise as an elegant solution to the problem.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Part of me wants to run someday a longer module in Campaign mode for an all bard / skald party making use of many of the weirder archetypes, and run it mainly with PFS rules, except a wider selection of races and the concept that Bardic Masterpieces can stack with bardic performance. Oh, and somewhere in there I’d allow a Songbound Curse oracle too. Because it would most likely be done in PBP, and everyone in there would be singing.
Why? Because other than triple-time in a home game, I have never taken a Bardic Masterpiece. Note that this statement is coming from a player who is obsessed with bards. I keep finding myself trying out new bard archetypes, playing around with them, enjoying messing around with different spells and abilities. Even my non-bards have strong bardic elements.
I love inspire courage however, and so have yet to pick up a Bardic Masterpiece. At the cost of either a feat or a precious spell known slot, I cannot justify them, no matter how fun they look, because I would rarely give up the chance to Inspire in a battle to use them. Although bards have lots of other toys they can use, I just wish that I could see Bardic Masterpieces being used, even if it’s only once in a campaign mode game.
Hmm
|
|
There is just too much information to reference on this. This FAQ reminds me of the damage dice one. It would have been a non-starter until someone compiled a working formula.
Does someone have the time (in this thread) to compile a list of the various, and the most likely intended use of them. In a fair and reasonable way? In other words, "not the most powerful way to interpret".
If someone has that time, the chance this will get answered will go up. If not, it waits until they have months of weekly meetings to devote to it OR nothing else to do.
What you're saying doesn't sound logical. You seem to be saying that if a fan from this board sorts it out, that'll be more efficient than if a Paizo worker will sort it out.
The only difference is whether or not the worker will be paid for, be taken seriously with, and own responsibility for the work. A Paizo worker means yes to all three, a fan probably means no to all three.
|
|
There is just too much information to reference on this. This FAQ reminds me of the damage dice one. It would have been a non-starter until someone compiled a working formula.
Does someone have the time (in this thread) to compile a list of the various, and the most likely intended use of them. In a fair and reasonable way? In other words, "not the most powerful way to interpret".
If someone has that time, the chance this will get answered will go up. If not, it waits until they have months of weekly meetings to devote to it OR nothing else to do.
What you're saying doesn't sound logical. You seem to be saying that if a fan from this board sorts it out, that'll be more efficient than if a Paizo worker will sort it out.
The only difference is whether or not the worker will be paid for, be taken seriously with, and own responsibility for the work. A Paizo worker means yes to all three, a fan probably means no to all three.
It May or May not, but it will definitely help, as evidenced by the damage dice one Steve pointed out in their post.
You seem to be saying that if a fan from this board sorts it out, that'll be more efficient than if a Paizo worker will sort it out.
It would be more efficient, in the sense of being cheaper and quicker.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a fan or a pair of fans do the upfront analysis of bardic masterpieces would most definitely be quicker. Why? Because we want to see this analysis done.
In my experience as a rather successful (with the noted exception of sign language in PFS) lobbyist for changes to PFS rulings, Paizo responds well to requests that include well thought out analyses of pros and cons of a request.
What we really should do is create either a google spread sheet or a google doc in which we note each masterpiece and its qualities. Things to consider...
I think starting with the spreadsheet might be useful first if only to get a sense of stacking, levels etc. Then once the data is in place, continue with analysis in a more free form document, looking for interactions with weird archetypes or with other masterpieces.
If anyone really good with google spread sheets wants to create the intial sheet, that would be great. I would most definitely be willing to do some of the data entry, though I am not the hard core analyst type. For that, we might want to invite one of the VO team like Lau Bannenburg or Silbeg who reviews stuff for additional resources and makes balance recommendations. They could spot overpowered combinations quickly and could note trouble spots for us.
Hmm
Devs are the same as us, but we have the advantage of having MANY people's options look at something to get a nice balance.
Plus the DEVs will be the ones that decide on the change and what the change is ultimately, BUT the more grunt work we happen to do for them means the faster and easier it is for them to get this done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Philippe, look at it this way. Not only is Miscdebris correct that devs are fans, but there is also the consideration is that what we are doing is presenting analysis to the devs so they can judge for themselves. We would not be making the decision, just doing some of the legwork.
The same happens in Pathfinder Society with the Additional Resources team. There is a team of VOs that read all the new splat books as they come out and make recommendations for what should and should not be included. The PFS staff then looks at their recommendations and makes their own decisions. Sometimes they agree with the presentations. Sometimes they don’t. What the AR team does is provide context and legwork.
Also... Let’s face it. We’re people here who play bard and skald characters. Otherwise why would we be here in this thread? Thus we’re players who have already weighed some of these choices and thought about how we would use the Masterpieces in play. If there is some combo that turns up in our analysis we would be jumping all over ourselves in glee to use, chances are it may be overpowered...
We can look at those thoughtfully and make suggestions.
Hmm
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much like with damage die increase where community members helped provide a basic chassis and we refined out the kinks on our end, if you guys want to do some legwork, I'll at least make sure to point you in the right direction and provide some expectation management, so here goes!
If you're going to put this together, understand that the rabbit hole on this FAQ doesn't end with masterpieces because the bard class's non-futureproofedness also comes into play with a variety of elements that work with "performances" and work fine with most or all of the core bard's performances but have issues with new performances in archetypes as well (I can't recall off the top of my head, but there's some rules element that lets you gain the effects of a performance and assumes the performance will use the default bardic performance action economy but doesn't recognize that some archetypes and masterpieces take longer).
The following features will be necessary:
1) Covers all performances, including masterpieces, archetype performances, PrC performances, etc cross-referenced with all rules elements (feats, magic items, spells, etc) that are contingent on performances. A sweeping rule won't cut it, it needs to go one-by-one.
1b) This even includes non-RPG line content, even though FAQs are only for the RPG line. We're not going to create a vacuum that the other lines have to deal with; we need a baseline ready to go for them too.
2) It needs to be certain to include everything, which in the future is obviously going to be impossible without continued maintenance. For masterpieces, the likely answer is to have a list of those that don't count as your performance (they are performances, but we do know we have a smattering of them that simply don't work at all unless you don't count them as performances) so there's a default. But there might be other interactions that prevent an easy solution to maintenance. In any case, the fail case for a non-inclusion due to new content needs to not create issues.
Note that even with all of that achieved, it's still going to be long enough of a decision-making process to make a successful FAQ meeting pretty unlikely. I have other such lengthy FAQs written in draft form from 2015 for topics like simulacrum or grappling clarity, and this is far longer than either of them, since even at only a few minutes per masterpiece, performance, or performance-effecting rules element, that's still more than an entire day of only that FAQ meeting.
|
|
Reading Mark's post make my head hurt. This process appears way too time-consuming. Why not just make a simple ruling in regards to how masterpieces work, and use that as guidance for future masterpieces? then address corner cases as they arise?
Involving the community is a grand of you, but why not make an attempt at providing a ruling first before front-loading the data gathering? you guys came up with masterpieces: tell us how they're supposed to work!
This is not a life-death open heart surgery decision. This is a small subset of the rules for a fictitious game. Don't be so risk adverse and just do it! There will be some happy people and some pissed off people, but that happens every day in every part of life, from people buying luxury yachts to people buying fries at burger joints.
|
|
“you guys came up with masterpieces: tell us how they're supposed to work!”
No, dozens of different authors “came up with” Masterpieces.
“This is not a life-death open heart surgery decision. This is a small subset of the rules for a fictitious game.”
And? It’s a game people and their friends invest their money and time into regularly. Just because it’s not something actually dire like a lethal situation doesn’t mean it’s meaningless.
“Don't be so risk adverse and just do it! There will be some happy people and some pissed off people, but that happens every day in every part of life”
Again, and? That’s just a horrible suggestion, since they’ve stated, and the player base has wanted that they want to give an acceptable answer, not a quick one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in other campaigns where we had to essentially write the rules because the campaign had out-lived the rule-set that it originated from.
Every time we'd have a corner of it set, someone would come along and upset the apple cart, and we'd be left scrambling trying to figure out how our kit-bashed abomination would work for months at a time, sometimes even years.
I do not envy the work ahead of the Paizo staff, even with the help of volunteers, and the very least we can do is cut them a little bit of slack -- trust me, a careful reasoned and supported-by-documentation answer is far preferable to some knee-jerk off-the-cuff response.