It's 318 now anyway. Onwards to 327!
I hope the count keeps going up! Maybe we'll get their attention when we hit 1,000,000?
I don't understand how allowing Masterpieces to accompany other Performances could be "broken" or overpowered at all.
Arguably, that would be why it is a *MASTERPIECE*, right?
As far as rp-flavor, I use my Triple Time as a back-beat underlying all other performances.
How do folks use their Masterpieces?
Sorry, this one was a joke. Keep waiting for someone to reply with: "Oh, I get it, reverse psychology." But that never happened. Kinda disappointing.It's only 312 people wanting to know. I'm sure there's more pressing matters.But with 312 people here, this is more a movement than an actual effort to answer the question. If we got an answer, the thread would die. Such a waste that would be.
Paizo, please don't answer this one. We like our super long FAQ thread movement.
Oh, I get it, reverse psychology. ;)
Since few seem to *use* them, what is the concern about *abuse*, then?
|
I prefer the masterpieces that allow you to do things that a spell can't do. My favorite is the mass freedom of movement. Stupid helpful to the party as a whole.
I love that masterpiece. But it isn't going to be affected by this ruling, regardless of what the ruling is, due to the fact that it takes 1 round to activate.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the masterpieces that allow you to do things that a spell can't do. My favorite is the mass freedom of movement. Stupid helpful to the party as a whole.I love that masterpiece. But it isn't going to be affected by this ruling, regardless of what the ruling is, due to the fact that it takes 1 round to activate.
There were actually TWO rulings requested. The first would only effect Symphony of the Elysian Heart in that you'd be required to perform it's activation round separately from any other performance / masterpiece (i.e. can't do two at once). However, the second would determine whether its effect continued or immediately ceased when you played any other performance / masterpiece.
Since few seem to *use* them, what is the concern about *abuse*, then?
I think few are using them because we have no answer. Unless there is something the developer's have kept secret, I see no concern at all for *abuse*, since Bardic Performance is a finite resource. If we are allowed to use Masterpieces and Performances at the same time (which makes sense), that finite resource starts going fast!
How is it that there is still not an answer for this?
easy.
1) the answer is no, flat out. BUT they are delaying to let people continue using it without houserules until something finally pushes them to respond.
or
2) The answer is mostly no, but they are trying to figure out some way to let some work and make it clear which, without altering any words. This gets delayed because FAQ time is like 1 hour each week, people don't have high priority for FAQ time, so lots of times people are out of the office or some event is going on at the office and that week gets skipped, that 1 hour is split into getting a FAQ for Friday and then discussing large/longer issues.
or
3) They are completely revamping masterpieces and going to do a large errata for them to make things clear.
My guess is 1 or 2, hopefully 2.
That... must be it. Definitely.
Or something glitched and the FaQs for this aren't showing up in the queue XD
Seems unlikely, they read the forums too. I guess they're super busy, and resolving this isn't high on their agenda.
Or something glitched and the FaQs for this aren't showing up in the queue XDSeems unlikely, they read the forums too. I guess they're super busy, and resolving this isn't high on their agenda.
Unfortunately, this would seem to be the case.
As was said earlier, there are those Masterpieces that avoid this "conundrum" (at least it is for Paizo perhaps?). My fave is from the PC Arcane Anthology: Arrowsong's Lament. It seeks to at least give some form of remedy to the Bard lacking Spell Kenning...not going to bother this thread with my thoughts on that.
How do folks use their Masterpieces?I have two different characters using Battle Song of the People's Revolt with Improved Spell Sharing to double-up on personal buffs (mostly Mirror Image) with their familiars. One round of Bardic Performance saves a lot of time and spell slots keeping a combat familiar alive and buffed. Freedom of Movement, Delay Poison, Echolocation, Heroism, Acute Senses, Blade Tutor's Spirit, and Grand Destiny have all seen use.
I've used the Steel one to buff up the defenses of our Bloodrager, Triple Time to give a boost to movement and at least one spell to revivify a campaign NPC that had been turned to stone.
What is the steel one? I can't think of which that one is referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the steel one? I can't think of which that one is referring to.
It's going to be the shield other one, tales of twisting steel.
oh a newer one, cool, which means another one that cares about this FAQ. If you cast it and it stops when you inspire courage then it really only usable with a bard that doesn't have inspire courage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am so sick of shallow group groovethink passing itself off as 'consensus.'
Is groovethink a word? It is now! Everyone groovethink about it.
What about like a negative subtext / ambivalence in a performance? Something like how one person can hear "Don't cry for me Argentina" and be moved to tears but someone else might joyously sing along. Or what about extemporaneous delivery of dense information, yes rap; you can put meaning into your meanings. Or what if the PCs with you are your groupies who love your speed galm steeldrum reggae ballad but to everyone else its just metal down a chalkboard?
Mechanically I think both should be feasible.
Is groovethink a word? It is now! Everyone groovethink about it.
/me gets into the groovethink.
Hm, nearly a year since then. Feels like it will end up like the Offensive Defense FAQ that was release in March 2012 where they said "[w]e haven’t reached a final decision" and then never did make a decision.
|
|
Hm, nearly a year since then. Feels like it will end up like the Offensive Defense FAQ that was release in March 2012 where they said "[w]e haven’t reached a final decision" and then never did make a decision.
While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.
right, leaning to that solution but never officially decided on that solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrugs*
Having a post say" Yes, we have OFFICIALLY decided to go with that thing we were leaning towards at the time" seems kinda pointless at this point.
Per definition, the very purpose of an FAQ answers is to answer a question, and the FAQ answer they made does not answer any questions.
The thing is that the RAW are pretty clear in this case - Offensive Defense does stack with itself (because dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, and the "no stacking from same source" only applies to untyped bonuses). The answer they are leaning towards is completly reasonable, but would require a change to the existing text, i.e. an errata. And that's why an explicit statement would not pointless but indeed absolutely necessary, because right now, the solution they were leaning toward contradicts RAW and if you want to play it that way, it's a houserule.
Also, changing Offensive Defense is not the only possible solution - they could change the stacking rules to apply the same source rule to all bonuses.
Sorry for the off topic.
|
|
*shrugs*
Having a post say" Yes, we have OFFICIALLY decided to go with that thing we were leaning towards at the time" seems kinda pointless at this point.
Per definition, the very purpose of an FAQ answers is to answer a question, and the FAQ answer they made does not answer any questions.
The thing is that the RAW are pretty clear in this case - Offensive Defense does stack with itself (because dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses, and the "no stacking from same source" only applies to untyped bonuses). The answer they are leaning towards is completly reasonable, but would require a change to the existing text, i.e. an errata. And that's why an explicit statement would not pointless but indeed absolutely necessary, because right now, the solution they were leaning toward contradicts RAW and if you want to play it that way, it's a houserule.
Also, changing Offensive Defense is not the only possible solution - they could change the stacking rules to apply the same source rule to all bonuses.
Sorry for the off topic.
Read the FaQ, if they are saying do this, it's not a houserule,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read the FaQ, if they are saying do this, it's not a houserule
Read the FAQ (why are you using a lower case a?). They aren't saying "do this". They are saying "yes, it does stack. We don't do anything now, but we may change it in the future, here's a possible way we might do that".
"we haven’t reached a final decision", by the very definitions of the words, can not possibly be a decision. Changing (or keeping) the rules would require a decision. Therefore, the FAQ answer (that does't answer the question)can not possible be a ruling. Q.E.D.
Edit: Thanks, Chris.