Dan Houser's page

No problem. Gotta earn that one-star PFS GM status, somehow. :D

I hear you - I was startled by it's apparent OP nature. My buddy plays this and is one of 'those' players. He plays in character, of course, but his middle name should be dump-stat, if you get my drift. Also, he's a fan of broken mechanics like Zen Archer, etc. -- so when he brought this up, my radar went off.

So, while I was startled for a moment, I actually sat down and read the rule and figured, hey -- it's pretty reasonable for a magical effect that mirrors two other magical effects for combat and skills (Augury and True Strike) - so why not let them use Bardic Performance to have a different kind of utility -- it's finite, so -- hooray! :D

Owen Stephens. And it was a PM on Facebook -- full disclosure; I'm doing artwork for an upcoming book of his, and decided to use my professional and friendly ties with him to ask him directly what he thought.

Here's the transcript - (Pardon the expletives)

Me: You're probably not awake yet -- but I had a quick question about something Paizo related.

Pageant of the Peacock is intended to be a 'Pretend to know everything and pass yourself off as special' thing rather than a 'Magic tells me everything thing' right?

You intended it to be an impervious to Sense Motive Bluff for folks who want to pretend to be royal types. If I'm off, I'd like to make sure I'm corrected.

Owen: While it obviously is a "take on the appearance of something greater" effect, it's worth noting that " Unless otherwise stated, a masterpiece’s effects are supernatural." and " Masterpieces should generally be no more powerful than a cleric or sorcerer/wizard spell available to a caster of the same level as the minimum level needed to select the masterpiece".

So I'd argue that absed on the wording of that ability, magic DOES feed you information, you just access it by pretending to be that smart.

It's actually a little like the terrible movie "Master of Disguise".

Me: Neat. But Bluff is an opposed skill check, so the replacement here is a flat vs. DC check for an opposed check - so unless the check has an opponent it doesn't fire off? Like - A wizard's duel -- they rattle off facts about spells -- the Bard bullsh**ing, and the Wizard pontificating, but ultimately the Bard baffles 'em with bulls**t.

However, Same wizard decides to cast explosive runes on a door after that, the bard cannot use his dancing and performance to know what the hell he's looking at, right?

Owen: Yes, he can. Anytime he would be able to make a Int check or Int based skill check, he may instead use his Bluff bonus. It's like the Versatile Performance bard class feature.

The Bard channels the mystic Power of Bullshi**ng, but does it so well what he spouts is actually accurate.

Me: Awesome. Okay, then. Settles it for me. If that was the intent of the framer of the rule, then that is how I shall rule at the table. Lucky PCs. :D

And for the record, it only gives you one per use at the cost of a Standard Action, so not OP in my opinion, just wondering about versatility of it versus Versatile Performance. Cool one burst utility Masterpiece, sir.

Owen: After all the bard must sacrifice either a **feat** or a 2nd level spell known, and has to activate the power as a standard action, and is then burning a round of bardic performance for every 10 minutes of use. That's a big cost if the payoff isn't fairly significant.

Me: Absolutely - So:

1 Round of Daily Bardic Performance and a Standard Action gets the Bard - One Intelligence Check or One Intelligence Based Skill Check with their Bluff instead of Int, and Ten Minutes of Bluff +4 to Disguise and Lying Checks, correct?

Owen: Hmmm. I'd have said you could use Bluff for any Int check during that duration, but it could be read as only one. I can't answer that one.

Consider that the power should be about as useful as the Augury spell.

Me: I'll say one per round spent. That's as written, and plain. You're too generous, sir.

Anyway, that'd be MY table variation.

Owen: A defensible interpretation. I am so uncaffeinated.:P

And there you have it.
Reprinted with Owen's permission.

Edit: changed the word Spell for Feat per uncaffeinated Owen's intent. :)

Welp. I talked to the creator of the rule -- and was surprised!

It's pretty much as written. It's like the Augury spell. I don't know why this offends people so much...but the Bard uses magic to get into character or to tap into their magical cloud of knowledge -- this gives them one INT check or INT-Based Skill Check, and ten minutes of Bluff per Bardic Performance Rounds Used. So, yeah, the Bard, who already is designed to be a know-it-all, magically has a superior knowledge for one check per daily rounds of Bardic Performance used for that purpose.

I, as a GM, find this an acceptable trade off for a feat or spell known. It's powerful, but it's magic, and it's in character for Bards. Bards are supposed to know things, even better and wider than a Wizard or a Cleric, or even a Ranger. If a player deciding to play something other than Bard invests all their skill into, say, Knowledge Arcana, and the Bard comes up with a magical muse that whispers a piece of info outside of the realm of normal Arcanist knowledge once or twice, that's actually "in keeping with the spirit of the class", and the Wizard can be awestruck for a moment that the Bard stumbled across this knowledge that was supposed to be forbidden or lost.

In PFS, at the table - I run it like this:

1 round of Bardic Performance, and a Standard Action, gets you:
A (SINGULAR) Bluff check in place of an Intelligence Check OR an Intelligence-Based Skill Check. And ten minutes of +4 to Bluff Checks, and +4 to Disguise Checks based on pretending to be of a higher station.

Requirements of Bardic Performance also apply, since you must perform this Masterpiece...

So, it's not overpowered at my table.

Link?
Because as nice as that all sounded, it's worthless without a link to the information, no? :)

Plan. Plan ahead. Plan for your plans to fail, and by all the Gods, befriend a cleric, inquisitor, or paladin. In addition, maybe don't buy only ONE weapon -- maybe slowly build a bunch of medium powered weapons. We all get to the last level where that epic weapon means nothin' anyway, so, in short -- yeah -- if it's in the rules, it might be in the scenario. Be. Prepared. For. Anything.

Also, cooperation is important. You are not soloing these adventures, so leverage the teamwork aspect, and you should be fine. I laugh whenever a player says 'I never thought the rogues would hide from us then ambush us with a sneak attack for a lot of damage during the surprise round!' To which I say 'Yeah. That's what makes them rogues. They don't fight fair. And, they ambush people.'

Dan

I see the issue I'm having with Aasimar... I'm a GM who's only run for players of 2nd level and slightly higher so far. But Aasimar, if you have the Blood of Angels pdf or book, are quite good at being whatever kind of character they'd want to be without the need for a hugely detrimental 'dump stat'.

But, I got to run Storming the Diamond Gate - And now -- I realize that some modules are just DEADLY. :D

Dan

Something something something 8 is average.

Well sir. I didn't realize that. :D I actually looked around and yeah, I guess if everyone is assuming the average guy is nebbishy rather than neither good nor bad at something, then I stand corrected.

Would you expect a refund for all the books youve bought if they announced they were going to release a new edition?

We're all gamers here. And we all know the answer to that question. :)

Dan Houser wrote:

If this announcement had involved - Hey, as GM, you can have more leeway to have accurate interactions with these lovely 8 CHA players, I.E. they go into a town without a bag on their head, and the townsfolk are ready with pitchforks and torches -- or it's just basically the same old/ same old.

Do you also make the halfling with 8 Strength carry all the gear, too?

Well no, of course I wouldn't. But there ARE cases in modules where having an 8 Strength WILL definitely affect a situation. There are very few cases where an 8 Charisma affect anything. There is no risk/reward for taking an 8 Charisma but there TOTALLY is by taking an 8 in any of the combat related stats.

That's the point, actually. As a GM, I wouldn't make the 8 Charisma fellow perform the social rolls for the group, but see, there aren't any penalties for breaking the game in this way, or at least any drawbacks for taking low stats in either INT or CHA. Or at least, there don't seem to be - outside of needing a party to group with.

In a game like Fallout, having a low intellect hampers your ability to comprehend what's going on. In Pathfinder Society, having a low Intelligence is the way you make the most effective martial character. There is no penalty for what would be a VERY disadvantageous position. For example, could 8 INT Fighters even complete their faction missions? They're usually handed a note. Or, are they able to read as well? But, I'm sure this never came up, for the sake of friendly play.

No, I'm not vindictive about this situation. Just feel like it's clearly just abusing a system where there's nothing 'against the rules' with it, and there's no rule or system in place that makes the behavior inherently risky for the reward of having high physical stats.

Good question, though.

Aasimar - Broken. Just...all benefits and no drawbacks to being one.

I have two - an Aasimar Paladin and an Aasimar gunslinger. But yeah, no drawbacks to being those, and since most Society modules if not all don't account for the actual characters in the party -- I.E. - you have a Tiefling with an 8 Charisma so they could min-max themselves a nice martial class, and since this is a team game, they can simply sit out the required social tests that qualify them for a second Prestige. That's my only complaint -- there's NOTHING that prevents people from just making a sheet of numbers that increases with each successful playthrough.

As a GM, it's a bit aggravating to see leagues of players -- especially on these forums suggesting throwing away a stat to negative levels, and since there is no realistic penalty for it, you can guarantee a character will have at least one 19+ stat with NO actual loss in a place that matters.

If this announcement had involved - Hey, as GM, you can have more leeway to have accurate interactions with these lovely 8 CHA players, I.E. they go into a town without a bag on their head, and the townsfolk are ready with pitchforks and torches -- or it's just basically the same old/ same old.

Anyway, it's my one gripe. There is no solution that I can think of that would be feasible and fair across the board. Other than changing the rule that sets base stats...or have actual in-game effects for this kind of rules abuse.