| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm not going to get into why this ability is an explicit replacement for Bardic Performance instead of that going away and this being added separately.
My question is on the ability itself. More specifically, the amount of the ability.
It says "He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier."
Pretty standard, right? Except at no point does it say it ever increases. At level 1, you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day and at level 20 you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day. As opposed to Bardic Performance that by level 20 you have 42 + Cha rounds per day to use it.
Should this increase like every other single class' defining rounds/level ability?
My post was completely wrong (:
I'm guess it's just a nerf of the equivalent inspire courage ability so that later abilities can be more powerful. Oh well. . .
My post was completely wrong (:
I'm guess it's just a nerf of the equivalent inspire courage ability so that later abilities can be more powerful. Oh well. . .
What later abilities? They lost the entirety of Bardic Performance which represents most of the Bard's non-spell power.
What later abilities? They lost the entirety of Bardic Performance which represents most of the Bard's non-spell power.My post was completely wrong (:
I'm guess it's just a nerf of the equivalent inspire courage ability so that later abilities can be more powerful. Oh well. . .
Uncanny Dodge/Evasion/Rogue Talents. . . .
I mean, it's not necessarily a bad trade if you want to play a bard that doesn't perform.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I brought this up in the Ultimate Combat Errata thread, and I was told that it was intentional, though looking back on it, he felt that he would probably change it to 1 round/lvl + Cha mod if he had the chance to do it over.
He said that would be a pretty good house rule if you want to run with that.
What later abilities? They lost the entirety of Bardic Performance which represents most of the Bard's non-spell power.My post was completely wrong (:
I'm guess it's just a nerf of the equivalent inspire courage ability so that later abilities can be more powerful. Oh well. . .
Uncanny Dodge/Evasion/Rogue Talents. . . .
I mean, it's not necessarily a bad trade if you want to play a bard that doesn't perform.
I'd hardly call them more powerful than Bardic Performance SLAs.
Especially since the only notable one of those is Rogue Talents and you gain them at half the rate the Rogue does.
Shrug. . . always on abilities (or abilities that take a swift action to activate that are practically always on) are pretty good. I mean, if you break it down item by item, I think the base bard abilities are better as a team buffer and the archeologist abilities are better for a solo tomb raiding type. This definitely isn't a good option for a "classic" bard.
I'm with you Cartigan, but keep in mind that it's treated in all ways as Bardic Performance. This means that half-elves and gnomes can add +1 round per level with their favored class bonus, making them the best archaeologists in the game.
It is also good to keep in mind that Archaeologist's Luck is like inspire courage, inspire competence, and inspire heroics (I think) all rolled into a nifty 1st level accessible package. :)
None of your three posts addresses the issue.
|
|
It is also good to keep in mind that Archaeologist's Luck is like inspire courage, inspire competence, and inspire heroics (I think) all rolled into a nifty 1st level accessible package. :)None of your three posts addresses the issue.
I'm sorry? The first one addresses the issue fine. On my first one, the one of the creative team that made that Archetype had outright said that he should have made it 1 round per level + Cha Mod. How does that not solve your problem other than make it an official change? Show that to your GM and ask if you can make it a house rule.
I admit that it doesn't help in the case of PFS, but in any home or PbP game I am sure it would warrant asking.
I hope you find what you are looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also good to keep in mind that Archaeologist's Luck is like inspire courage, inspire competence, and inspire heroics (I think) all rolled into a nifty 1st level accessible package. :)None of your three posts addresses the issue.
Except that they sorta do. Archaeologist's Luck is a very powerful self-buff that was obviously designed to work as a luck mechanic. Occasionally, if you really need the boost, you can get a +1/2/3/4 on all of your attack/damage/skill/saving throw rolls for 4-9 rounds per day. All of that for a swift/free action starting at level 1.
In and of itself the ability is undoubtedly mediocre when examined in a vacuum. Compared to a standard bard it suffers because it only affects you, but it's pulling the weight of multiple performance abilities and requires less effort to achieve over the course of a bard's career. A regular bard is using swift actions on his performance at level 13, which is well behind the Archaeologist. Compounding on this is the fact that the bonus is luck, and incredibly uncommon bonus and is likely to stack with just about anything else the bard has going for it.
The issue here is not that it only lasts 4+cha rounds per day, but rather that you're undervaluing the potential of the ability. The class has a lot of things going for it (including spellcasting) and is still a leg and a half above a rogue in terms of utility. The ability was also created in such a way that there are several options to take it from being a mediocre ability to an amazing boost to your character's ability. Even lingering song, available from level 1, means that if you spend a swift action every 3 turns you'll have this boost for a minimum of 12 turns, though its more likely to be closer to 18 or 21.
|
|
It is also good to keep in mind that Archaeologist's Luck is like inspire courage, inspire competence, and inspire heroics (I think) all rolled into a nifty 1st level accessible package. :)None of your three posts addresses the issue.Except that they sorta do. Archaeologist's Luck is a very powerful self-buff that was obviously designed to work as a luck mechanic. Occasionally, if you really need the boost, you can get a +1/2/3/4 on all of your attack/damage/skill/saving throw rolls for 4-9 rounds per day. All of that for a swift/free action starting at level 1.
In and of itself the ability is undoubtedly mediocre when examined in a vacuum. Compared to a standard bard it suffers because it only affects you, but it's pulling the weight of multiple performance abilities and requires less effort to achieve over the course of a bard's career. A regular bard is using swift actions on his performance at level 13, which is well behind the Archaeologist. Compounding on this is the fact that the bonus is luck, and incredibly uncommon bonus and is likely to stack with just about anything else the bard has going for it.
The issue here is not that it only lasts 4+cha rounds per day, but rather that you're undervaluing the potential of the ability. The class has a lot of things going for it (including spellcasting) and is still a leg and a half above a rogue in terms of utility. The ability was also created in such a way that there are several options to take it from being a mediocre ability to an amazing boost to your character's ability. Even lingering song, available from level 1, means that if you spend a swift action every 3 turns you'll have this boost for a minimum of 12 turns, though its more likely to be closer to 18 or 21.
Holymoley, I forgot it was a luck bonus! It stacks with Heroism! Yay! :)
It is also good to keep in mind that Archaeologist's Luck is like inspire courage, inspire competence, and inspire heroics (I think) all rolled into a nifty 1st level accessible package. :)None of your three posts addresses the issue.Except that they sorta do. Archaeologist's Luck is a very powerful self-buff that was obviously designed to work as a luck mechanic. Occasionally, if you really need the boost, you can get a +1/2/3/4 on all of your attack/damage/skill/saving throw rolls for 4-9 rounds per day. All of that for a swift/free action starting at level 1.
In and of itself the ability is undoubtedly mediocre when examined in a vacuum. Compared to a standard bard it suffers because it only affects you, but it's pulling the weight of multiple performance abilities and requires less effort to achieve over the course of a bard's career. A regular bard is using swift actions on his performance at level 13, which is well behind the Archaeologist. Compounding on this is the fact that the bonus is luck, and incredibly uncommon bonus and is likely to stack with just about anything else the bard has going for it.
The issue here is not that it only lasts 4+cha rounds per day, but rather that you're undervaluing the potential of the ability. The class has a lot of things going for it (including spellcasting) and is still a leg and a half above a rogue in terms of utility. The ability was also created in such a way that there are several options to take it from being a mediocre ability to an amazing boost to your character's ability. Even lingering song, available from level 1, means that if you spend a swift action every 3 turns you'll have this boost for a minimum of 12 turns, though its more likely to be closer to 18 or 21.
What if we compare it to the Barbarian?
The ability is powerful, but that is significantly undercut by the fact that at no point does it increase itself. Not even 1 every 3 levels or anything. Boosting by use of the fact it acts as Bardic performance for anything applying to Bardic Performance in no way changes that without those feats or traits taken, it is significantly less powerful.
What are you talking about? Lingering song increases the duration, and the racial traits increase the duration as well. And while the duration of the ability doesn't naturally gain in duration, it's strength continues to grow as the bard levels.
I don't remember where I read it, but one of the developers... Jason? maybe James... said that every archetype was intentionally made less powerful than its core class. This was to keep the class, itself, a viable option.
This means, in my mind, you play archetypes for flavor, not power.
I'm not surprised at such a bad decision.
What are you talking about? Lingering song increases the duration, and the racial traits increase the duration as well.
Seriously?
The CLASS doesn't increase the duration. Feats that effect BARDIC PERFORMANCE are irrelevant because they only effect it on luck. Excellent design, making an archetype that is a feat and race tax.And while the duration of the ability doesn't naturally gain in duration, it's strength continues to grow as the bard levels.
AS do things that increase in duration so your argument is void.
I don't remember where I read it, but one of the developers... Jason? maybe James... said that every archetype was intentionally made less powerful than its core class. This was to keep the class, itself, a viable option.
This means, in my mind, you play archetypes for flavor, not power.
INVULNERABLE RAGER.
QUIGGONG MONK.MOBILE FIGHTY.
AM DIRTY LIE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about? Lingering song increases the duration, and the racial traits increase the duration as well.Seriously?
The CLASS doesn't increase the duration. Feats that effect BARDIC PERFORMANCE are irrelevant because they only effect it on luck. Excellent design, making an archetype that is a feat and race tax.And while the duration of the ability doesn't naturally gain in duration, it's strength continues to grow as the bard levels.AS do things that increase in duration so your argument is void.
My god, you get worked up easily.
Eesh, maybe pull it back a little bud.
My point is that it was designed as a luck mechanic that you can kick on when you really need it, not an always-on boon. The fact that it doesn't scale in duration, only strength, is proof that this is intentional. And it's a powerful, easily accessed ability that is as useful at level 1 as it is at 20. It was just being pointed out that the ability functions well as an all purpose boost, but there are several ways of boosting it beyond it's original intention, lending itself to a very powerful character.
It also gives the archaeologist an incentive to invest ability score boosts and expensive headbands into buffing his Charisma. As it is the the archetype is basically a poor man's rogue plus bard spells.
I was happy when I discovered this. I had actually worked on a build that was multiclassed rogue/fighter to try and emulate the Man With the Hat, and stuck a level of bard in to get the free whip proficiency, since bard is the only PC class that seems to have it. The official version works a lot better than that mess. I think it helps to not really think of this character as a bard, but as more of a rogueish type.
At the same time, I think an extra little boon might be in order to make up for what Cartigan is talking about. Like maybe Toughness as a bonus feat, since the MWtH can get hit in the face about five hundred times and still be conscious. Or maybe Great Fortitude. Or Whip Mastery as a higher-level bonus feat. Or Prehensile Whip as a class feature.
My god, you get worked up easily.What are you talking about? Lingering song increases the duration, and the racial traits increase the duration as well.Seriously?
The CLASS doesn't increase the duration. Feats that effect BARDIC PERFORMANCE are irrelevant because they only effect it on luck. Excellent design, making an archetype that is a feat and race tax.And while the duration of the ability doesn't naturally gain in duration, it's strength continues to grow as the bard levels.AS do things that increase in duration so your argument is void.
Stupid arguments get under my skin.
Eesh, maybe pull it back a little bud.
My point is that it was designed as a luck mechanic that you can kick on when you really need it, not an always-on boon. The fact that it doesn't scale in duration, only strength, is proof that this is intentional.
Or it is equal proof of bad editing. A positive statement is impossible without an official answer.
And it's a powerful, easily accessed ability that is as useful at level 1 as it is at 20.
Except it is significantly LESS powerful at 20 because fights are going to take significantly longer.
but there are several ways of boosting it beyond it's original intention, lending itself to a very powerful character.
For the severalth time, those do not count.
It also gives the archaeologist an incentive to invest ability score boosts and expensive headbands into buffing his Charisma.
Except there is incentive for a normal Bard to do that. Bardic Performance SLAs and offensive spells need high Charisma.
No, this is more of an incentive for every single Archeologist Bard to look exactly the same - Half-Elven Archeologists with Lingering Song. Bad design. Apparently it is beyond the pale to expect Paizo to adhere to design philosophies used when creating the game when they create additional content for the game.
Should this increase like every other single class' defining rounds/level ability?
No, because they are also receiving a bundle of always on abilities. It seems as if they balanced the duration of bardic song against the duration of Archaeologist’s Luck and trap sense/Rogue Talents/Evasion(which are always on). Hence an Archaeologist actually has more rounds of there class defining abilities.
Rogue talents are not all always on. "Rogue talents" is a diverse swatch of things.
And are you implying the Bard doesn't have "always-on" abilities? What is Well-Versed? Versatile Performance?
You would be hard pressed to convince me Evasion is worth losing a class level increase of Archeologist's Luck, especially after losing every single Bardic Performance ability.
Rogue talents are not all always on. "Rogue talents" is a diverse swatch of things.
Which rogue talents do you need to turn on for them to work?
And are you implying the Bard doesn't have "always-on" abilities? What is Well-Versed? Versatile Performance?
Clever Explorer and Uncanny Dodge are granted instead of those two abilities, which is why I didn't mention them in my post.
You would be hard pressed to convince me Evasion is worth losing a class level increase of Archeologist's Luck, especially after losing every single Bardic Performance ability.
You aren't giving up bardic song for evasion. Calm down and read my reply again, it seems like in your urgency to argue you are ignoring most of what is written.
Rogue talents are not all always on. "Rogue talents" is a diverse swatch of things.Which rogue talents do you need to turn on for them to work?
I thought there was some besides the Magic ones that required a cost, maybe not.
Clever Explorer and Uncanny Dodge are granted instead of those two abilities, which is why I didn't mention them in my post.
But the Bard still gets always on abilities.
You aren't giving up bardic song for evasion. Calm down and read my reply again, it seems like in your urgency to argue you are ignoring most of what is written.
Listen, if your argument is "The ability doesn't increase because he gets these other "always-on" abilities, then YES, he is giving up all Bardic Songs for Evasion, Trap Sense, and half the number of Rogue talents Rogues get. None of which explains why his ability doesn't increase.
Listen, if your argument is "The ability doesn't increase because he gets these other "always-on" abilities, then YES, he is giving up all Bardic Songs for Evasion, Trap Sense, and half the number of Rogue talents Rogues get. None of which explains why his ability doesn't increase.
You aren't giving up bardic song for evasion. Calm down and read my reply again, it seems like in your urgency to argue you are ignoring most of what is written.
I'm not arguing, I'm saying what I think the rationale was. Re-read what I wrote, and don't immediately think up an argument, just read it, it might explain it to you.
I'm not arguing, I'm saying what I think the rationale was. Re-read what I wrote, and don't immediately think up an argument, just read it, it might explain it to you.Listen, if your argument is "The ability doesn't increase because he gets these other "always-on" abilities, then YES, he is giving up all Bardic Songs for Evasion, Trap Sense, and half the number of Rogue talents Rogues get. None of which explains why his ability doesn't increase.
You aren't giving up bardic song for evasion. Calm down and read my reply again, it seems like in your urgency to argue you are ignoring most of what is written.
I disagreed with it the first time I read it, as evidenced by my repeated disagreements, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by telling me to reread it.
I disagreed with it the first time I read it, as evidenced by my repeated disagreements, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by telling me to reread it.
Your disagreements with my statement have been, rogue talents aren't always on (well maybe, you're not sure), that's bard's have Well-Versed and Versatile Performance (which have nothing to do with giving up bardic song) and that it's not worth giving up Bardic Song and only getting Evasion in return (which I agree with, but isn't happening here). So seeing as your disagreements are with things I haven't said, it seems as if you are failing to read the statement. Let me rephrase it.
It seems as if the Developers feel having some abilities that are available more often then bardic song balances having one ability that is available less often then bardic song.
Your disagreements with my statement have been, rogue talents aren't always on (well maybe, you're not sure), that's bard's have Well-Versed and Versatile Performance (which have nothing to do with giving up bardic song) and that it's not worth giving up Bardic Song and only getting Evasion in return (which I agree with, but isn't happening here). So seeing as your disagreements are with things I haven't said, it seems as if you are failing to read the statement. Let me rephrase it.
I disagreed with it the first time I read it, as evidenced by my repeated disagreements, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by telling me to reread it.
Listen, if your argument is "The ability doesn't increase because he gets these other "always-on" abilities, then YES, he is giving up all Bardic Songs for Evasion, Trap Sense, and half the number of Rogue talents Rogues get. None of which explains why his ability doesn't increase.
It seems as if the Developers feel having some abilities that are available more often then bardic song balances having one ability that is available less often then bardic song.
Or, conversely, it seems like the "D"evelopers (with a big D apparently) did a poor job of designing and/or editing this to fit former design principles (like a number of OTHER things they have been creating).
Or, conversely, it seems like the "D"evelopers (with a big D apparently) did a poor job of designing and/or editing this to fit former design principles (like a number of OTHER things they have been creating).
Ohhh, this is a Troll thread.
I think so too, Andy. Have fun.
Ohhh, this is a Troll thread.
Or, conversely, it seems like the "D"evelopers (with a big D apparently) did a poor job of designing and/or editing this to fit former design principles (like a number of OTHER things they have been creating).
No, that's a standing belief. This thread is trying to decipher what was actually intended for Archeologist's Luck. Officially. Not your equally subjective pro-developer belief that how it is is how it should be because that's how it is.
I have only expressed that opinion in reply to opinions by you and others that developers can do no wrong. SOMEONE has to do something besides suck up to them.
No, that's a standing belief. This thread is trying to decipher what was actually intended for Archeologist's Luck. Officially. Not your equally subjective pro-developer belief that how it is is how it should be because that's how it is.
I have only expressed that opinion in reply to opinions by you and others that developers can do no wrong. SOMEONE has to do something besides suck up to them.
Perhaps you should have put a disclaimer in your post: This thread is not intended for people whose belief differs from mine. Just a thought.
This thread began with an open question of whether or not the ability was balanced as written. Specifically, you wrote:
Should this increase like every other single class' defining rounds/level ability?
Then came several responses. Some agreed with you. Others offered a counterpoint on how they found it to be a decently designed ability and several ways to increase the ability's power.
And all you've done since is either respond with "your post is stupid," or tell people to stop disagreeing with you. For some reason you've decided that anyone who doesn't find fault with exactly what you do is just sucking up to the developers. The real problem here is that you seem to have forgotten that this is a forum designed around the exchange of ideas concerning pathfinder. Several people disagreed with your assessment of the ability and you stomped your feet and plugged your ears.
So, yes, troll thread. Good day.
Perhaps you should have put a disclaimer in your post: This thread is not intended for people whose belief differs from mine. Just a thought.No, that's a standing belief. This thread is trying to decipher what was actually intended for Archeologist's Luck. Officially. Not your equally subjective pro-developer belief that how it is is how it should be because that's how it is.
I have only expressed that opinion in reply to opinions by you and others that developers can do no wrong. SOMEONE has to do something besides suck up to them.
I have a better idea.
All my topics in Rules Questions should come with the following label.
Warning: Please FAQ this thread and move on. I want an official answer from Paizo that will hopefully evolve into a system correcting errata. I have no interest in your personal opinion, especially if that opinion is derived from "It is correct because it exists so it is correct." All attempts to hero-worship Paizo will be savagely undercut and countered. Either leave your opinions in another thread or FAQ this and move on (which is what I said first).
And all you've done since is either respond with "your post is stupid,"
All the posts about racial traits and feats relating to Bardic Performance were stupid. A racial trait or feat being able to modify the ability purely by coincidence is wholly unrelated to the fact that the class does not increase the ability nor does it balance the fact the class doesn't increase the ability.
For some reason you've decided that anyone who doesn't find fault with exactly what you do is just sucking up to the developers.
No, I decided people who take the opinion "The developers created it so that is how they intended it." are sucking up to the developers. I take the position the developers could be wrong. Which is why I put this thread in the Rules Questions forum in hope that the issue would be FAQd and addressed.
So, yes, troll thread. Good day.
Yes, please go plug your ears and stomp your feet elsewhere.
Maybe there should be a forum that is explicitly for official questions about how things are supposed to work.
|
I'm not going to get into why this ability is an explicit replacement for Bardic Performance instead of that going away and this being added separately.
My question is on the ability itself. More specifically, the amount of the ability.
It says "He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier."
Pretty standard, right? Except at no point does it say it ever increases. At level 1, you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day and at level 20 you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day. As opposed to Bardic Performance that by level 20 you have 42 + Cha rounds per day to use it.Should this increase like every other single class' defining rounds/level ability?
Feats that apply to bardic music apply to luck. You can use the extend feats the same as you would with bardic music.
And since it's luck it stacks with most everything.
Tempest in a teapot...
I have a better idea.All my topics in Rules Questions should come with the following label.
Warning: Please FAQ this thread and move on. I want an official answer from Paizo that will hopefully evolve into a system correcting errata. I have no interest in your personal opinion, especially if that opinion is derived from "It is correct because it exists so it is correct." All attempts to hero-worship Paizo will be savagely undercut and countered. Either leave your opinions in another thread or FAQ this and move on (which is what I said first).
Dude, you should if you want an official label and not posters answering.
I already pushed FAQ, but really I think the others are right that feats that apply ro one will apply to the other. At least I'd hope so, seems rather sucky Archetype otherwise.
Luck isn't that uncommon (Luck stone, etc) but still too few uses/day by lv 20.
Cartigan is coarse as always, but I do agree with him. There are far too few performance rounds per day. I actually liked the Archeologist quite a bit- until Cartigan pointed this out. Now, I really don't have any interest in playing one.
Bard's are amazing party buffers. By far the best in the game. If they are going to give up that ability, they better get something damn good in return.
The problem is, that while after a few levels a Bard can pretty much inspire courage all day long, giving a huge boost to himself and the rest of the party, an Archeologist can't use his luck all that much.
Oh sure, there is lingering performance. But now I am behind a feat and I am expending a swift action once every three rounds to maintain my performance for a class that has better uses for his swift action (Arcane Strike, Quickened Spells, Immediate Action Spells, some new Rogue Talents). And that sucks. I would much rather be a vanilla bard that can just set his performance up, and then not worry about it for the rest of combat.
|
|
Cartigan is coarse as always, but I do agree with him. There are far too few performance rounds per day. I actually liked the Archeologist quite a bit- until Cartigan pointed this out. Now, I really don't have any interest in playing one.
Bard's are amazing party buffers. By far the best in the game. If they are going to give up that ability, they better get something damn good in return.
The problem is, that while after a few levels a Bard can pretty much inspire courage all day long, giving a huge boost to himself and the rest of the party, an Archeologist can't use his luck all that much.
Oh sure, there is lingering performance. But now I am behind a feat and I am expending a swift action once every three rounds to maintain my performance for a class that has better uses for his swift action (Arcane Strike, Quickened Spells, Immediate Action Spells, some new Rogue Talents). And that sucks. I would much rather be a vanilla bard that can just set his performance up, and then not worry about it for the rest of combat.
A couple of things to consider.
First, with lingering performance and/or extra performance you are extending the uses significantly. Lingering performance alone triples the rounds per day.
While this is a "feat tax" you have to remember you are A) also adding rogue talents which are functionally feats, and b) Those are basically feats all bards will take.
Cartigan is coarse as always, but I do agree with him. There are far too few performance rounds per day. I actually liked the Archeologist quite a bit- until Cartigan pointed this out. Now, I really don't have any interest in playing one.
Bard's are amazing party buffers. By far the best in the game. If they are going to give up that ability, they better get something damn good in return.
The problem is, that while after a few levels a Bard can pretty much inspire courage all day long, giving a huge boost to himself and the rest of the party, an Archeologist can't use his luck all that much.
Oh sure, there is lingering performance. But now I am behind a feat and I am expending a swift action once every three rounds to maintain my performance for a class that has better uses for his swift action (Arcane Strike, Quickened Spells, Immediate Action Spells, some new Rogue Talents). And that sucks. I would much rather be a vanilla bard that can just set his performance up, and then not worry about it for the rest of combat.
A couple of things to consider.
First, with lingering performance and/or extra performance you are extending the uses significantly. Lingering performance alone triples the rounds per day.
While this is a "feat tax" you have to remember you are A) also adding rogue talents which are functionally feats, and b) Those are basically feats all bards will take.
I don't know, I rolled up a 10th level bard made for pure spells/debuffing, and I didn't sink any feats into extending performances. A halfling bard is so feat-starved that I put two into spell focus: enchantment, one into Improved Init, one into extra spell slot, and one into the feat that lets you disguise your spells with a performance check vs. perception (forget what it's called) so that the BBEG wouldn't know I was casting. I only ended up using this against the party, though, to Charm Person the DM's punk son when he got out of hand...
With a Charisma of something like 26, I never ran out of performances. How many encounters does your DM give you "per day"?
I have a better idea.All my topics in Rules Questions should come with the following label.
Warning: Please FAQ this thread and move on. I want an official answer from Paizo that will hopefully evolve into a system correcting errata. I have no interest in your personal opinion, especially if that opinion is derived from "It is correct because it exists so it is correct." All attempts to hero-worship Paizo will be savagely undercut and countered. Either leave your opinions in another thread or FAQ this and move on (which is what I said first).
Dude, you should if you want an official label and not posters answering.
I already pushed FAQ, but really I think the others are right that feats that apply ro one will apply to the other. At least I'd hope so, seems rather sucky Archetype otherwise.
They will but that doesn't address the issue. That just makes certain races inconceivably better at the class than other races.
By this logic those races are the best for normal bards, just like half orcs would always make the best barbarians (extra rages)or Gnomes the best Alchemists (more bombs.) Most (if not all) classes have a very obvious and optimal racial synergy and this archetype is no different.They will but that doesn't address the issue. That just makes certain races inconceivably better at the class than other races.
I have a better idea.All my topics in Rules Questions should come with the following label.
Warning: Please FAQ this thread and move on. I want an official answer from Paizo that will hopefully evolve into a system correcting errata. I have no interest in your personal opinion, especially if that opinion is derived from "It is correct because it exists so it is correct." All attempts to hero-worship Paizo will be savagely undercut and countered. Either leave your opinions in another thread or FAQ this and move on (which is what I said first).
Dude, you should if you want an official label and not posters answering.
I already pushed FAQ, but really I think the others are right that feats that apply ro one will apply to the other. At least I'd hope so, seems rather sucky Archetype otherwise.
No, it's not the same.
A Half-Elven normal Bard may have ~70 rounds per day vs ~50. A Half-Elven Archeologist may have ~30 rounds per day vs ~10. 20 more doesn't mean alot when you already have 50, but it does when you only have 10. Do you not understand how that isn't the same?