Here, you're making a disarm attempt, but you get to roll a sleight of hand instead. Because you're rolling a sleight of hand, you get your sleight of hand bonuses. However, you can't do the SoH as a move action (per the SoH rules) because you're confined to the use of SoH as a Disarm. You therefore have to use SoH in the same way you would use the disarm. You'll also note that normally SoH is against an opposed perception check from the target, but this doesn't happen because Weapon Snatcher treats the SoH roll as if it was a disarm, which is the entire point of the ability. If you have feats that augment your disarm such as improved/greater disarm, you may or may not get bonuses to your check from those depending on the wording. Because it says "checks" and not "disarm checks" you get the bonuses. Cool.
First, SoH is replacing the combat maneuver check; it's not replacing disarm. The reason why it cannot be a move action is not because of the limitations of what is being replaced (combat manuever check) but because of the limitations of what is being done (disarm), so that's not a valid comparison, and doesn't illuminate anything about the bluff check replacing the knowledge check, and things that affect knowledge checks do not affect it.
Clearly, the analogy. SoH = Bluff, combat manuever check = knowledge check. In the sleight of hand case, it ceases it all ways to be a combat maneuver check. It is still a disarm manuever, but things that affect combat manuever checks do not affect it. Likewise, when you replace a knowledge check with a bluff check, it ceases to be a knowledge check.
The example seems illustrative at first, I'll grant you, and I believe you offered it in good faith, but I think you were confusing what is being replaced (the combat manuever check) with what is being done (a disarm maneuver).
|
No, my assertion is that the SOH ceases to be an SOH other than for the purposes of accruing SOH bonuses, and is then treated as a CMB check. Note that the rules for Combat Maneuvers provoking and failing are in the rules for performing a combat maneuver, not for doing a disarm, grapple, etc specifically.
We see from both of the previous clarification threads, that the Disarm with SoH STILL provokes an attack of opportunity by virtue of being a Combat Maneuver, per the rules of rolling a combat maneuver check:
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
It doesn't provoke because it's a disarm, it provokes because its a combat maneuver check, which is the check that's being replaced by the SoH.
So, roll the SOH, give it the SOH bonuses, but treat it as if you had rolled a CMB check.
You are still performing a combat maneuver, but it's not a combat maneuver check.
Performing a combat maneuver and rolling a combat maneuver check are not the same thing. In the SoH case, you are performing a combat maneuver, and thus may provoke, but you're not rolling a combat maneuver check (you're rolling a SoH check instead).
|
You know, I was kind of giving this thread a glazed over look when Rudy2 has been going through the whole bonus vs check discussion.
I had been content in a read of the rule's entire effect line. Anyway...
He can use his bonus in that skill in place of his bonus in associated skills.
Versatile performance is nice and tidy. You're using your Perform(Dance) bonus of +10 instead of your Acrobatics bonus of +0 for a skill. Nice and tidy.
.. may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check ..
This doesn't say "use his bonus in the Bluff skill in place of his bonus in an Intelligence-based skill". If the ability was meant to function just like versatile performance, the writer only had to lift the words of versatile performance to get that across.
So, I imagine a scenario like this:
GM: The haughty noble looks at you with general disdain. He shakes his head and says "I highly doubt you're a member of the royal family."
Lem's Player: My bard puffs his chest out and replies "Certainly, I am."
GM: The noble looks nearly offended at the claim and challenges Lem. "Oh, then name all the members of the king's inner court." Lem - I need you to make a Knowledge (nobility) check DC20 to recall the five names he's looking for and impress him accordingly.
Lem's Player: Crud, I don't have Knowledge (nobility). I have an ability that says I can make a Bluff check instead of the Int check that you're asking me for. Even though you asked for a nobility check, can I use that?
GM: That's Pageant of the Peacock? Sure, make your Bluff check. Remember your character is making a Bluff check now, and not a Knowledge (nobility) check. He's not just simply using his Bluff bonus in place of whatever his bonus normally is. You will be successfully thwarting the noble's challenge if you succeed, though.
Lem's Player: That's fine, I just want this guy to think I'm nobility so he invites me to his after-party. *rolls dice*
This doesn't say "use his bonus in the Bluff skill in place of his bonus in an Intelligence-based skill". If the ability was meant to function just like versatile performance, the writer only had to lift the words of versatile performance to get that across.
Yes, wakedown, that's what I've been saying =D (I'm not actually upset, it's just funny that you just "got" that).
EDIT: I like your example, though; very congenial :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really getting deep into the weeds and suggesting that the developer got down and dirty about the ability he was creating - which is something I don't generally expect a lot of tabletop rules developers to get that detailed about.
This was announced in November? I imagine an editor/designer at Paizo was right on the cusp of his Christmas holiday and putting things together as a looming deadline approached.
He looked at the text he wrote and thought: "blah blah, convince others of breeding, blah blah, Bluff check, Int check... looks good, a skill that can be used when folks are trying to convince other folks about how smart they are. Not any particular powerful option, so low on the rules bloat radar... I can't imagine this causes any drama on the forums as probably hardly anyone will take it except in those crazy roleplay-centric home games. Check, next section."
The flip side is the developer looked at versatile performance and actually went through the thought process of "well I want this to be like versatile performance but I'm going to change a bunch of the words so it's replacing checks instead of bonuses" as I want to be careful about what this masterpiece does. But, maybe... if he did, then he's actually more thorough in crafting the ability's applicability than I give him credit for. If I were a designer with a deadline looming and I really wanted this to be like versatile performance for the bluff bonus being used for all Int-checks, my swiftest, surest path to meeting my deadline is lifting versatile performance verbatim and replacing the skills in question.
For kicks, if this thread can reach 500 posts by Friday, we'll unlock a new stretch goal. Upon achieving 500 posts, all PFS GMs will be instructed to flip a coin at each and every game to determine how they officiate Pageant of the Peacock!
Your narrative is very plausible, and I agree that they should have used the wording of versatile performance if that is what they meant, but I understand (as others have said) that that is not necessarily a compelling RAW argument. I'm personally with that interpretation, though.
The main thrust of my point, in contrast, is simply to point out that there is actually a difference between using a bluff bonus for a knowledge check, and making a bluff check in place of a knowledge check.
Oh, it does work for both interpretations, I agree.
In "my" interpretation, it would be that you make up false names, but "supernaturally" convince the noble that they are the correct ones.
In "your" interpretation, they would really be the right names, "supernaturally" conjured from the ether.
@Acedio
The thrust of the point I was trying to make to you is that reading "...and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check." and taking that to mean that it is sort of a bluff check, but also sort of a (lets say) knowledge check, is introducing unnecessary complexity into the interpretation, and it causes you to forfeit any claim you may try and make to the clarity of your interpretation.
If you really want the interpretation to be straightforward and clear, it's much more sensible to say that, if you are attempting a bluff check in place of a knowledge check, it really does become a bluff check. The bluff check replaces the knowledge check. Clean, simple, straightforward. No mixing properties of two different types of checks.
Finally, the reasons the usage restrictions of sleight of hand do not apply, is that the triggering of the ability is the use of a disarm maneuver. It's basically saying "When you would normally make a combat maneuver check for a disarm maneuver, you can instead make a sleight of hand check". So, the timing is triggered by a disarm maneuver, but it becomes a sleight of hand check.
This is the simplest interpretation, and gives all the desired effects, without having to mess with horrible things like a check being two types of checks simultaneously. Ick.
We're still left, of course, with the disagreement over what the Bluff check in Pageant of the Peacock can accomplish, but that's another matter.
I think that's a much weaker argument than some of the others that you've made, to be honest. There are so many things that technically should be labelled as one or both of those things that aren't in this game.
That being said, I can change the interpretation to be "you make up fake names, but the air of confidence you have is so awesome, that the noble doubts his own knowledge of the matter", if you prefer.
|
Not sure about all the Sleight of hand stuff yet, but all i can say is i definitely want to make a bard now with the ability, just so i can see how people react and what kind of ruling other gms make... Now does anyone know if there is a way to make Sleight of hand work off Int as well so i can peacock that for disarm? ^.^
I'm very confused now. I thought that you said earlier that you agreed that it was a bluff check. Are you back to thinking that it's actually a knowledge check?
The point is that there's no language whatsoever to indicate that this is all just in the target's head.
In the second example I gave, it's not in the target's head. The supernatural enhancement is to your projection of confidence in your answer.
Basically, either:
* You think it actually is a Bluff check, so we agree on that point, and can then move on to what the Bluff check does. I thought that was where we were, but I guess not.
* You think it actually is a Knowledge check, just one made with the bluff modifier. In this case, you are saying that Pageant of the Peacock does not say what it means, since it says to make a Bluff check. I'm content to end there, since such a claim belies statements that your interpretation is unambiguous and clear. (EDIT: I'm fairly certain this is not your claim, since you admitted you would let them roll twice for an ability that let you roll Bluff checks twice)
* You think it is some weird amalgamation of a bluff check and a knowledge check, in which case the division between the two is arbitrary, and you're also forfeiting any claim that your interpretation is clear or straightforward. So, we can also end there in that case.
EDIT: Woot. More posts than any thread in this section. Not sure that's something to celebrate, though... =D
|
I think wakedown's play-by-play is a perfect example! Exactly how I would want it to play out as a GM, and how I would expect it to play out as a player.
ergo - "You think it actually is a Bluff check, so we agree on that point, and can then move on to what the Bluff check does. I thought that was where we were, but I guess not."
Rudy 2, Drake, I tried to keep up with this thread, but did we already decide how this Bardic Masterpiece would work outside a social situation with NPCs? For instance during the Shattered Star adventure path and others, players have to make all sorts of Knowledge checks to reveal old forgotten lore. The ambiguous language seems to suggest that a bard can turn around and use PoP to in place of the knowledge checks....
@Karlisle, no, there's no consensus on that point. Expect table variation. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to derail it already by going on a tangent by summoning a demon lord... or an eidolon, or something.
I suppose I could always email Billy Idol or Baba Yaga if you guys really want a Peacock thread derailed again...
Sorry all, I would have posted earlier but Steve Stevens and I were busy getting hammered! I don't really remember everything that went down, but I woke up and my leg was all trashed and I was on the Arsenio Hall show. I see that Pageant of the Peacock is under discussion again, all I have to say is that the ability to use bluff for intelligence based skill is way different then using perform dance to use symphony of the Elysian heart and everyone around you has freedom of movement, it's crazy overpowered for a "magical" world where everything should make sense.
Also...so much leather!
And that's pretty much the argument... a Bluff check and a check made using your Bluff bonus are the same. Thus saying you can substitute the check, or make a check with the bonus substituted is effectively saying the same thing.
You are now directly contradicting yourself. You said earlier that you would let them re-roll if they had an ability that lets them re-roll bluff checks.
A knowledge check using your bluff bonus is not a bluff check, it's a knowledge check. Just as an intimidate check using your bonus from Perform (Percussion) via Versatile Performance is not a Perform (Percussion) check, it's an intimidate check.
You really need to make up your mind. Is it a bluff check, so that abilities that affect bluff checks affect it, or is it a knowledge check made with a bluff bonus, so that abilities that affect bluff checks do not affect it. You've said things supporting both positions, so I truly don't know which one I'm arguing against at this point. I can't respond to the rest of your arguments until I understand which position you are taking.
I created a thread about the question for Versatile Performance, because it seems, if I'm reading you correctly, we may disagree about that.
I believe that when you use your Perform (Percussion) bonus for an intimidate check, it is actually an intimidate check, so that abilities that let you re-roll perform checks, for example, do not apply.
You seem (I think?) to believe that when you use your Perform (Percussion) bonus for an intimidate check, you are making a perform check, so that abilities that let you re-roll Perform checks would apply.
If I'm correct about what you believe there, then we can't make any progress in this argument until we determine the point about Versatile Performance.
I would really, really, really appreciate you clarifying just two simple yes/no questions before I go any farther, because I still have no idea what your position is, and I can't communicate properly under that condition. Just yes/no. (Feel free to elaborate beyond the yes/no, if you like, but it's the yes/no I need to understand your position)
Do you believe that an ability that would let you roll bluff checks twice would apply to Pageant of the Peacock?
Do you believe that an ability that would let you roll perform checks twice would apply to Versatile Performance usage, when using a perform bonus in place of another skill?
This is not a minor "calculation" thing, or I wouldn't ask. The interpretation of these types of questions is pretty central to my entire argument, and I truly cannot argue against you if I don't know what your stance on them is.
|
|
As to "if it's a lie, you can already do it with bluff. That's what bluff is for." - that's technically true - but not without huge penalties.
Part of the bluff checks are how much of a bonus/penalty you get. (as much as -20, perhaps more) This varies depending upon your evidence & how much they want to believe you etc. In some circumstances it's even impossible without some sort of evidence. (A half-orc with no disguise isn't going to even get a roll to convince people that he's a fire giant no matter what his bluff is.)
Basically - I think a simplified version of Rudy2's argument (I'm still iffy myself - but I'm leaning that way) is that Pageant of the Peacock allows you to use your Bluff to get said evidence out the wazoo. (and basically that's where it comes from :P)
A magical construct requires a document signed by the king to let you past? If you're there - Pageant lets you use bluff instead of forging a document with linguistics - so long as you're present, waving around a bill from the blacksmith. etc
If you think, as you have just indicated, that when you are using Versatile Performance, it is a Performance check, and not the type of check it is replacing, then that is the boiled-down crux of our disagreement.
My argument depends on the interpretation where, if you use Versatile Performance to make a Diplomacy check using your Perform (oratory) bonus it counts as a 'Diplomacy check' not as a 'perform check'. If you disagree with this, then we're down to arguing about Versatile Performance, because my argument cannot proceed without that.
I've created a thread about the specific question. The one poster so far agrees with my interpretation, but that's obviously only one poster, so who knows.
I also asked James Jacobs, I'll see if he responds. You may or may not accept his word, but I do, so if he says that using Perform (oratory) for a Diplomacy check is not a diplomacy check, but a perform check, then I will have to concede my stance on the issue of a skill check in place of a skill check being different than using a bonus for another skill check.
To me, that says that (unless it specified otherwise), the penalties would still exist.
Nah. The supernatural nature of it means it isn't impossible anymore. I know you don't agree with that, but "impossible" is purely a GM adjudication, not something defined by the rules.
No, I understand that Versatile Performance working the way I think I does doesn't make my argument, but it may break my argument.
Essentially, if I'm wrong about versatile performance, then I'm wrong about "bluff check in place of a knowledge check" being different than "bluff bonus in place of your knowledge bonus when making a knowledge check". If I'm wrong about that, then obviously the "quality" argument cannot stand.
So, I'm not saying if I'm right about versatile performance then I win, I'm saying if I'm wrong about versatile performance then I lose, so I don't see the point in continuing the argument until that is determined.
If I'm right about versatile performance, all that means is that I can continue to defend the other points of my argument.
Or, to put it another way, if I'm correct about Versatile Performance, then your answer to the second of the two questions I asked has to change to "no", meaning there is a mechanical difference between substituting a check for a check (the first question, to which your answer would be "yes") and substituting a different skill's bonus for a check (the second question, to which your answer would then be "no").
That's all my being correct about Versatile Performance would do: show that there is a difference between substituting a check, and substituting a bonus.
It would not show what that difference is, precisely. It would not necessarily mean that my "quality" argument has merit, nor would it conclusively show that the bluff check could not do what the knowledge check does. All it would do is confirm the foundations on which I can try and make those arguments.
Having just made a bard for pfs last week, and seeing I was planning on incorporating Pageant of the Peacock into the build, and also wanting this thread to reach it's stretch goal, I've decided to ask a relevant question :
"Does the use of Pageant of the Peacock produce a Swarm Suit?"
I'm hoping the answer of this question can shut down two threads.
No, but you can convince others that you are wearing an illusionary Swarm Suit =D
|
|
BILLY! THESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU DANCING! STOP DISTRACTING THEM WITH YOUR MUSIC VIDEOS!
WAKEDOWN! WHY HAVE YOU AWOKEN HIM? I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU YOURS WAS NOT TO QUESTION.
About damn time! Sadly, we missed our stretch goal of reaching 500 posts by Friday, so no coin flipping to determine how to run Pageant in August.
Although, bonus goal. If we reach 1000 posts by Monday, Reaper has agreed to produce a limited release miniature of Billy Idol in an NBC Peacock costume for Christmas.
Although, I suspect it's largely illusionary, being based on Billy wearing sleeves of many garments and all that.
EDIT: I realize it was unclear whether or not the 500 post stretch goal was Friday 12:01AM or Friday 11:59PM. So I'm going to say that it's still open, and we should all be coin flipping in August once we hit 500!
Sadly, we missed our stretch goal of reaching 500 posts by Friday, so no coin flipping to determine how to run Pageant in August.
Hmph. Since when does "by Friday" mean "before Friday" rather than "by the end of Friday"?
EDIT: Ah, caught your edit. Excellent =D
Alright, JJacobs basically said that, in the situation where Perform (Oratory) bonus is used for a Diplomacy check, by RAW, it's not a diplomacy check anymore, and abilities that apply to diplomacy checks do not apply. He says that he thinks it *should* be counted as a Diplomacy check, which is of some comfort, but that's not a rules statement.
The logical extension to this is that, when a Bluff check is used in place of a Knowledge check, it's not a knowledge check anymore. This invalidates any "trained" requirements you may wish to impose, since it's not a knowledge check.
Sadly, since I do accept JJacobs' rules interpretations myself, this also means that there isn't a RAW distinction between using one skills' bonus for another skill check, and using one skill check in place of another. Thus, I'm forced to concede the point about them being different things by RAW.
Doesn't change my view of the intent of the ability, but it does mean I won't use my "quality" interpretation in PFS, at least. I'll have to settle for the one skill check per use interpretation, or avoiding players with the ability entirely.
EDIT: If anyone has anything related to argue about, though, we're almost to 500.
Oh, the JJacobs response.
|
Wait wait wait... so if you've changed your opinion, what have you changed it to?
In the wake of this new information, what do you believe the masterpiece does?
I don't think his opinion has changed,...
he's still at "... avoiding players with the ability entirely."
so... if you sit at his table and your PC has PotP, either you change what PC you are running (to not have the Masterpiece), or one of you has to step away from the table.
In other words... "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock" still stands.
