Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
evilaustintom wrote: My 2 cents.
For those that believe PotP is limited to only for ‘convincing others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement’ with Intelligence-based checks…
“Heroism: This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks.”
…so then this spell only gives benefits in combat? As the spell clearly implies?
“Expeditious Retreat” (spell)
…so this spell only works when you’re retreating? As the spell name clearly implies?
“Deadly Aim: You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.”
…so this feat doesn’t work when your target has concealment, since it clearly implies it is precision-based damage?
“Deceitful: You are skilled at deceiving others, both with the spoken word and with physical disguises.”
…so this feat doesn’t apply benefits when you use a magical item to disguise yourself, such as a hat of disguise? Since it clearly states benefits only to spoken word and physical disguises?
I believe the wording of PotP is clear enough for most reasonable people – you can use your Bluff check for intelligence-based skill checks. Simple enough.
A different issue is whether people feel the ability is overpowered or not. I think some people are using their personal opinion of the ability being overpowered to try and ‘interpret’ away what the magical ability does for a character.
Congratulations you win the Sophistry Award for the day. The relevant text for the Peacock Masterpiece is more than just it's title. To come to your conclusion means a deliberate choice to ignore half the spell text to get an effect that is all out of proportion to the price of gaining the power.
LazarX wrote: evilaustintom wrote: My 2 cents.
For those that believe PotP is limited to only for ‘convincing others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement’ with Intelligence-based checks…
“Heroism: This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks.”
…so then this spell only gives benefits in combat? As the spell clearly implies?
“Expeditious Retreat” (spell)
…so this spell only works when you’re retreating? As the spell name clearly implies?
“Deadly Aim: You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.”
…so this feat doesn’t work when your target has concealment, since it clearly implies it is precision-based damage?
“Deceitful: You are skilled at deceiving others, both with the spoken word and with physical disguises.”
…so this feat doesn’t apply benefits when you use a magical item to disguise yourself, such as a hat of disguise? Since it clearly states benefits only to spoken word and physical disguises?
I believe the wording of PotP is clear enough for most reasonable people – you can use your Bluff check for intelligence-based skill checks. Simple enough.
A different issue is whether people feel the ability is overpowered or not. I think some people are using their personal opinion of the ability being overpowered to try and ‘interpret’ away what the magical ability does for a character.
Congratulations you win the Sophistry Award for the day. The relevant text for the Peacock Masterpiece is more than just it's title. To come to your conclusion means a deliberate choice to ignore half the spell text to get an effect that is all out of proportion to the price of gaining the power. Actually the Heroism one is possibly relevant... that line comes from the description section in the line just before mechanics. The others which come from names or 'fluff' sections are, I agree, irrelevant to the argument at hand.
sarokcat wrote: Ok, pretty sure they just need to take a look at the ability or remove it from the allowed resources... So I vote we all go make PotP bards, as brokenly as possible so that we have 2/3rds of the skills maxed. And then go show them off, so everyone can see how broken it is or how much it needs clarification. Enough people start exploiting it, and it will be sorted out in no time.. So, how broken would that be, in reality?
"Wow, we're hitting 30s with knowledge, spellcraft and appraise checks, yay! Now what? We gave the GM the opportunity to tell us us the entire background of the scenario during play as a result of our characters' actions instead having to explain what was actually going on and who we were dealing with as he was handing out the chronicle sheets? Oh, and we actually identified a Pearl of Power for once!"
I'd wager that you end up with much more disruption from people using that maximized Bluff to, well, Bluff really well. A 30 or 40 on a knowledge check just gives the players more information to move the story along, a 30 or 40 Bluff can run roughshod over the adventure.
And, like I said in my first post: Spotlight hogging is a player problem, not a rules problem.
Akerlof wrote: And, like I said in my first post: Spotlight hogging is a player problem, not a rules problem. While this is true to an extent it might help if the rules didn't make it trivially easy for a player to do so, even unintentionally.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm looking at making an archivist bard for Season 6 of PFS. High Int and decent Cha, lots of Knowledge skills as well as Disable Device. Sounds like a good fit, and I love the idea of a character whose main problem-solving ability is his knowledge.
But it is really jarring to realize that no matter how high his Int, no matter how many ranks he puts in Knowledge skills, he could *always* have been better at this task by dumping Int, taking Sandman, and maxing Bluff. It's so much easier to pump one skill than ten (Skill Focus, for example). I won't take PotP, because the idea that a charming moron's (7 Int, 18 Cha) BS beats actual knowledge every single time offends me. I don't think that should happen in stories more than once in a blue moon. I would stop watching a TV show or reading a book that constantly featured a trope of "Making things up gives you the right answer more often than actually learning things." And I would not play at a table that employed it.
So I guess my options are to a) just give up the idea of playing a Knowledge expert above level 3 until this masterpiece is banned, or b) play the archivist and ask anybody else playing a bard at the same table "What Masterpieces do you have?" and then walk away if they are using PotP, since the archivist's knowledge would be useless. Which is a shame, since archivist plays well with Inspire Courage bards.
I don't mind that the Masterpiece lets PCs know things or that it can move the plot along, nor do I think it makes the bard too strong. But for bards' role as knowledge experts, my favorite aspect of the class over several editions, I think it is *thematically* wrong to change that from "Actually learn lore" to "Make everything up."
I would really, really love to hear the designer's intent on this ability.
andreww wrote: Akerlof wrote: And, like I said in my first post: Spotlight hogging is a player problem, not a rules problem. While this is true to an extent it might help if the rules didn't make it trivially easy for a player to do so, even unintentionally. A Heavens Oracle's Color Spray is trivially easy to steal the spotlight with.
A Pageant of the Peacock bard can generally be handled by responding to other players knowledge rolls first: "Bob the Wizard here came up with this tidbit. Once you finished strutting around like Cat on Red Dwarf, working your way up to an answer, you came to the same conclusion." Respond to the PotP bard last and he only gets stuff other people have missed. If the DC of a check is 20, it doesn't matter if you get a 20 or a 50, you still succeed at the check. So no more spotlight hog. <Edit> This is true for anything: I've run into several players who pump their Knowledge (Local) and Perception skills sky high regardless of class and always try to jump in on other players toes, shouting out the result of their roll and demanding the result before the other player even finishes saying what they want to do. It's the GM's job to prevent these players, regardless of the mechanic they're using, from stealing other players' thunder.</Edit>
Again, I think the sky high Bluff check is going to cause more problems as a Bluff check than as an Int or Knowledge check.
Aldizog wrote:
So I guess my options are to a) just give up the idea of playing a Knowledge expert above level 3 until this masterpiece is banned, or b) play the archivist and ask anybody else playing a bard at the same table "What Masterpieces do you have?" and then walk away if they are using PotP, since the archivist's knowledge would be useless. Which is a shame, since archivist plays well with Inspire Courage bards.
3 questions:
1.) How many Pageant of the Peacock bards have you actually run across up till now?
2.) Will you walk away from tables with a Mind Chemist as well? They're also almost certain to overshadow you without trying much.
3.) What else would your character do? If you just plan on being good at knowledges and nothing else, you might want to reconsider your build. Just like there's more to the game than combat, there is more to the game than knowledges.
Akerlof wrote:
3 questions:
1.) How many Pageant of the Peacock bards have you actually run across up till now?
2.) Will you walk away from tables with a Mind Chemist as well? They're also almost certain to overshadow you without trying much.
3.) What else would your character do? If you just plan on being good at knowledges and nothing else, you might want to reconsider your build. Just like there's more to the game than combat, there is more to the game than knowledges.
1) None so far; I assumed it was a fairly new ability recently approved for PFS, due to the flurry of threads about it. I have only played 9 PFS sessions above level 4, none with a single-classed bard in the party. My experience is limited.
2) I doubt that (PotP looks far, far better, and the alchemist's lack of class skill bonuses narrows his extra +Int advantage). But even if it were to be so, being bested at Knowledge skills by a more intelligent PC would be thematically appropriate. Were this to happen, an intelligence-based archivist bard could certainly justify learning these secrets with a two-level dip in mindchemist. It would not totally invalidate the character in a way that a charming moron repeatedly besting him through Bluff would do. The latter scenario says that Intelligence and Knowledge skill ranks are simply useless. The former does not.
3) All the other things that bards do. I love that the archivist's IC equivalent requires Knowledge checks, so he's still using Knowledge for power. I'd probably play him as a combination of the Doctor (who, when he doesn't know the answer and Bluffs, often has to admit "Sorry, no idea") and what I think an RPG wizard should always have been (i.e. knowledge, advice, and magic, not solely spell-slinging). At this point it's a concept, not a build.
DrakeRoberts wrote: I'm not sure why this is being reopened and debated on after so many from different sides came to a mutually beneficial interpretation. I've said my piece on this... 500 posts is an intimidating number when you haven't been following the thread from the beginning. So people read the first post, skip the the pages that follow (where the issue was thrashed out in detail and concluded to the satisfaction of most parties) and restate what's already been said before. Sigh I wish I could say that I haven't been guilty of this myself...
Aldizog wrote: 1) None so far; I assumed it was a fairly new ability recently approved for PFS, due to the flurry of threads about it. I have only played 9 PFS sessions above level 4, none with a single-classed bard in the party. My experience is limited. Actually, it's been around for a while. There have been occassional threads about it off and on, mostly in the rules forum I think. The reason it's become such a hot topic recently is that the title and initial post of this thread were controversial enough to catch a lot interest from those of us who were randomly browsing. Then the 'sister thread' on the Rules forum (which preceded this thread) picked up after being referenced by an early post. Then an old rules forum thread got revived. Then a thread was created in the advice forum on how to houserule this. Things continued from there. I think there's been a Peacock thread on every major forum of the Paizo website now.
andreww wrote: trollbill wrote: My only comment is this:
If you, as DM, don't like it when the players twist and convolute the wording of an ability so that it becomes broken, then don't do the same to them in reverse.
The problem with this is that the most natural reading of the ability leads to the broken ability. No twisting required. You are missing the point. If you hate it when players twist the natural reading of an ability to make it broken, then you should not be twisting the natural reading of an ability to make it unbroken either. Anything else is just being hypocritical.
trollbill wrote: andreww wrote: trollbill wrote: My only comment is this:
If you, as DM, don't like it when the players twist and convolute the wording of an ability so that it becomes broken, then don't do the same to them in reverse.
The problem with this is that the most natural reading of the ability leads to the broken ability. No twisting required. You are missing the point. If you hate it when players twist the natural reading of an ability to make it broken, then you should not be twisting the natural reading of an ability to make it unbroken either. Anything else is just being hypocritical. I disagree with this statement.
Depending on how you use the wording I feel it can be honestly put either way.
If you use the sentances independently and feel some of the others fluff. Then yes it allow syou to make int checks. If you read it in a way that the sentances refer to each other then , no it does not answer questions.
Choosing to read it agaisnt the players does not always mean you are a hypocrite.
I have a PFS-bard with PotP. I havent played him for close to a year (havent played PFS for close to a year), but I never met anyone that had a problem with it at all. The GM was slightly *huh, let me check that*, and then was on board.
None of the other players had a problem with a bard acing the knowledge checks (that was if I had it going at the time, not always the case). They didnt have a problem with me buffing them, or letting them reroll saving throws either (Saving Finale love). There will always be the chance of more people beeing able to do the same things. If you are a one trick pony, that might be a bit boring, but should one ban all but one melee class, just cause one can melee better then most? Should be deny two arcane casters just because one can cast better spells then the other? Can not a mindchemist and a bard be in the same group, just cause one will cry like a baby and hate Pathfinder after the session is over?
My opinion is that spotlight hogging is a player problem, and that people with different builds will always whine, OR play well together, no matter if PotP is in the game or not. If stuff that *could* break the game was all banned, then we would be left with a very thin bag of options.
belowyn wrote: Can not a mindchemist and a bard be in the same group, just cause one will cry like a baby and hate Pathfinder after the session is over?
The two can absolutely be in the same group. The mindchemist doesn't invalidate the concept of "knowing stuff."
The PotP does. It actively obviates the value of Intelligence, Knowledge skills, and Bardic Knowledge for knowing things. It makes all of these useless. This is a role-playing game. The rules convey themes and tropes, not just modifiers to a die roll. Reflavor? There is no way to reflavor PotP such that you are NOT using a Bluff check to gain real knowledge.
If I wanted to play a Knowledge bard, I am well aware of PotP and know I could get higher checks by using it. I could exploit this poorly-written thematically-inappropriate ability. But given its current power level, PotP explicitly contradicts my view of reality, myth, movies, fantasy stories, and everything else. I do not wish to be part of a story in which a dimwitted liar is so consistently better at knowing things than a brilliant scholar.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aldizog,
Spells, magical effects, and supernatural abilities usually obviate the value of skills. (You invest skill ranks (and Skill Focus) in the Climb skill; I cast spider climb.) This isn't a surprise; you know this.
How do you feel about the Knowledge domain power that allows a cleric to touch a monster and find out all sorts of things about it? Isn't that the same issue?
"I do not wish to be part of a story in which a dim-witted liar is so consistently better at knowing things than a brilliant scholar." I respect that. That's fine. The answer should be "Don't play or GM in an environment that allows for that Masterpiece," rather than "Don't allow a PC with the ability to use it effectively."
And for what it's worth, I'll take some issue with "consistently better". In combat, use of the Masterpiece is much slower for monster identification. And using it exhausts a bard's daily resources, so it can't be used consistently.
Chris Mortika wrote: Aldizog,
Spells, magical effects, and supernatural abilities usually obviate the value of skills. (You invest skill ranks (and Skill Focus) in the Climb skill; I cast spider climb.) This isn't a surprise; you know this.
How do you feel about the Knowledge domain power that allows a cleric to touch a monster and find out all sorts of things about it? Isn't that the same issue?
"I do not wish to be part of a story in which a dim-witted liar is so consistently better at knowing things than a brilliant scholar." I respect that. That's fine. The answer should be "Don't play or GM in an environment that allows for that Masterpiece," rather than "Don't allow a PC with the ability to use it effectively."
And for what it's worth, I'll take some issue with "consistently better". In combat, use of the Masterpiece is much slower for monster identification. And using it exhausts a bard's daily resources, so it can't be used consistently.
You raise some good points. Spells do obviate skills to a degree, but consider that Spider Climb obviates one skill, whereas PotP does *far* more (over a dozen). Knock doesn't surpass Disable Device, giving about the same bonus as a comparable rogue has. And that's for only one half of one skill. Other spells were changed in PF to incorporate skill ranks, like Find Traps. PotP is *cheaper* than a 2nd-level spell, since it only costs one round of performance to use, and a level 4 bard has perhaps 14 rounds of performance and only 2 second-level spells per day. I'd place it as about equal to a 1st-level spell (higher acquisition cost, but lower use cost).
The Knowledge domain ability could be better were it to in some way incorporate the cleric's actual Knowledge and Int. I feel likewise about PotP, that actually being intelligent or knowing something about the subject matter should make for a more convincing lie. But the domain ability seems much more limited than PotP (at least in PFS, out-of-combat Knowledge checks often offer solutions to problems), and a domain is worth, to me, much more than a single level of FCB. My first problem with PotP is that it is too much gain for too little cost.
My second, and I don't know how better I can explain this, is that a signature class ability of the bard is obviated because its thematic opposite is a better option. "Learn things" and "Make stuff up" are antithetical. It'd be somewhat like if a new rage power let barbarians use Dex to hit and 2*Dex to damage for 2-handed weapons, and suddenly the class was flipped on its head to be dominated by agile spear-dancer elven and halfling Urban Barbarians out-damaging the Strength builds. No other skills represent concepts so diametrically opposed as actual knowledge and lies. That thematic opposition is a huge stumbling block for me here. This game is not a bunch of disassociated mechanics.
Third, there's the issue with tradeoffs and SAD. The bard class already gains a LOT from Charisma. Bardic Knowledge is a cool ability that employs a secondary or tertiary stat (like Channeling for clerics). This is a feature, not a bug. If you choose to be very good at Bardic Knowledge, you may have to lower Cha a little bit. But PotP removes that tradeoff. You rarely have so many Knowledge checks in an adventure that you'd run out of uses, and the cost of a single FCB is pretty small. And Bluff is already so good, it doesn't need a boost.
I'd love to see either PFS banning this, or Paizo errata, or at least a statement from the designer as to what the intended use of the ability was. A new masterpiece that gave a large bonus to Bardic Knowledge checks could also work, although it would be a challenge to make it competitive with PotP when Bluff can be so easily boosted to ludicrous levels (e.g. Glibness).
Aldizog wrote: PotP is *cheaper* than a 2nd-level spell, since it only costs one round of performance to use, and a level 4 bard has perhaps 14 rounds of performance and only 2 second-level spells per day. I'd place it as about equal to a 1st-level spell (higher acquisition cost, but lower use cost).
...
Third, there's the issue with tradeoffs and SAD. The bard class already gains a LOT from Charisma. Bardic Knowledge is a cool ability that employs a secondary or tertiary stat (like Channeling for clerics). This is a feature, not a bug. If you choose to be very good at Bardic Knowledge, you may have to lower Cha a little bit. But PotP removes that tradeoff. You rarely have so many Knowledge checks in an adventure that you'd run out of uses, and the cost of a single FCB is pretty small. And Bluff is already so good, it doesn't need a boost.
I'd love to see either PFS banning this, or Paizo errata, or at least a statement from the designer as to what the intended use of the ability was. A new masterpiece that gave a large bonus to Bardic Knowledge checks could also work, although it would be a challenge to make it competitive with PotP when Bluff can be so easily boosted to ludicrous levels (e.g. Glibness).
I have a number of problems with your statements. My first is that even the 'make your own masterpieces' rules would say that PotP should be compared to a second level spell powerwise (I think it's more than that, granted, but you're trying to say it should be only level 1). To get this you give up a feat slot or a known spell, both of which are in fairly short order. You write the cost off as that of one level of FCB, but then you're assuming that the bard is human, half-elf, or half-orc and ignoring the fact that (with the possible 1/2 level to revelation/song ones), a free known spell to a spontaneous caster is about the best FCB you could possibly ever get. Even to compare it to a page of spell knowledge shows the value of that slot to be at about 4k gp, numerically speaking. At lower levels, at least, this is quite a lot, and would likely set you back your +2 charisma headband if you were trying to replace it at about level 4 when you'd be able to pick up the ability. That said, I personally think that even Page of Spell Knowledge (at least the lower ones) tend to undervalue spells known to a spontaneous caster, but that's personal opinion.
Furthermore, you assert that this ability is made ridiculous due to things like Glibness... but I for one, surely wouldn't let Glibness work. Your using the Bluff check to gain knowledge, not to convince someone that your words are true (which is the only situation you get your +20 bluff for with that spell).
Finally, and this is not a contradiction of your opinion but rather hopefully a way for you to reconcile flavor: I wonder if perhaps you'd consider my proposed flavor suggestion as to why bluff may in fact work with knowledge. In fact, it ties into both the Perform (Act) requirement (okay, perhaps not so the Dance option, I admit... although thats a posture thing, so works a bit, just not as well) and the flavor of the ability. Think of it as supernatural method-acting. You're bluffing because you're acting out a role. You need the fundamentals of acting or posture (dance) to learn this supernatural secret/method. Then you use your bluff skill to become your role, to fool yourself into seeing things from other people's perspective... the magic makes it come to life. The person you're pretending to be is a wise wizard? Great, you know what he would, limited only by your ability to magically fool yourself. Honestly... we do this all the time without the magic when we RP. I have learned more about other cultures and places and times through RP than any other single source. Pretending to be someone else, and learning the things they know. That's what the supernatural magic is providing... the knowledge that helps you fill this role you're putting yourself in.
DrakeRoberts wrote:
I have a number of problems with your statements. My first is that even the 'make your own masterpieces' rules would say that PotP should be compared to a second level spell powerwise (I think it's more than that, granted, but you're trying to say it should be only level 1).
The performance rounds are also a balancing factor, and at only 1 round per 10 minutes it is a very inexpensive masterpiece to use. Given the cost of other ones for what they give, I think this suggests it wasn't intended to be quite so powerful. Again, for a particular bard, using 1 round of performance is less of a cost than casting 1 2nd-level spell.
I had read your "channeling the muse" explanation on earlier pages before I ever posted. I don't think it's bad, but it shouldn't be *better* than actual knowledge. Just as Knock (a 2nd-level spell) is no longer better than Disable Device. Those knowledge skill ranks (and, crucially, ability points for Int) are expensive. It's quite easy to boost Bluff very high, with Skill Focus and competence items only needing to work on a single skill (and Sandman bard). I agree on Glibness, but I would expect many arguments from players ("I'm trying to convince myself that I know the answer!").
Going forward, it sounds like Mark Seifter might revisit this issue after GenCon, and I'm curious to see what he has to say. A new Masterpiece that boosts Bardic Knowledge would probably be the most likely option to help a true scholar bard, although such options are normally not offered in blog posts.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Choosing to read it agaisnt the players does not always mean you are a hypocrite.
I agree, it doesn't. It all depends on the level of twisting you have to go through to make that ruling. Personally, I think reading Pageant of the Peacock to mean 1 Int check per performance isn't too much of a twist but reading it to mean you are only bluffing people into thinking you made the Int check is. But what I personally think isn't actually the point. It is what the DM whose making the decision personally thinks that matters. In other words, if you are twisting the wording to the point that, if the players did the same thing you would find abusive, then you are being just as abusive, and it is therefore a bad decision.
Of course, the best solution to disruptive players has been and always will be the same: "Talk to the player!"
Another problem with defending the reading of PotP as allowing Bluff to seamlessly cover so many skills by comparing it to the Knowledge Domain is that the melee touch attack involves a static bonus. The actual knowledge skill is still better, if invested into. What makes the Knowledge domain special is the uninvested skills are rather good as a result.
PotP, if read that way (where Bluff's bailiwick is expanded to cover every INT-based skill), is not comparable. It's not a static roll... it scales with every Bluff enhancement you have.
And of course, there's another problem with the comparison.. the melee touch attack is still a melee touch attack. That has certain serious tone-downs from a many-skills into one skill idea.
Chris Mortika wrote: Aldizog,
How do you feel about the Knowledge domain power that allows a cleric to touch a monster and find out all sorts of things about it? Isn't that the same issue?
I feel the same way I felt about it when I first read it.
"You want me to touch the monster before I know what it is and what it can do? Umm... Yeah. I'll go play a bard."
Can we please stop comparing PotP to a 2nd level spell? It does not cost you any of your spells per day to use. It costs you one spell known, or one feat, + 1 round of performance per 10 minutes.
So it equal to a 2nd level page of spell knowledge. (If you want to be really fair, it is about the cost of a slotless page of spell knowledge, which would up it to 8K, or about the price of an extra feat.)
(If you are one of the very common bards with mnemonic vestments, then all it costs you is a 2nd level scroll.)
And it is not that it gets you +30 (or 40 or 1000) in an intelligence skill. A headband of Intellect gets you that for 4K.
It is that it gets you +X in *ALL* of them. And then you *STILL* have almost all your points to go into everything that is left. So rather than having to chose between being a knowledge bard and a face bard, you can be all of them. (and if you are willing to pick two traits, you can get about 1/3 of the charisma skills for free too.)
andreww wrote: deusvult wrote: Want to use Knowledge/Nobility to identify the seal in the broken wax? Bluff doesn't give you the answer, Bluff makes people you tell THINK you know the answer.
Want to use Knowledge/whatever to identify monster capabilities? Bluff won't do that, using the Bluff skill in place will only make your party think your made up information is true.
Except that Bluff already does this, you don't need to give up a level 2 spell known to be able to do either of these things. This makes no sense. That's what the +4 is for. A bonus like that usually applies to abilities that are only useful in a specific or limited situation.
Rambone wrote: andreww wrote: deusvult wrote: Want to use Knowledge/Nobility to identify the seal in the broken wax? Bluff doesn't give you the answer, Bluff makes people you tell THINK you know the answer.
Want to use Knowledge/whatever to identify monster capabilities? Bluff won't do that, using the Bluff skill in place will only make your party think your made up information is true.
Except that Bluff already does this, you don't need to give up a level 2 spell known to be able to do either of these things. This makes no sense. That's what the +4 is for. A bonus like that usually applies to abilities that are only useful in a specific or limited situation. If that was the case, it would say that you get a +4 to bluff when pretending to know something.... or something to that effect. Not give you a straight +4 AND substitute a bluff check for an intelligence check.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anyone who has not read this thread and is just coming in should read it (I know it's long, sorry), or at least the shorter rules forum one that was going on at the same time. Or maybe posts 350-550ish would be enough, I'm not sure. But many of these points were brought up and discussed through in the past, by some rather staunch advocates, and a conclusion was still reached. Then there was a period of unrelated chit chat, and now people are back rehashing the past. I'm not saying your concerns and opinions aren't important, because they are, but please... if you haven't already... read through the thread first. It's frustrating to feel like after all that hard work and compromise and such that things need to just start over from scratch. Human progress is made, after all, by building off of what those before us have done.
Thanks.
Link?
Because as nice as that all sounded, it's worthless without a link to the information, no? :)
DrakeRoberts wrote: Anyone who has not read this thread and is just coming in should read it (I know it's long, sorry), or at least the shorter rules forum one that was going on at the same time. Or maybe posts 350-550ish would be enough, I'm not sure. But many of these points were brought up and discussed through in the past, by some rather staunch advocates, and a conclusion was still reached. Then there was a period of unrelated chit chat, and now people are back rehashing the past. I'm not saying your concerns and opinions aren't important, because they are, but please... if you haven't already... read through the thread first. It's frustrating to feel like after all that hard work and compromise and such that things need to just start over from scratch. Human progress is made, after all, by building off of what those before us have done.
Thanks.
I read it before I posted, and find the compromise unsatisfactory. At one skill check per performance, Knock is a good comparison. PotP is *less* of a cost to use than a 2nd-level spell, but the same cost to acquire, so it should be slightly less effective. However:
1. Knock lets magic replace one use of one skill (the less common use, in my PFS experience) at a bonus about equal to what a skill user would have. (Level +10 is a rogue with MW tools and +5 Dex). A focused skill user can more easily surpass the spell than vice versa. PotP can easily grant a much higher bonus than the Int skill user, and applies to far more checks.
2. Knock makes one attempt, like PotP, but the Disable skill can be retried if failed. Advantage to the skill over the spell there, no such advantage for the Knowledge skills over PotP.
3. While limiting PotP to a subset of skills ("Int checks specifically used for faking being a person of higher station") might seem too narrow, in my PFS experience, "All int skills" constitute FAR more challenges than the "Open Locks" application of Disable Device. The more restrictive one would be balanced, making PotP a great masterpiece for courtly intrigue campaigns, not an all-purpose one. And in PFS I think it would be about as commonly useful as Knock.
The compromise is necessary for PFS as it has a sound basis in the actual wording, and there is little likelihood of getting the wording changed. Unfortunately, PotP is still too powerful. So either it needs to be banned, or a new Masterpiece needs to exist that employs actual Int skill ranks and gives you better results than PotP. It would be fine if PotP was a fallback option for when you didn't actually know something and had to fake it, but even the compromise makes it much better than that. And much better than Knock.
Aldizog wrote: The compromise is necessary for PFS as it has a sound basis in the actual wording, and there is little likelihood of getting the wording changed. Unfortunately, PotP is still too powerful. So either it needs to be banned, or a new Masterpiece needs to exist that employs actual Int skill ranks and gives you better results than PotP. It would be fine if PotP was a fallback option for when you didn't actually know something and had to fake it, but even the compromise makes it much better than that. And much better than Knock. I don't think anyone has argued that PotP isn't overpowered for it's level. I certainly haven't anyhow. That said, 2nd level IS (per the masterpiece rules) where the level should be compared at (or 2.5 I suppose, as it requires 4 rather than 3 ranks). It is overpowered for that, compared to knock, but at one skill substitution for the duration of the effect, it isn't as overpowered as some other non-banned options.
Truthfully, it seems like you're arguing two separate things... that it should be banned due to power OR that we should make a MORE powerful version that is more in theme. If you truly believe this is overpowered, than the latter suggestion seems a terrible idea.
The point that was being made with Knock, for example, is that it is perfectly reasonable and on-theme for magical effects (which this is) to allow someone low in one statistic to substitute another. Such as a Dex 8 Wizard being able to pick locks with Knock.
So really, which is your problem? The power level, or the theme? The power level is cut back with the compromise, and while still quite powerful is less so than a number of other options available to PFS characters. Have you seen PotP break as many games (particularly with the compromise in effect that limits you essentially to 1 use per combat) as Slumber Hex, or Color-Spraying oracles, or Summoning-Cycling from Summoners, or any other number of things out there? I certainly haven't, but that could just be a location thing I suppose.
If the theme, on the other hand, is your issue... well other than saying that it's magic and that magic-users break beyond their stats all the time (wild shape, even in it's toned-down pathfinder form from PFS, is a decent example), I'm not sure what else there is to say. Magic breaks the rules of reality and fairness. The weak are made strong, the strong are made weak, etc etc. That's pretty prevalent in the setting.
There are a lot of differences between knock and pageant of the peacock.
1) Second level spell slots are a LOT more limited than bardic performance rounds.
2) Knock is obviating one use of the disable device skill: namely to open locks. Knock doesn't obviate the skill completely (it doesn't work on most traps for example). Pagent is obviating 11 or more skills.. so it's 22 times worse.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jeff Merola wrote: We finally got author intent settled, by the way:
Someone contacted the author and found that it's intended to give actual knowledge.
Quoted as it's worth repeating.
Well, wow. There you go then. Thanks to them.
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Truthfully, it seems like you're arguing two separate things... that it should be banned due to power OR that we should make a MORE powerful version that is more in theme. If you truly believe this is overpowered, than the latter suggestion seems a terrible idea.
I'm actually not suggesting that we make a more powerful version. Rather, a version that takes into account actual skill ranks and can give you a better result.
A masterpiece that simply gives you a +10 bonus on a single Knowledge skill check (for example) is probably not as powerful as PotP. Or double Int, or double skill ranks, whatever. But it can give you a better Knowledge check if you already have a lot of ranks and a good Int.
If it stacks with, doesn't replace, Knowledge, then it can beat PotP while being a lower-powered ability. Also, it makes "Bards who have invested in Knowledge skills and Int" the best loremasters.
Jiggy wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: We finally got author intent settled, by the way:
Someone contacted the author and found that it's intended to give actual knowledge.
Quoted as it's worth repeating. Ditto. It's worth repeating three times!
However, I think I'll play this ability as I originally planned, i.e. tell the GM I have it, and reserve it for when other people either fail the check or no one else can make the check. That way I'm conserving rounds of bardic performance, and everyone gets to have fun at the table. :)
I should say, it is not that I believe PotP is too powerful per se, but that it is too good at replacing skills by comparison to Knock. A spell that boosts a skill should be judged differently than a spell that replaces one.
Katisha wrote: ok...
I'm a bard (Street Performer: 11th level right now)
I don't have Pageant of the Peacock (yet, and with the Table Variation it has I am not likely to take it...), but I do have...
** spoiler omitted **...
SO... because I sing really good, I have a +34 Sense Motive... How is this possible? I have a WIS of 7 and one rank in Sense Motive... But you know, I can really sing! The NPCs can't lie to me, 'cause I can sing good!
The fact that I can sing sort of trumps other PCs who put lots of resources into Sense Motive, ... so I guess I should start checking with Judges at the start of each game to be sure I can use this ability, right?
Rather than compare this to the spell knock I'd rather compare it to the Bardic ability Versatile Performance - where you use one skill check for another ability...
like I said above - I have a +34 in Sense Motive, because I sing real good!
;-)
Makes more sense than being able to lie so well that you get accurate information.
Katisha wrote:
Rather than compare this to the spell knock I'd rather compare it to the Bardic ability Versatile Performance - where you use one skill check for another ability...
If I had a character whose concept was an interrogator, I could keep up with a Versatile Performance bard by taking Skill Focus and obtaining competence bonus items for Sense Motive, or surpass it by taking Inquisitor. The reason PotP blows a Knowledge build out of the water is that Knowledge is ten skills, whereas Bluff is only one, and so much easier to boost.
Would you say that each level of Versatile Performance is about equal to a feat, and therefore comparable to PotP? Each level lets one skill replace two predetermined ones. Let's be generous and let PotP replace four (it does cost a round of performance, after all). Rather than a single check, the bard can make as many as needed during the duration. Let's give Knowledge(Nobility, Geography), Appraise, and certain uses of History and Local (about half a skill each), as well as any specific Craft or Profession checks applicable to the masquerade (Merchant Prince is listed in PotP but Profession-Merchant is not given). A samurai imposter might be able to show his refinement by his calligraphy or his flower arrangement, partly by gauging his audience's reaction and adjusting accordingly, just as a skilled liar does. That Masterpiece, with the Bluff and Disguise bonuses, would be more in line with Versatile Performance than "Bluff for all Int skills." In terms of feats, PotP could also be balanced against Breadth of Knowledge or Improvisation. These two apply to more skills, but give only a +2.
Why do I care so much about this? Because I think knowledge is awesome. In legend and myth the wizard is primarily "Knower of Stuff," and I regret that many RPGs miss this opportunity to have him 95% "Slinger of Spells". But archivist comes along to fill a 50/50 niche. I love that PFS scenarios include so many Knowledge skill checks. I loved 3.5's Knowledge Devotion (in concept), the Lore Warden, and the 3.5 and PF Archivists, all for making Knowledge = Power. I think it's a fantastic trope. And I love the Doctor, who is fundamentally about using knowledge to solve problems (with Bluff as a less effective fallback option). For PotP to make Bluff so much better than actually knowing things, is thematically abhorrent. This is not just invalidating one particular build, but an entire literary and heroic archetype, and the entire concept of learning. The problem is not that PotP exists, or that it can partially substitute for Knowledge skills. The problem is that it is so much better than them.
I read the author's comments, where he thinks it should be usable at will during the 10-minute duration, granting real knowledge on any topic, and is therefore comparable in power to Augury. I am astounded at how different our game experiences have been in the value of Augury.
Cheapy wrote: Makes more sense than being able to lie so well that you get accurate information. how?
Cheapy wrote: Makes more sense than being able to lie so well that you get accurate information. And yet, apparently, it was intended to do exactly that.
nosig wrote: Cheapy wrote: Makes more sense than being able to lie so well that you get accurate information. how? Hearing the neigh undetectable quaver in someone elses voice is at least physically possible...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, knowing it was actually intended to grant information, I'll run it that way. In much the same way I run summoners.
So, 650 posts later, "It does what it says that it does."
AKA: "No change."
Jayson MF Kip wrote: So, 650 posts later, "It does what it says that it does."
AKA: "No change."
Well, I can't expect this to have not caught the attention of campaign leadership. I know that Mike reads just about every post here, even if he doesn't comment.
So who knows, maybe change will happen.
Jiggy wrote: Cheapy wrote: Makes more sense than being able to lie so well that you get accurate information. And yet, apparently, it was intended to do exactly that. There are things intended in this game that'll make your head spin. The least of which is this ability.
Lets get rid of dazing first, then this.
Its interesting to know the intent. So RAI and RAW are identical. I always thought that the RAW were clear.
But I strongly, strongly disagree that this is about as powerful as a second level spell. I still think RAW is incredibly overpowered.
And I also don't really buy the argument that its a single skill check over 10 minutes. Even if it were, its STILL far more powerful than a second level spell.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Cheapy wrote: Jayson MF Kip wrote: So, 650 posts later, "It does what it says that it does."
AKA: "No change."
Well, I can't expect this to have not caught the attention of campaign leadership. I know that Mike reads just about every post here, even if he doesn't comment.
So who knows, maybe change will happen. I have read each and every post. This will be dealt with when the new Additional Resources goes live tomorrow.
Michael Brock wrote: Cheapy wrote: Jayson MF Kip wrote: So, 650 posts later, "It does what it says that it does."
AKA: "No change."
Well, I can't expect this to have not caught the attention of campaign leadership. I know that Mike reads just about every post here, even if he doesn't comment.
So who knows, maybe change will happen. I have read each and every post. This will be dealt with when the new Additional Resources goes live tomorrow. That is unfortunate for me, I suppose. I bought the book this was in pretty much solely for the masterpiece, since not too much else of interest in it is PFS legal. This was before any of the threads went up about this, and it was flavorful for my bard (channeling spirits of the ancestors). I never made it high enough level to use, and one can only assume that if the AR will be handling this, then the option will be banned. Else the FAQ would be the place handling it, I'd think.
I don't see how an ability that helps the table with knowledges, and that can be kept from stealing the limelight with some good GM control is so much more ban-worthy than a number of the overpowered options out there that just nullify entire encounters.
Perhaps this is to presumptive, and I'm wrong about the implications of Mike's statement. If so, my apologies. I suppose it's not impossible that it will say "Pageant of the Peacock: See changes in FAQ" and then the FAQ could read "One check can be substituted per use of the masterpiece." or some such. That would, in my opinion, be ideal.
DrakeRoberts wrote: Perhaps this is to presumptive, and I'm wrong about the implications of Mike's statement. If so, my apologies. I suppose it's not impossible that it will say "Pageant of the Peacock: See changes in FAQ" and then the FAQ could read "One check can be substituted per use of the masterpiece." or some such. That would, in my opinion, be ideal. If it helps, there I think is precedence for having the Additional Resources state how one thing functions different in Society play than it normally does. Off of the top of my head would be the Cavalier's Expert Trainer class feature (that in PFS you receive Skill Focus: Handle Animal instead of the normal ability), so there is hope.
Right now I'm waiting to see if it winds up being banned or just functions differently.
Entilzha wrote: DrakeRoberts wrote: Perhaps this is to presumptive, and I'm wrong about the implications of Mike's statement. If so, my apologies. I suppose it's not impossible that it will say "Pageant of the Peacock: See changes in FAQ" and then the FAQ could read "One check can be substituted per use of the masterpiece." or some such. That would, in my opinion, be ideal. If it helps, there I think is precedence for having the Additional Resources state how one thing functions different in Society play than it normally does. Off of the top of my head would be the Cavalier's Expert Trainer class feature (that in PFS you receive Skill Focus: Handle Animal instead of the normal ability), so there is hope.
Right now I'm waiting to see if it winds up being banned or just functions differently. Actually, yes, that does help. Like I said, I'd be more than happy to see the compromised version be made the standard for PFS. I think it's much more balanced and I particularly like the fact that it came about from extensive online collaboration in a constructive and relatively peaceful manner. As has been pointed out, this was a very hot topic and at about 650 posts long, has not needed a moderator to step in even once. I guess in my head it's come to show how good a community we have, even when we're in passionate disagreement with one another. I'd like to see such joint ventures highlighted and praised rather than nulled with a sweeping ban.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
DrakeRoberts wrote: Actually, yes, that does help. Like I said, I'd be more than happy to see the compromised version be made the standard for PFS. I think it's much more balanced and I particularly like the fact that it came about from extensive online collaboration in a constructive and relatively peaceful manner. As has been pointed out, this was a very hot topic and at about 650 posts long, has not needed a moderator to step in even once. I guess in my head it's come to show how good a community we have, even when we're in passionate disagreement with one another. I'd like to see such joint ventures highlighted and praised rather than nulled with a sweeping ban. I strongly disagree. The compromise was reached on how it could be ruled to limit its power while keeping within RAW, not whether or not it was balanced in the end. The ability as written is so far out of balance that the compromise is not enough.
Even with this compromise, PotP remains far too powerful for a second-level spell (by comparison to Knock or Find Traps), and far more powerful than Versatile Performance. It remains the case that a con man, not a scholar, will be the best at Knowledge checks, with Int and skill ranks being useless. The 1 round performance per check is not a meaningful limit in a PFS environment for the out-of-combat checks, which are a significant component of success conditions.
|
