|
What I object to is the crestfallen look a player has when he invests huge amounts of value into int-based skills, just to be made completely redundant by a 7-intelligence bard who gave up one spell known and who can lie really well. I don't want to run in that kind of an environment.To be honest, I find it hard to believe that someone's entire character concept is ruined just because someone else does knowledge checks way better than them. Surely the character in question does other things...I am currently playing a very skill heavy investigator. While he currently can do many things, many of his abilities boost his skills and most of his skill investment is in intelligence based skills. Even his best intelligence based skill would see no better than a 50/50 chance of a better result pitted against a maxed out bluff with a +4 bonus.
My character also has some extracts, studied combat, and will get other abilities as he levels, but I think that it would be fair to say that he would very likely be redundant in a group/scenario where he doesn't have to make an Intelligence based check.
I am currently running a Alchemist - Mind Chemist. I do try to avoid running in a game with other INT based skill PCs... (I have a base +16 in all knowledge skills, and it goes up from there - often +20 or more in all Knowledge skills, and almost that in most other INT skills...).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only read part of this thread but hope I got the most important parts
I do understand the OP that he seems infuriated if a certain build seems to cheapen the experience of other players. But there are other and maybe better solutions as to not GM.
I'm just back from a convention and in one game I had two players that between their build and using take 10 would
1) Make every single knowledge check up to the highest DC in the whole scenario
2) Make every single perception check up to the highest DC in the whole scenario
3) Detect every single trap up the highest DC provided they get up to 10 feet
4) Would disable and single trap up to the highest DC
and !!
No other player at the table even rolling a NAT 20 would be able to beat them.
This is not my style of playing. But it seems some players like to be in control at any time.
I worked hard to ensure this wouldn't ruin my own experience. So if there were multiple DCs I asked the lower skilled characters first. This gave them a chance to use the skill as well. The 'specialist' would still be able to answer in case of any failure - but it gave the other players at least the feeling they contributed.
And Mr Trapfinding ... you should have seen the face when I told him in the middle of a long jump that he spotted a trap.
.
.
.
and barely missed it
RAW doesn't say that the person with the highest necessarily always knows it first. I tend to do this normally with the additional knowledge checks at the start of scenarios.
Everyone with the skill rolls. I then start from the bottom and the one with the lowest roll will know the easiest bits, and so on. Off course I always ensure that the one with the highest roll knows something in addition.
But this makes a Knowledge 3 with a dice roll of 13 count for a DC15 while the monkey with skill 25 + take 10 will likely know everything else.
|
I worked hard to ensure this wouldn't ruin my own experience.
While I applaud your effort (that is sincere, by the way) it wouldn't have worked for me if I was a player at the table. I'd have noticed what you were doing :-).
Yeah, there are lots and lots of insanely overpowered characters out there. They're seriously decreasing my enjoyment and will probably end up driving me from PFS at some point. They've already stopped me playing some builds and caused me to retire characters prematurely. But at least they had to WORK at it to totally break perception or disable device.
Pageant of the Peacock is just handed to them on a silver platter :-(
|
|
consider the investment the bard has made too.You aren't really, seriously arguing that the cost of this is sufficient to balance the power, are you? Maybe (just maybe) you have a not completely absurd argument with a non socially oriented bard.
Actually, no I'm not. I've said many times (and in basically every post) that I think it is Overpowered. What I am saying is that there are many builds for which this is not as optimized a choice as people are making it out to be, and if the bard wishes to skew his choices to make it work as well as people are saying, it does take some sacrifices. On some builds, those choices will be minimal, on others, not so much.
Fair enough. We're pretty much in agreement then :-). Sorry for misinterpreting you as actually defending this monstrosity :-).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I worked hard to ensure this wouldn't ruin my own experience.
While I applaud your effort (that is sincere, by the way) it wouldn't have worked for me if I was a player at the table. I'd have noticed what you were doing :-).
Yeah, there are lots and lots of insanely overpowered characters out there. They're seriously decreasing my enjoyment and will probably end up driving me from PFS at some point. They've already stopped me playing some builds and caused me to retire characters prematurely. But at least they had to WORK at it to totally break perception or disable device.
Pageant of the Peacock is just handed to them on a silver platter :-(
Long term there is only one solution - players need to realize that certain builds - if used unrestrained - harm PFS.
We can't go back and nerf everything. There was already enough outcry about the Aasimar / Tiefling decision.
Players here should read Painlords post - Get found. This dealt with this issue a long time ago.
It is never the build that causes the issue - it is how it is used.
Of course Pageant of the Peacock can be used to identify monsters. The ability is very clearly defined. You can substitute a Bluff check for any Intelligence-related skill check. There is no valid rules argument for limiting Pageant of the Peacock against monsters. You quoted it yourself. The crunch of the ability is: "For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check." Is Knowledge an Int-skill? Yes, ergo, the Bard can use it.
Pageant of the Peacock is strong, but honestly who cares. Bards are supposed to be the knowledge guys. They have a skill named Bardic Knowledge. It's not a big deal. Can't remember the last time a successful knowledge check ruined a scenario. All of this hyperbole and grandstanding is ridiculous.
Agree in every way. The only people complaining about it are people who don't take it or use it which is your first red flag right there - those who DO use it are clearly having badwrongfun.
I've never sat at a table and had the rest of the group get incredibly upset because one of their teammates just managed to successfully give them information that would aid in defeating their foe.
If this is the battle you're fighting, in my opinion, you need to pick your battles a bit better. In football, offensive linemen don't complain because the QB threw yet another TD and defensive backs don't complain because a tackle got yet another sack. Everyone is on the same team and competing against a common opponent, not one another. Who the heck looks around and then decides 'we have some really good players on our team... this sucks'?
Oh, no; I've been accused with the 'badwrongfun' buzzword. Clearly this means I am a fun nazi and am, by default, incorrect in my opinion.
...
Plenty of players get upset when they are continually overshadowed by other players, especially if it is in an area that they themselves invested in, and doubly so if the other player does it casually. I don't know what your experiences as a GM are, but such upset is incredibly common in my experience.
Regardless, I'm not going to be bullied or guilted into running a game that I do not enjoy. I created this thread not to get people's opinions as to whether I should enjoy it or not, but to figure out the best way to deal with the fact that I will not run a game with this ability. I've gotten enough input that I have a pretty good idea what to do about that at this point. I'm appreciative about that.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I worked hard to ensure this wouldn't ruin my own experience.
While I applaud your effort (that is sincere, by the way) it wouldn't have worked for me if I was a player at the table. I'd have noticed what you were doing :-).
Yeah, there are lots and lots of insanely overpowered characters out there. They're seriously decreasing my enjoyment and will probably end up driving me from PFS at some point. They've already stopped me playing some builds and caused me to retire characters prematurely. But at least they had to WORK at it to totally break perception or disable device.
Pageant of the Peacock is just handed to them on a silver platter :-(
Long term there is only one solution - players need to realize that certain builds - if used unrestrained - harm PFS.
We can't go back and nerf everything. There was already enough outcry about the Aasimar / Tiefling decision.
Players here should read Painlords post - Get found. This dealt with this issue a long time ago.
It is never the build that causes the issue - it is how it is used.
That said, I'm not saying nerf it. I am saying clarify which way it is supposed to work.
To me, this looks more like Pistolero than Aasimar, where some people were arguing that is since pistol training did not have the line saying it replaced / modified gun training, Pistoleros got both Gun Training and Pistol Training, allowing them to take the damage increase twice.
RE: drake, it is not clear to me that using this would negate the bards +1/2 per level bonus to Knowledge. See the many various threads and clarifications on versatile performance and which bonuses are replaced and which are retained. That is still a massive ball of Table Variation, and this is basically using versatile performance Int checks with bluff, made even messier if you are using versatile performance on the bluff check.
I think we should push for a clarification on this ability, but I am waiting to do so till after Gencon, because campaign leadership is usually busy before then.
RE: subbing in bluff checks for knowledge checks.
Convincing someone who does not know anything about a topic is a bluff check. Regaling an old soldier with war stories from a war that he was in and that you know nothing about is a bluff check at -10 to -20.
Convincing a peasant that you are a noble is a bluff check. Convincing a noble that you are a fellow noble, when they want to find out your title and blood line and you don't have knowledge nobility is a bluff check at -10 to -20.
You can eliminate those penalties through a knowledge check. So yes, a lot of times in a scenario, you may be able to swap in bluff for the use of a social knowledge check, but at a steep penalty, and replaces the static knowledge DC with the opponents sense motive (and some of the opponents in season 5 have some pretty good sense motives, and anyone can roll a 20...) PotP gives you a +4 on bluff, a +4 on disguise, and lets you use bluff to make int checks unopposed against a static DC instead of having to bluff against an opponents sense motive.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I would like to further clarify that I am not saying RAI overwrites RAW. I am saying that it is clear to me that the Initial sentance " By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement." is, by RAW, a limiting clause on all the mechanics that follow, dictating when those mechanics can be used.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know which is worse: the weird, logic-defying text of the feat; or the weird, logic-defying arguments about the different things it might mean. After skimming through this thread, about the only thing I'm sure of is that Pageant of the Peacock is probably one of the most realistic PC options in the game.
"realistic"? What do you mean?
Hah; gotcha. Yes, it's difficult to be certain of the meaning of a feat which has a concept that makes no sense whatsoever.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, no; I've been accused with the 'badwrongfun' buzzword. Clearly this means I am a fun nazi and am, by default, incorrect in my opinion.
...
Plenty of players get upset when they are continually overshadowed by other players, especially if it is in an area that they themselves invested in, and doubly so if the other player does it casually. I don't know what your experiences as a GM are, but such upset is incredibly common in my experience.
Regardless, I'm not going to be bullied or guilted into running a game that I do not enjoy. I created this thread not to get people's opinions as to whether I should enjoy it or not, but to figure out the best way to deal with the fact that I will not run a game with this ability. I've gotten enough input that I have a pretty good idea what to do about that at this point. I'm appreciative about that.
Honestly, based off what you have written you shouldn't be running PFS, full stop. You just don't seem have the mindset for it. It's pretty apparent that whenever you run into a rule that you do not agree with you will do whatever it takes to try to ignore or bend it. It's a good trait for a independant GM to tell his players to knock it off when they start to abuse rules as written; however, it is a bad trait for a PFS judge to go off script which is what the genesis of this thread was all about. Also, nobody likes the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" routine; once it reaches that point it's time for you to just take your ball and go home already.
@BlackOuroboros - I'm not sure how you're extrapolating my mindset from one objection. In any case, believe me, I'm not going out of my way to GM in PFS precisely because you can't go off script. I avoid it when possible.
The question is more a matter of, if I show up to my store, and there aren't enough GMs, and I'm asked to run, is it better to say "no", and have the game not run for sure, or is it better to say "yes, if there is no Pageant of the Peacock"?
This is the last word I'll say on this as someone who GMs PFS for NAGA.
If you are assigned to GM a table and you discover that a PC has this masterpiece that makes you so upset, one thing you need to remember is that when you came to that table after signing up to judge. You made a defacto commitment to make sure that table goes off.
How you do so is up to you. If you can get another person to judge in your place, then your commitment is meant. But if I find that a judge caused a player to remove his character, or worse caused a table to not go off because of a preference like this, I would have a major talk with that judge. And unless I have a good reason not to, I would move heaven and earth to make sure that that person would not be invited to judge at any future event we ran.
I never sign up in advance to GM, nor attend cons, so this is not relevant in my case.
|
|
The only people complaining about it are people who don't take it or use it which is your first red flag right there - those who DO use it are clearly having badwrongfun.
Its a red flag when people don't use things they consider grossly overpowered? Fascinating.
My primary objection is to Paizo allowing significantly overpowered options into the game. I object less to people using the overpowered options.
But, yeah, overpowered characters ARE significantly reducing my enjoyment of PFS. Including characters with Pageant. If you want to consider that statement of fact an accusation of badwrongfun then I can't stop you. But, to me, badwrongfun is when I tell people NOT at my table how they should game.
North American Gaming Alliance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, no; I've been accused with the 'badwrongfun' buzzword. Clearly this means I am a fun nazi and am, by default, incorrect in my opinion.
...
Plenty of players get upset when they are continually overshadowed by other players, especially if it is in an area that they themselves invested in, and doubly so if the other player does it casually. I don't know what your experiences as a GM are, but such upset is incredibly common in my experience.
Regardless, I'm not going to be bullied or guilted into running a game that I do not enjoy. I created this thread not to get people's opinions as to whether I should enjoy it or not, but to figure out the best way to deal with the fact that I will not run a game with this ability. I've gotten enough input that I have a pretty good idea what to do about that at this point. I'm appreciative about that.
Snark aside, let me be clear. No one has said - not that I've seen anyway - that you should or shouldn't enjoy something or that you should or shouldn't be forced to GM a game you don't wish to. I highly doubt you expected anyone to take that position when you first made your post. For the record, I don't think you should be expected to GM any game you don't want to, whether its because you think Pageant is overpowered or because you think Paladins are overpowered or because you think Wizards or Summoners or any other class, feat, spell or option is disagreeable in its wording or implementation. In fact, you shouldn't have to justify to anyone why you choose or choose not to participate. No one expects you to do a single thing that isn't fun for you.
Were this thread about that, it'd probably be about three posts long. But its not about that, its about the demands of people who aren't using a particular ability or power to have that ability or power taken away from those who do. And that, my friend, is a completely different discussion altogether.
|
|
What possible rationale could there be for Pageant of the Peacock?
I appreciate the original concern of the OP, and all I can do is sympathize. It's a difficult question and I hope you find the best position for yourself. But what I'm really interested in is the logic, if any, behind this ability.
I have read this thread from start to finish, and I think I understand most of the arguments for and against. I started from the position that OBVIOUSLY Pageant of the Peacock simply allows a bard to PRETEND to have skills (knowledge) that they don't. (FLite effectively made this argument early on.) What could possibly justify a combination of acting (dancing) and bluffing leading to actual skill or knowledge?
I keep thinking of a character in popular culture who does this, but I can't quite put my finger on it. This character is so charismatic and such a good BS artist that he is able to actually effect technical knowledge/skill that he really shouldn't have. AND co-incidentally, this character has a studious companion that actually has technical knowledge and is often chagrined at the lucky guesses he makes. I wish I could remember who this is.
Is this what Pageant of the Peacock is supposed to be? That a bard can so effectively pretend to be an expert in something that she actually intuits knowledge out-of-the-blue?
I find the word "masterpiece" suggestive and I notice that the effects of bardic masterpieces are said to be "supernatural". In Real Life, masterpieces are works of art that are often considered to be divinely inspired--products of a supernatural insight known as "genius". Perhaps the bard is able to access knowledge supernaturally, by virtue of her artistic virtuosity and sensitivity.
In real life, we sometimes speak of actors "channelling" the subjects that they portray. It is as if an actor is able to tap into the soul of the character they are portraying to such a degree that they seem to have an uncanny access to their thoughts and emotional make-up.
Maybe in the fantasy world of Pathfinder, this could be more than metaphor. Maybe a masterpiece of bardic impersonation actually confers the skills and knowledge of the subject being impersonated. A bard pretending to be a scholar of religion could actually thereby gain religious knowledge, for example.
Or again, it could be just a comedic thing, where the bard makes some lucky guesses in trying to appear to be something he is not.
Well, that's the best I have... I won't say that I agree with this logic. Just a thought experiment to see if there COULD be a basis for it...
How Perform(Dance) could fit in... No idea...
Snark aside, let me be clear. No one has said - not that I've seen anyway - that you should or shouldn't enjoy something or that you should or shouldn't be forced to GM a game you don't wish to.
Oh, not directly, but there's been plenty of guilt attempts about it. "Do you really want to deny a table of people the ability to play?" type stuff.
But its not about that, its about the demands of people who aren't using a particular ability or power to have that ability or power taken away from those who do. And that, my friend, is a completely different discussion altogether.
I'm not going to deny that I would be to the moon with happiness if there was an official interpretation of this masterpiece that nerfed it.
That being said, the thread that I created was about how to deal with not wanting to play with a particular ability. I believe that the interpretation of the masterpiece is not clear, as evidenced by the different table variants that posters have discussed. However, the most common opinion seems to be that it's as ridiculous as it seems at a glance, so I'm just going to avoid it.
And there is never going to be a time where I will say that flouting a PFS rule is an acceptable choice.
Let me get something 100% clear from you. Is it, or is in not, the case that I have the right to turn down GMing for ANY reason? If it is the case, and I have not already committed to GMing, what rule am I flouting, exactly?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What possible rationale could there be for Pageant of the Peacock?
I actually had a potential rationale for one of my characters. A Kitsune bard. Totally non canon but enough to vaguely justify things in my head.
Her bluff was based on perform skill. In the flavor text Kitsune deal with spirits a lot. So, she wasn't actually bluffing, instead she was using her perform to impress the spirits and it was the spirits who actually HAD the knowledge.
But I decided not to take it anyway for all the reasons I've explained above
|
|
@BlackOuroboros - I'm not sure how you're extrapolating my mindset from one objection. In any case, believe me, I'm not going out of my way to GM in PFS precisely because you can't go off script. I avoid it when possible.
The question is more a matter of, if I show up to my store, and there aren't enough GMs, and I'm asked to run, is it better to say "no", and have the game not run for sure, or is it better to say "yes, if there is no Pageant of the Peacock"?
I'm extrapolating it, not from your objection, but how you made it. Lets get down to brass tacks here and look at just how you've introduced yourself to us in this thread. You didn't roll up and say "Hey, I have a question, is Pageant of the Peacock really suppose to work this way?" You didn't start with "Hey, I have some concerns about Pageant of the Peacock and it's game balance compared to other players." No, your title is, and I quote, "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock" Then you went on to ask people how to skirt around the rules for judging a PFS game then finished off with a histrionic diatribe about how its your way or the highway. Frankly, even if you had a valid complaint (which I don't think you do, but that's not really germane to this conversation) and you were god's gift to DMing (however, given that control freaks make poor GMs I doubt it) I would still tell you to hit the bricks given your attitude alone.
So yes, I'm saying that between having you run and having nobody run, nobody is the better choice. The reason for this is simple; if you begrudgingly run a game you don't want to run then the players have a poorer experience for it. Furthermore, if a couple of games got dropped it might inspire somebody who is timid, but might make a good DM, to pick up the reigns and give it a shot.
@DrakeRoberts: That's not the implication I read from the post; it seems like he's upset at the idea that I might choose not to GM because of the build.
Obviously I realize I have no right to agree to GM, and then tell a player he can't do X.
So yes, I'm saying that between having you run and having nobody run, nobody is the better choice. The reason for this is simple; if you begrudgingly run a game you don't want to run then the players have a poorer experience for it. Furthermore, if a couple of games got dropped it might inspire somebody who is timid, but might make a good DM, to pick up the reigns and give it a shot.
A small correction: I wouldn't be doing it begrudgingly. Begrudging would only apply if I was somehow forced to GM for a player with this ability against my will.
I have extensive positive feedback for my ability to GM both from PFS players, and a decade or so as a home game GM, for everything from "NPC voices" to rule comprehension to fair adjudication. I am confident in my ability to make the experience an enjoyable one, and I've never received a single complaint from actual players. Your opinion does not affect that, nor does it shake my confidence in my ability to GM well.
|
|
So yes, I'm saying that between having you run and having nobody run, nobody is the better choice. The reason for this is simple; if you begrudgingly run a game you don't want to run then the players have a poorer experience for it. Furthermore, if a couple of games got dropped it might inspire somebody who is timid, but might make a good DM, to pick up the reigns and give it a shot.A small correction: I wouldn't be doing it begrudgingly. Begrudging would only apply if I was somehow forced to GM for a player with this ability against my will.
In any case, believe me, I'm not going out of my way to GM in PFS precisely because you can't go off script. I avoid it when possible.
So which one is it, huh?
I can see how the language would be unclear; let me fix that.
I always, in all cases, would rather be playing PFS than GMing it. This doesn't extend to home games, but I find the restrictive nature of PFS much less chafing for a player than for a GM.
However, it's not so terrible that when I GM I can't enjoy it; if that was the case, I wouldn't agree to do so. I can have fun with some of the NPCs, make up dialogue on the cuff to appease some of my desires to extrapolate, and I enjoy seeing players enjoy themselves.
Is it true that I would prefer to play than to GM? Absolutely. But I don't resent GMing, and I've always done my best to see that the players enjoy themselves.
|
|
So yes, I'm saying that between having you run and having nobody run, nobody is the better choice. The reason for this is simple; if you begrudgingly run a game you don't want to run then the players have a poorer experience for it. Furthermore, if a couple of games got dropped it might inspire somebody who is timid, but might make a good DM, to pick up the reigns and give it a shot.A small correction: I wouldn't be doing it begrudgingly. Begrudging would only apply if I was somehow forced to GM for a player with this ability against my will.
I have extensive positive feedback for my ability to GM both from PFS players, and a decade or so as a home game GM, for everything from "NPC voices" to rule comprehension to fair adjudication. I am confident in my ability to make the experience an enjoyable one, and I've never received a single complaint from actual players. Your opinion does not affect that, nor does it shake my confidence in my ability to GM well.
Like I said above, I don't really care what your GMing chops are. At the end of the day a PFS judge is not running THEIR game, their running somebody else's game as a proxy. If you want absolution to say "no" to running PFS games, you have been granted it already. If you want absolution to exclude legal players or change rulings, then you will never get that.
Having read the ability carefully, I don't see it as invalidating people who make legitimate skill investment in knowledges. I see it as an art for effectively faking knowledges to bluff someone when you're passing off yourself to be someone you're not, as lack of knowledge is generally the Achilles Heel to many a would-be impersonator.
IF this is a valid interpretation of the ability, so that I can tell a player "No, you can't actually know true facts about monsters using this ability, you're just faking.", then that 100% resolves any issues I have with it. There's no more problem.
However, many people, including many in this thread, are very insistent that it does really truly provide real knowledge, and that if I say otherwise I'm going against the rules.
|
Another player at my table had invested the lion's share of his skill points, and a couple Mossy Ioun Stones, into knowledge skills. He needn't have bothered, since Mr. Bard gave up one 2nd level spell known. That's infuriating.
That's how the game works.
The Ranger outputs more damage than the blaster Sorcerer. Does that mean the Ranger is somehow broken and ban-worthy?
The Alchemist has a higher Disable Device score than the Rogue. Does that mean the Alchemist is "invalidating" the Rogue?
The Dex-based fighter has higher AC than the big clunky Paladin. Does that mean the Paladin shouldn't have bothered?
There's always a "better" way of accomplishing anything.
|
|
Having read the ability carefully, I don't see it as invalidating people who make legitimate skill investment in knowledges. I see it as an art for effectively faking knowledges to bluff someone when you're passing off yourself to be someone you're not, as lack of knowledge is generally the Achilles Heel to many a would-be impersonator.IF this is a valid interpretation of the ability, so that I can tell a player "No, you can't actually know true facts about monsters using this ability, you're just faking.", then that 100% resolves any issues I have with it. There's no more problem.
From what I have read here, that seems to be a legitimate ruling on an ambiguous rule.
However, many people, including many in this thread, are very insistent that it does really truly provide real knowledge, and that if I say otherwise I'm going against the rules.
But if players insist on some kind of supernatural knowledge gain... Maybe just give it to them... It ain't worth losing a good GM over. :-)
Good luck, Rudy2! Thanks for the stimulating thread. :-)
Another player at my table had invested the lion's share of his skill points, and a couple Mossy Ioun Stones, into knowledge skills. He needn't have bothered, since Mr. Bard gave up one 2nd level spell known. That's infuriating.That's how the game works.
The Ranger outputs more damage than the blaster Sorcerer. Does that mean the Ranger is somehow broken and ban-worthy?
The Alchemist has a higher Disable Device score than the Rogue. Does that mean the Alchemist is "invalidating" the Rogue?
The Dex-based fighter has higher AC than the big clunky Paladin. Does that mean the Paladin shouldn't have bothered?
There's always a "better" way of accomplishing anything.
Agreed - when the rule of the day become 'ban whatever options are better than the options I chose because I'm feeling marginalized' is the day the game dies. And again, this isn't PvP, all the players are working together for a common goal, no?
|
|
I don't agree that this is what the ability says. It is, however, the clearest explanation of what it likely should say. Something to the effect of:"By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement. For the duration of the effect, the subtle changes in your movements confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen). You also gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of any Intelligence checks or Intelligence-based skill checks used to promote this ruse."
"USED TO PROMOTE THIS RUSE"!!! Bingo! Nice!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMing is a volunteer position and no one can force you to GM a table you don't want to. Please always remember that. Thank you for GMing when you do, and I hope that you are not put in that position in the future.
PFS is a social game, and in situations where a table can not go off because no GM is available are tough. I understand the pressure from other players and coordinators for people to step up at the last minute and be the savior and try to make sure no one misses out.
But it is unfair for people to put that pressure on you to try and get you to GM a game your not comfortable in running even if that reason is a player's legal character options.
Remember if players at the table try to guilt you to GM for them, please remind them that they could GM as well. I'm sure most of them will have reason why they won't, but your reasons are no less valid then theirs.
Thank you for trying to help out when you can. I'm sure your local coordinator's and Venture Officer's appreciate the fact that you are willing to help save tables at the last minute. And hopefully they can respect that some things about the game make you feel uncomfortable and not try to force or guilt you into leaving your comfort zone.
Just make sure you are upfront with the coordinator so that they know to try and not put you into that position. If they know the things that make you uncomfortable ahead of time it will make it easier for them to avoid putting you into the position where other people may guilt you to try and make you leave your comfort zone.
Hopefully I helped a bit, but remember you can always try and contact your local venture officers if you are having problems as well.