That's good to know, thanks Jeffrey.
Based on LazarX's posts, it seems the best option may just be for me to go with his interpretation. This thread is proof enough that it's not clear what the ability is supposed to do to everyone, and that prevents any nastiness where I have to make my GMing conditional.
I'll just be very clear about it upfront with the players. "Alright, this is an ability that there is controversy over, and this is how I run it" sort of thing from the beginning.
Obviously if there is more official clarification down the line, that might change things, but for now, that seems the best option.
|
it dies even sooner when it becomes "give the player what he wants, because he can twist rules language creatively."
There's no twisting of the rules being done.
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.
RAW, the masterpiece allows you to make knowledge checks. Saying otherwise is "twisting" the rules.
Does it make a whole lot of logical sense? Not really.
But it's magic, it doesn't have to make logical sense; according to the description of masterpieces, they are supernatural effects unless otherwise stated.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'll just be very clear about it upfront with the players. "Alright, this is an ability that there is controversy over, and this is how I run it" sort of thing from the beginning.
You will find there are plenty of those. I have a barbarian I don't run at certain people's tables because he makes their blood pressure too high.
I also want to say, in response to Jeffrey, that the organizers at the place I game at are fantastic, and I've never felt pressured by them.
|
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.
Obviously, because there are two very different interpretations of the rule, it is ambiguous enough to not be clear and cut on how it works.
Therefore, you would be completely in your rights to interpret it in one way or the other as you wish.
|
|
it dies even sooner when it becomes "give the player what he wants, because he can twist rules language creatively."There's no twisting of the rules being done.
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.RAW, the masterpiece allows you to make knowledge checks. Saying otherwise is "twisting" the rules.
Does it make a whole lot of logical sense? Not really.
But it's magic, it doesn't have to make logical sense; according to the description of masterpieces, they are supernatural effects unless otherwise stated.
As always, quoting a singular phrase in the larger context, a rule does not make.
Reading that phrase in the larger context certainly lends ambiguity to it, and as such, allowing it only to fake an Intelligence check, but not actually know something, certainly is a legitimate interpretation.
Quoting the mechanics of the masterpiece, instead of the flavor, is important though. So you rolled a bluff check, made up some stuff(Burn the troll! Weave the basket like this! This sword is worth 500!) and later found out you were right.
|
|
You don't GM in PFS, Mike Brock and his folks are the GMs, We are Judges. If you can't live with a decision made by campaign management, then maybe you should consider whether PFS is right for you.
Wait, what?
I don't know about you, but when I run a PFS table, I'm a GM.
When I used to play at Mike's house - long before he was with Paizo - HE was a GM, and decidedly so. He didn't wait to become one until after he joined Paizo.
If someone simply wants to be a table "facilitator", I guess that's up to them. Me, I'll GM the table, including making calls and decisions which have impact.
If that means calling an ambiguous power, feat, or ability as I see fit (for example, allowing a save on an emergency force sphere used offensively by an arcane archer, as I did last table I ran), then so be it.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
On a personal note, I have only encountered someone using this ability once, when a bard was attempting to use it for their Day job roll by using it to replace Crafting, with crafters fortune wand, to get a 45 something day job. Which I think is an even weirder abuse of the rules.
Yeah, I was going to point that out, then I realized it wouldn't work. At a very minimum, it would require something like 50 rounds of performance a day.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
You don't GM in PFS, Mike Brock and his folks are the GMs, We are Judges. If you can't live with a decision made by campaign management, then maybe you should consider whether PFS is right for you.
Wait, what?
I don't know about you, but when I run a PFS table, I'm a GM.
When I used to play at Mike's house - long before he was with Paizo - HE was a GM, and decidedly so. He didn't wait to become one until after he joined Paizo.
If someone simply wants to be a table "facilitator", I guess that's up to them. Me, I'll GM the table, including making calls and decisions which have impact.
If that means calling an ambiguous power, feat, or ability as I see fit (for example, allowing a save on an emergency force sphere used offensively by an arcane archer, as I did last table I ran), then so be it.
Mike has, in the past invoked his status as "PFS's GM." (Specifically in Animal magic items slots, he mentioned that the rules say "your GM will decide which slots are available, here are some sugguestions," and that since he is the GM for PFS, he has decided.)
That said, he has also said he wants GMs to exercise their judgement in a mature and responsible fashion, and not just roboticly adjudicating tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to pick a character who exemplified this sort of ability.. it would be Inspector Clouseau.
Obviously, because there are two very different interpretations of the rule, it is ambiguous enough to not be clear and cut on how it works.
Therefore, you would be completely in your rights to interpret it in one way or the other as you wish.
I'm really glad I started this thread, now. Started angry, ended learning that I can in fact interpret this ability when I GM in a way that is reasonable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be honest, when was the last time a successful knowledge/linguistics/int-based check made or broke a scenario?
The Confirmation. And if that's any indication of things to come we're all going to have to start treating our characters as actual Pathfinders. About damn time, too.
Pageant of the Peacock (Act, Dance)
Your elegant movements cause you to seem to be more than you are.
Prerequisite(s): Perform (act) or Perform (dance) 4 ranks.
Cost: Feat or 2nd-level spell known.
Effect: 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, 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.
The subtle changes in your movements also 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).
Use: 1 bardic performance round per 10 minutes of the effect's duration.
Aight, let's analyze dis.
Nothing really all that important about the Pre-req, use or cost. Our goal is the effect.
Okay, first, the opening, "By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement." Is primarily referring to Body language, which you're doing via "Perform(act)" or "Perform(dance)". This coupled with the next part where it's going further into the Bluff portion, and the name of the Masterpiece, it's pretty heavily implied, to the point where I feel it almost goes without saying, that this is about Imitation, Impersonation, and Misdirection. You're faking it, till you make it (And then still faking it anyways most likely).
Effectively, in these circumstances, this masterpiece is training wheels for social rogue-ing it up.
Continuing, we get, "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." So, you get a +4 to Bluff, and you get to use Bluff instead of various INT skills.
Some thing to keep in mind.
The bonus is a "circumstance bonus", which is partially defined as, "A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand." What are the circumstances for which we get this bonus? Well, to "convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement" as already stated by the Masterpiece itself. It's not a big assumption to follow that line of thought, and realize that the whole thing applies to that.
So, what does this all mean?
Well, the Key thing to keep in mind is the applicable circumstances, and what it is. It's all about Bluffing, to "convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.", it's all about walking into a Room as Count Anon y Mous, (Surely you've heard of us? We're related to (Fake a KN:Nob check here)?) of the Greentext Forest (Some of the best hardwood available, resistant to (Fake a KN:Nat check here for a fake animal)), and we're really just here to show the flag as it were, not really one for parties after all (Oh my, have you seen that painting there, must be a (Fake a Int check to make up a obscure but Totally hip painter that every who's IN knows, you're IN right?)), but we don't spend much time here in court, too gossipy, (But did you HEAR about the Duchess's affair with her Butler? (Fake a Kn:Local)).
None of it is real, it's all BLUFF. All Lies and no substance, "Pageant of the Peacock" is really a very good name for it. :)
The gelatinous cube cares not if you can Bluff check a KN:Dun and claim it's a cockroach.
You may be able to convince everyone the painting you just made is amazing, even though it's almost worthless. (So your Dayjob:Painting is safe :P)
No where in here does it say that you know these things, that you spontaneously understand things you normally can't understand, in fact, everything here either says or implies that you're faking everything (Or almost everything, perhaps you really are a Count, and just enjoy lying about things constantly).
So, why take this? Isn't that just Bluff afterall? No, you're still making the Int based skill check (Using Bluff instead), you use THAT DC, not a Bluff DC. Usually, that DC would be lower (Usually, never know), and your Bluff is likely quite a bit higher than the other INT-based skill you would be using.
There will always be a use for an actual Knowledge character. Someone needs to actually KNOW what they're saying, and not be lying about it.
I see no problem with this, and it doesn't seem overpowered to me at all. Unless you misread it, and apply it to circumstances it was clearly not made for.
(Edit: Spelling, clarification/extension and a bit of details.)
I see no problem with this, and it doesn't seem overpowered to me at all. Unless you misread it, and apply it to circumstances it was clearly not made for.
There is no problem with it, and its not overpowered, under this interpretation. When I created the thread, though, it seemed the overwhelming opinion was that it allowed all int-based checks to be made for any situation, even creating real knowledge. Fortunately, there have been many voices of reason, such as yourself, giving an interpretation which is both more balanced, and more reasonable in terms of the ability description.
You may be able to convince everyone the painting you just made is amazing, even though it's almost worthless. (So your Dayjob:Painting is safe :P)
I like this a lot, too, and it gives a good flavorful example of how the ability can be applied without being broken: you can't actually paint well, but you can convince, even other artists, that your work is a masterpiece. That your poor execution is merely another sign of genius!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may be able to convince everyone the painting you just made is amazing, even though it's almost worthless. (So your Dayjob:Painting is safe :P)I like this a lot, too, and it gives a good flavorful example of how the ability can be applied without being broken: you can't actually paint well, but you can convince, even other artists, that your work is a masterpiece.
With Avant Garde, it may not be too hard too. -_-
It allows you to make Knowledge checks to pull off a bluff, that's what I get from the greater context of the masterpiece text.
it dies even sooner when it becomes "give the player what he wants, because he can twist rules language creatively."There's no twisting of the rules being done.
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.RAW, the masterpiece allows you to make knowledge checks. Saying otherwise is "twisting" the rules.
Does it make a whole lot of logical sense? Not really.
But it's magic, it doesn't have to make logical sense; according to the description of masterpieces, they are supernatural effects unless otherwise stated.
Um, no. Clear as day it does exactly the opposite. It allows you to make Bluff checks to pull off Knowledge. It's fine if you don't like the power but the words are incredibly plain and straight forward. Only through the most absurd of contortions can you make it sound like anything else.
I don't like Paladins dealing double damage against select foes but they do because the rules clearly say so. Just as the rules read very clearly here. It's ripe for errata and/or the nerf bat, and should that happen I won't complain in the slightest, but in any variation of English, the rules, as written, are quite clear.
I was reminded of an example of how a Bluff can be used as Knowledge - just one example but worthy of injecting into the conversation - fortune tellers down here in New Orleans do it all the time. When you sit down with them they have no knowledge, but through successful bluffs and by reading your reactions and then doubling down, they divine a tremendous amount of information.
Just as a round of combat isn't meant to be a single swing of a sword, so too is a social check or even a knowledge check meant to be an instantaneous thing.
|
|
Note: This is my opinion, so weigh it how you will.
OP: You started this thread the wrong way, and the thread deteriorated from there. You have PFS GMs posting that they are going to screw their players, apparently without warning, rather than trying to make the game a fun experience.
Now, again in my opinion, the proper way to have approache dthis was to do a "Please remove this item from the legal list for PFS" and then post, in a clear, non-emotional way, the Pros and Cons of this ability, and why the COns outweight the Pros for PFS play.
For a good example of this, from the other side, look for the thread that, finally, got Magical Knack made legal for PFS.
"Mike,
I am posting this thread in hopes of getting Pageant of the Peacock removed from the PFS legal options.
Link to actual PotP write-up on the PRD, if it is there.
Pros of this bardic masterpiece:
1. Yadda
2. Yaddayadda
.
.
.
Cons of this bardic masterpiece:
1. Blah
2. Blahblah
.
.
.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and taking the legality of Pageant of the Peacock for PFS under consideration again."
Hopefully, you would have people responding to your thread with reasons for more Pros and Cons, rather than deciding, unilaterally, that an item does not work the rules say it should work. Less acrimony, and probably something someone could read past the first 20 posts.
Sincerely,
Marty W
Marty; your criticism is well taken. I started the thread in an emotionally angry state, which is always a bad idea. While the thread did get to an amicable solution, wherein I've received confirmation that alternate interpretations are okay in this case, you're no doubt correct that I could have gotten to this point in a less volatile way. I'm sorry about that, truly.
At this point, I'm not particularly worried about whether it is on the approved list or not. I think it shouldn't be, and I'll probably add a post to the additional resources to remove thread, or whatever it is called, but this thread has made it clear that interpreting the ability as actually lying about having the knowledges, etc, is a perfectly valid one, which is more than satisfactory to me.
The one counterpoint I have to what you said is that at no point did I suggest I was going to "screw" my players without warning. My initial position was that I simply didn't want to play with a certain ability. In that case, my decision not to run a game with an ability I'm not comfortable with is my right, and not about screwing anyone.
My current position is that I will make it crystal clear to them at the outset of the game what my interpretation of the ability is.
I actually have a handout with the few things that there is table variance for that I have a position on; I plan to add this to it.
At this point, I'm not particularly worried about whether it is on the approved list or not. I think it shouldn't be, and I'll probably add a post to the additional resources to remove thread, or whatever it is called, but this thread has made it clear that interpreting the ability as actually lying about having the knowledges, etc, is a perfectly valid one, which is more than satisfactory to me.
Actually, the perfect outcome in my view, now that I think about it, is that the rule text for the ability is clarified so that its clear it really is lying, and you're not actually creating true knowledge, etc. It remains a useful and flavorful ability even in that case, so it would be a shame to get rid of it entirely.
That being said, getting rid of it entirely would be better than letting it be used in its broken form.
|
|
All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."
The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. You can convince them that your Knowledge is the correct Knowledge. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.
This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.
It lets you do plenty. If you created a painting, and tried to tell people it was great, it doesn't matter how high your bluff skill is; they look at the actual painting and see that it's crap.
If you try to convince the court historian that you are also a historian, you may be able to lie wonderfully, but he can still tell that you don't know real facts about history, no matter how good you are at lying.
PotP, even in modified form, would let you deal with both of these scenarios, where plain Bluff would not.
Some more. Trying to pass yourself off as a wizard in conversation with another wizard, but lack points in spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana)? Bluff by itself doesn't actually give you the ability to identify magic spells, or to know actual facts about magical theory, but with PotP, you can follow cues in the conversation with a wizard well enough that you can convince him that you are able to do these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the pro-modified PotP people seem to be saying is "This lets you Bluff in social circumstances instead of using Knowledge(________) or any other Int-based skill."
The problem with this interpretation is that PotP doesn't do anything then. You can already do this with the Bluff skill. You can already tell people that you are some rich and famous guy from somewhere no one has heard of. That is what Bluff is. If you follow this interpretation, the masterpiece just gives a +4 to Bluff and Disguise.
This makes PotP vastly weaker than many other options you can take in its place and goes against a plain reading of the text, in my opinion. If the writer intended for it to be a simple +4 to Bluff and Disguise, then they would have just written that.
So, why take this? Isn't that just Bluff afterall? No, you're still making the Int based skill check (Using Bluff instead), you use THAT DC, not a Bluff DC. Usually, that DC would be lower (Usually, never know), and your Bluff is likely quite a bit higher than the other INT-based skill you would be using.
It DOES do something then, it Buffs Bluff.
This is a way to use Bluff, with a bonus, with different DC's and circumstances, AND it adds roleplaying flavor.
Things don't need to be Powerful to be worthwhile, and I could see this being plenty potent anyways.
It also doesn't NEED to be strong. Profession:(Anything) with a Dayjob check takes points you could use in a different skill, maybe a Knowledge one, and people still take it. We have feats that are literally Horrible, spells no one ever memorizes.
Lastly, I don't recall how powerful/potent something is/was being the key part of how we judge/interpret things.
Long story short: Bluff does fine on its own when the person you are lying to doesn't know the actual facts of the matter. Bluff is fine to pretend to be a historian to someone who knows nothing about history. PotP lets you pretend to be a historian to other historians, passing yourself off as actually knowing things about history to their expert eyes.
|
|
First off, it's great to hear that you, Rudy, re-examined your initial decision, listened to criticism, and came to a better decision with the help of passersby on the internet! It can be done!
Secondly, whether I'm in the Player or GM's seat, I always go over ruling decisions with everyone in order to hopefully defuse difficult issues. If a corner case comes up, I'll bring/ask for the confusing thing in question, and try to stay open to compromise unless someone's actually trying to get away with something they shouldn't.
As for the Masterpiece itself, I did get worried on my first reading of it; then, on my second reading, it struck me as a sort of magically-empowered Dunning-Kruger Effect, whereby your wilful ignorance and lack of self-awareness makes you certain that you know more than people who know that a given subject's more complex than it sounds. While you couldn't really tell what kind of plant that is, how much that rug is worth, or which Empyrial Lord is the favourite of this group, you can make a wild guess with +4. If nobody corrects you, or even knows if your guess is wrong, your dance can remove the penalty for telling an unlikely lie; how would they know if you're wrong?
"Praise be the Living God!"
As for the Masterpiece itself, I did get worried on my first reading of it; then, on my second reading, it struck me as a sort of magically-empowered Dunning-Kruger Effect, whereby your wilful ignorance and lack of self-awareness makes you certain that you know more than people who know that a given subject's more complex than it sounds. While you couldn't really tell what kind of plant that is, how much that rug is worth, or which Empyrial Lord is the favourite of this group, you can make a wild guess with +4. If nobody corrects you, or even knows if your guess is wrong, your dance can remove the penalty for telling an unlikely lie; how would they know if you're wrong?
I spend time on the Internet, and sometimes I wonder why I do. It can be so negative at times.
One of the many reasons why, is I learn things like that. It has a name, and is classified. *Joy*
|
|
Lastly, I don't recall how powerful/potent something is/was being the key part of how we judge/interpret things.
I can see you like your condescension with plenty of backslashes.
When you have an ambiguous rule and one interpretation is a powerful ability, but not game-breaking and the other is near uselessness compared to other similar abilities, then I'm inclined to believe that the writer intended something actually useful, not another spell or feat that no one ever takes.
This ability adds nothing to roleplay. Under your interpretation, it is a glorified on-use Skill Focus that doesn't scale. Anything that you can roleplay with PotP, you can already roleplay without.
Long story short: Bluff does fine on its own when the person you are lying to doesn't know the actual facts of the matter. Bluff is fine to pretend to be a historian to someone who knows nothing about history. PotP lets you pretend to be a historian to other historians, passing yourself off as actually knowing things about history to their expert eyes.
Nowhere in the description of Bluff does it say that you can't pretend to be a historian to other historians. In fact, the description of Bluff is "You know how to tell a lie." What are you saying happens when people use PotP? They are telling lies. This is exactly what the Bluff skill is. All you are doing is making up convoluted examples to try and prove that Bluff isn't Bluff.
Trying to pass yourself off as a wizard in conversation with another wizard, but lack points in spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana)? Bluff by itself doesn't actually give you the ability to identify magic spells, or to know actual facts about magical theory, but with PotP, you can follow cues in the conversation with a wizard well enough that you can convince him that you are able to do these things.
You can already do this with Bluff. "Oh ho. That's the hand gestures we use for Color Spray in the Magic Academy of the River Kingdoms. How do you shape the magic to get it to become that spell?" Straight up example of Bluff.
If you created a painting, and tried to tell people it was great, it doesn't matter how high your bluff skill is; they look at the actual painting and see that it's crap.
That's just patently false. If you have a high enough Bluff, you can convince anyone of anything. That is the whole purpose of the Bluff ability. Even if it is impossible, you only take a -20. If someone came to me with this ability and said it worked in your way, then you better believe I would apply all of the Bluff modifiers to the checks. If all you are doing is lying, then of course the lying modifiers come into play.
First off, it's great to hear that you, Rudy, re-examined your initial decision, listened to criticism, and came to a better decision with the help of passersby on the internet! It can be done!
Yes, well, I think you do me too much credit. Though I do try to remain open to being convinced one way or the other, primarily I came to a "better" decision because it became apparent that it was okay to interpret this ability in different ways. Once that became the case, all of my problems with the ability instantly became non-problems, and so there was no more need to angst about playing with it or not.
Is it common for GMs to not be okay with the wand of longstrider? That one is a bit shocking to me, as I don't see any grounds for it. What reason do they give?
As for the Masterpiece itself, I did get worried on my first reading of it; then, on my second reading, it struck me as a sort of magically-empowered Dunning-Kruger Effect, whereby your wilful ignorance and lack of self-awareness makes you certain that you know more than people who know that a given subject's more complex than it sounds. While you couldn't really tell what kind of plant that is, how much that rug is worth, or which Empyrial Lord is the favourite of this group, you can make a wild guess with +4. If nobody corrects you, or even knows if your guess is wrong, your dance can remove the penalty for telling an unlikely lie; how would they know if you're wrong?
That's a clever way to look at it; I also do think, as you hint, that it has amazing potential outside of PFS for roleplaying. You are able to lie so well that you fool the universe. You need to have a GM who has the flexibility to accommodate that from time to time, though.
@GM Bold Strider
You may run it as you wish, of course, but in my games there are many things you cannot Bluff, period, expert knowledge being one of them. LazarX already encapsulated it well:
I will in many circumstances rule that a Bluff DC is simply impossible if you don't have the fundamentals. You can't fake being Einstein to Neils Bohr if you have no knowledge of physics. But with this performance in place, you just might put him off long enough by faking an obscure piece of knowledge to get something done QUICKLY, and then getting yourself out of Dodge.
Oh, and before you question my right to make that call:
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Making up random facts about Osirion's history, and trying to convince an Osirionologist that they are true things, in direct opposition to his expertise, falls under this category in my games.
Pageant of the Peacock lets you fool him, though.
I can see you like your condescension with plenty of backslashes.
I like covering lot's of bases, it's easy to be misunderstood, text only conveys so much. I did not intend to be condescending, but on reading back, I can see how it could be read that way.
When you have an ambiguous rule and one interpretation is a powerful ability, but not game-breaking and the other is near uselessness compared to other similar abilities, then I'm inclined to believe that the writer intended something actually useful, not another spell or feat that no one ever takes.
I don't agree that one is near useless, but I do think that the other is far too powerful, and doesn't fit what it's text says or means.
I'm personally inclined to try and be in keeping with the actual text of the ability, and not choose a more powerful interpretation to make a ability more likely to be used.
Also not meant to be condescending, and how you phrased that wasn't the nicest thing ever. :P
This ability adds nothing to roleplay. Under your interpretation, it is a glorified on-use Skill Focus that doesn't scale. Anything that you can roleplay with PotP, you can already roleplay without.
You can roleplay quite a bit without anything. In fact, you can roleplay without ANYTHING at all. No character sheet, no system, just roleplay.
This adds quite a bit to your character in terms of Roleplay as I said/showed above.
Could you to explain to me how this can allow someone to use Spellcraft to identify a spell being cast by someone else accurately, to identify a creature found in a deep cave, or even to somehow be able to read a language you don't know successfully? In the end, it's a Bluff, not automatic knowledge.
Figuring out how something works isn't about it's power, usefulness, or even it's likely hood to be used. It's how it works most logically in the existing framework.
I think that having an enhanced ability to Bluff in a certain setting in certain ways makes more sense than being able to Bluff and somehow gain instant and instinctive knowledge about things you have no experience in.
As it is, I am definitely keeping this in mind if I ever make a Bard again, this a damn useful ability, and I would take it in a heartbeat.
(Edit: Frikking spelling and being unclear...)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making up random facts about Osirion's history, and trying to convince an Osirionologist that they are true things, in direct opposition to his expertise, falls under this category in my games.
Pageant of the Peacock lets you fool him, though.
How? Isn't that exactly what you are claiming you are doing with PotP? Bluffing about Osirion's history. I fail to see where the differences lay between regular Bluff and how you interpret PotP. If you want to handwave it away as magic, that's fine, but you could equally handwave away the other interpretation of knowing the knowledge as magic. You could even rationalize PotP as "You've Bluffed for so long, you were bound to start learning something."
Honestly, I never would have reached this interpretation after reading it 100s of times for my bard. He has that masterpiece and not once has anyone said "Wow over-powered" or "Hmm... that's not what that does." Doesn't make them or me right, but at the beginning I just couldn't fathom your argument. I think I see your argument now, but it still seems like you are just splitting hairs with Bluff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and before you question my right to make that call:
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).Making up random facts about Osirion's history, and trying to convince an Osirionologist that they are true things, in direct opposition to his expertise, falls under this category in my games.
Pageant of the Peacock lets you fool him, though.
But that's not what Peacock says, It doesn't say you're allowed to pull off impossible lies (an effect which would be feat/masterpiece/spell worthy on it's own).
It says you're able to make a bluff check in place of an int-based skill. What you're describing (making up stuff about a given topic) just sounds like a normal use of bluff. If that's the case, then this masterpiece does nothing, which begs the question of why it even exists?
Tell me about it: we are (in our group) in the process of Housing this, as GM disagrees with "I do a tap-dance and suddenly I can know about what weaknesses that monster has..."
We are having the discussion before play of next game, as we have already had Selective Spell Colour Spray for Oracle fun and profit, and Cohort Paladin riding and charging with that Paladin Charge Spell and shared Saves, the Synthesist Summoner (fly, pounce) for the earned title of "Miss Killsteal"
My argument was that you are actually tapping the body language of your team mates (i.e. wizard who knows what it is and is busy casting X spell or telling the Fighter to get Y weapon out {without time to say much else}, means you can make Bluff check instead of spellcraft on his spell and also begin casting a relevant spell, or Fill in the Blanks with "I know what I'm doing...")
But it should make explicit in the text you can't do this when there is no-one to "social" off... (constructs, mindless undead, etc...) Plus it takes 10 minutes after which you get one roll per BP spend?
Can someone link the errata request, if there is one?
|
@Rudy2,
Just asking, have you tried to bring this up with Mike Brock? He is the PFS Organized Play Coordinator.
Items already on the additional resources list had been debated and taken off the list before, see Bracers of Falcon Aim.
If you had bad experiences with a certain item/power/feat, in this case Pageant of the Peacock, maybe you could bring it to Mike's attention? Clearly explain what happened in the instances where Pageant of the Peacock had been disruptive or over-powered in a games/s you ran.
He might not see the need to remove it, but at least you could get a conclusive answer/reason from the main organizer.
There is no harm asking.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you created a painting, and tried to tell people it was great, it doesn't matter how high your bluff skill is; they look at the actual painting and see that it's crap.
Dozens of museums of modern "art" with blank canvases and red dots belie this line of thought :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
Versatile Performance (Ex): At 2nd level, a bard can choose one type of Perform skill. He can use his bonus in that skill in place of his bonus in associated skills. When substituting in this way, the bard uses his total Perform skill bonus, including class skill bonus, in place of its associated skill's bonus, whether or not he has ranks in that skill or if it is a class skill. At 6th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the bard can select an additional type of Perform to substitute.
The types of Perform and their associated skills are: ... Sing (Bluff, Sense Motive)...
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?