Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock

[GM Bold Strider]

Rudy2 wrote:

It's not that I don't care. There are three reasons why I don't raise a fuss about Mindchemists.

One, there is zero ambiguity in them. There's nothing to argue about; everything about the knowledge bonuses there is 100% straightforward. I may choose to houserule it if I found it too overshadowing in a home game, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on to try and do so in PFS.

Two, it makes perfect sense thematically and narratively, which is less disruptive when trying to maintain suspension of disbelief, and to create a narrative flow.

Three, it is narrower because you have to be a specific archetype. It's a good archetype, I'll grant you, but it's an archetype specifically designed to be good at knowledge checks. Any bard, regardless of race, can tack on PotP at very low cost. True, they won't be as good as your mindchemist, nor will they be as good as your bard if not optimized for it, but with nothing more than maxing the Bluff skill (or one of the Versatile Performance skills that can be used for Bluff), it is absurdly powerful for the cost (under your interpretation of it).

Four. There wasn't going to be a four until I saw Himokl's brilliantly evil plan. That. That's number four.

*shrug* to each his own. PotP is absurdly strong, but its still not going to break any tables, in my opinion. Like I've said before, Knowledge checks matter very little in the grand scheme of things. I can think of maybe two or three scenarios where Knowledge checks have played prominent roles, but the DCs are so low that its not really an issue.

Himokl wrote:

When you have bards making knowledge checks well into the 50's at mid levels ...

First, hyperbole. I just showed a highly optimized Bard with PotP getting +23 to knowledges at level 8 (which is the high fringe of the mid-levels for PFS). Even with a natural 20 on the die, you are still getting +43.

Feats: Deific Obedience, Prodigy and Skill Focus for an additional +9 (that's 3/4ths of the feats for the Bard right there): +52.
Trait: Voice of Velvet for another +1: +53
Eyes of the Ten training for an additional +2 to Charisma: +54.
You were Shadow Lodge and ran its finale AND Lantern Lodge with its finale for +2 to Charisma: +55.

Hmm... with a natural 20, you can get a +55, about middle of the 50s and that's with a lot of gaming the system, predefining your race, forced to worship Shelyn, spending half your traits on Perform and spending 3/4ths of your feats.

[sarokcat]

GM Bold Strider wrote:

Rudy2 wrote:

Uh... that's like 70 ranks of skill points that you spent on knowledge. That's not leagues less than what is required for PotP.

At level 8 with 26 Int without Cognatogen or feats, a mindchemist would only need 4 ranks in each Knowledge check to equal PotP. There are 10 Knowledge skills. This is 40 skills points. A mindchemist with this Int would get +12 skill point per level, whereas an optimized PotP Bard would get +6 per level. The mindchemist would gain 96 skill points (56 after the ranks in Knowledges). The Bard would have 48 skill points, which is still less that the Mindchemist after the ranks in Knowledges.

Alchemist Requirements: High Int (+8), Mindchemist Archetype
[4 ranks + 3 bonus + 16 Int]

Bard Requirements: Equally High Cha (+8), Masterwork Instrument (+2), Aasimar Racial Variant (+2), Second Level Spell Slot (which gets obsoleted in three levels by Glibness)
[8 ranks + 3 bonus + 8 Cha + 2 MW + 2 Racial]

QED: You need less to be a Mindchemist than a PotP Bard. Also, the Mindchemist would still get 8 more skill points.

Also, you never answered the question. Do you take issue with Mindchemists since they more easily "abuse" Knowledge checks compared to PotP Bards?

Well, lets do this right, lets compare to a bard again. I put points into Versatile performance, acting, this means I can use acting for bluff And disguise(another thing that gets a bonus from PotP.) now, With 26 Charisma at level 8, lets see how high the checks can get... 8 skill points in performance acting, +8 for cha mod, +3 class, +1 trait for voice of velvet, +3 skill focus perform (something I often take as a bard anyways, +4 potp bonus for bluffing, +2 masterwork tool bonus ... +29 skill bonus , and lets get even crazier and buy a mulberry pentacle ioun stone for a + 5 competence bonus.... ok now we have a +34 bonus to a massive amount of skills, (all int based, perform oratory, and its versatile derivitives of sense motive and diplomacy.) for 8 skill points.... at this point why should a PotP bard even bother with int? just skill up one skill and you can use it for everything! and do it as well if not better then a dedicated int build! huzzah!

That normal level 8 wizard with 26 int and a lovely +19 to his knowledge skills will look at you with awe! or maybe raw hatred... it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes.
Yes perhaps they have more skill points then the bard does in total, the fact is, the bard has just replaced 18 skills, yes 18 skills not counting individual crafts(remember they now use bluff for sense motive and diplomacy through oratory as well!). with one skill at max ranks they now have ALL those skills at max ranks + high bonuses. that would cost your mindchemist 144 skill points to get all those skills at that rank. they spent 8.

While I think this interpretation is absolute cheese, and it will never fly at my tables, RAW this is the interpretation that you seem to be arguing for. So that +30 on knowledges you get is nice, he gets a +34 to it on linquisitics as well as knowledges and so many other things as well. And could easily dump int down to a 7 and not worry about skill points or knowledges since hey. PotP does it all.

[GM Bold Strider]

sarokcat wrote:

Well, lets do this right, lets compare to a bard again. I put points into Versatile performance, acting, this means I can use acting for bluff And disguise(another thing that gets a bonus from PotP.) now, With 26 Charisma at level 8, lets see how high the checks can get... 8 skill points in performance acting, +8 for cha mod, +3 class, +1 trait for voice of velvet, +3 skill focus perform (something I often take as a bard anyways, +4 potp bonus for bluffing, +2 masterwork tool bonus ... +29 skill bonus , and lets get even crazier and buy a mulberry pentacle ioun stone for a + 5 competence bonus.... ok now we have a +34 bonus to a massive amount of skills, (all int based, perform oratory, and its versatile derivitives of sense motive and diplomacy.)...

Disguise: mostly useless in PFS.

Skill Focus: People actually take that without intending to take Eldritch Heritage?

So a Bard with a specific race, a specific set of traits, a specific feat, Charisma buffed at the expense of everything else is really good at identifying monsters, knowing things, identfiying spells and writing, appraising and crafting. Congratulations! You spent a large amount of resources becoming good at something. I still fail to see your point.

If you could kill monsters with Appraise or Knowledge skills then I might be impressed. The Mindchemist can use his massive Intelligence to make his bombs deadlier, apply it to weapon strikes (Focused Shot/Kirin Strike), etc and he only spent skill points to be slightly worse than the Bard [while still likely making all the checks]. He still has all of his feats and abilities to dedicate to killing things (the whole point of the game). At best, you go pure caster bard and fall to Support Bard (not a bad choice, high Knowledge checks make you a great support) or Save or Suck Bard (good luck with the DCs once you hit level 8 and you spent all your resources into buffing Perform).

[sarokcat]

GM Bold Strider wrote:

sarokcat wrote:

Well, lets do this right, lets compare to a bard again. I put points into Versatile performance, acting, this means I can use acting for bluff And disguise(another thing that gets a bonus from PotP.) now, With 26 Charisma at level 8, lets see how high the checks can get... 8 skill points in performance acting, +8 for cha mod, +3 class, +1 trait for voice of velvet, +3 skill focus perform (something I often take as a bard anyways, +4 potp bonus for bluffing, +2 masterwork tool bonus ... +29 skill bonus , and lets get even crazier and buy a mulberry pentacle ioun stone for a + 5 competence bonus.... ok now we have a +34 bonus to a massive amount of skills, (all int based, perform oratory, and its versatile derivitives of sense motive and diplomacy.)...

Disguise: mostly useless in PFS.

Skill Focus: People actually take that without intending to take Eldritch Heritage?

So a Bard with a specific race, a specific set of traits, a specific feat, Charisma buffed at the expense of everything else is really good at identifying monsters, knowing things, identfiying spells and writing, appraising and crafting. Congratulations! You spent a large amount of resources becoming good at something. I still fail to see your point.

If you could kill monsters with Appraise or Knowledge skills then I might be impressed. The Mindchemist can use his massive Intelligence to make his bombs deadlier, apply it to weapon strikes (Focused Shot/Kirin Strike), etc and he only spent skill points to do so. He still has all of his feats and abilities to dedicate to killing things (the whole point of the game). At best, you go pure caster bard and fall to Support Bard (not a bad choice, high Knowledge checks make you a great support) or Save or Suck Bard (good luck with the DCs once you hit level 8 and you spent all your resources into buffing Perform).

Ok now this is just sounding like sour grapes or refusal to see. lets take out skill focus, which is a common bard thing I have seen. and hey, look, still +31 to everything!

Resources expended, 2 traits. that's right, JUST 2 traits, as well as getting cha, their primary casting stat up to 26 just like you.

And hey guess what, bards make a PERFORM check for several of their abilities! countersong, distraction, as well as several other masterpieces will use your perform check as a result iirc. So not a bad thing there. and race lock in? I Didn't use the assimar locked in race trait like you did. I can be any race I want, so only a +1 from it, and can drop it entirely to get a +30, and while yes, I am not going to be a combat bard bumping cha that high most likely, the class isn't built around direct damage anyways for the most part. Though I likely will have some pretty decent save dcs. As for disguise, I have seen it be useful on several occasions, but the real thing is its just the icing on the cake that is having ALL those skills at once.
So total spent, at minimum, 1 trait, 8 skill ranks. and a second level spell for the masterpiece.

You spent, archetype choice for knowledge focus, 80 skill points to get all 10 knowledges to get +27? in knowledges alone(8rank+16int+3class). Not counting the crafts, the linquistics, you also need to get to match the bard. The case is worse if you are NOT a mindchemist, but comparing this to an average pfs character or Wizard who does knowledges.

In this case it is very much a case of people looking at the situation, and then looking at everything they had to give up to be even close to the bards level, and then seeing how little the bard had to pay for that and going what? Not to mention the silliness of a bard faking linquistics to actually speak/read accurately a language he knows nothing about... heh.

[FLite]

Also, don't forget, the bard still has a boat load of skill points, and a +8 charisma, and a quarter of the charisma skills are being run off his perform (act).

So not only can he be a knowledge bot (needed in almost all season 5 scenarios), a craft bot (needed in some scenarios) he is also a face (needed in about half of season 5 to get the second prestige point)

GM Bold Strider wrote:

He still has all of his feats and abilities to dedicate to killing things (the whole point of the game)

Umm.... you and I have been playing *very* different games. Have you *played* season 5? About a quarter of the scenarios have only one fight in them. Or rather, if you fight two fights, you will then fight three fights, the third fight will likely be with the local guard, and you will have failed the mission. (Infiltration missions, diplomacy missions, etc.)

[andreww]

GM Bold Strider wrote:

Skill Focus: People actually take that without intending to take Eldritch Heritage?

On a slight tangent I use skill focus all the time on bards to combine with versatile performance to add to multiple skills. I will often go human for the focused study option t get extra skill focus feats at higher levels.

[Greg Hurst]

GM Bold Strider wrote:

And you inadvertently answered my question, you don't care that Mindchemists can overshadow others with Knowledges so well. So, then why do you care if Bards can?

I had a new-ish player tell me he was going to abandon his mindchemist after playing in a game with a bard using this ability. He didn't see the point of specializing in knowledge checks when he could be outstripped 2:1.

[Rudy2]

@sarokat, while I'm on your side here, I have to point out that you can't include both bonuses to Perform (act) and bonuses to Bluff; you're either using your Bluff bonus, in which case you get the +4, or you're substituting your bonus for Perform (act), in which case you do not.

[Akerlof]

Greg Hurst wrote:

GM Bold Strider wrote:

And you inadvertently answered my question, you don't care that Mindchemists can overshadow others with Knowledges so well. So, then why do you care if Bards can?

I had a new-ish player tell me he was going to abandon his mindchemist after playing in a game with a bard using this ability. He didn't see the point of specializing in knowledge checks when he could be outstripped 2:1.

We've had all sorts of gnashing of the teeth over Gunslingers being overpowered, or Summoners, or Druids, even Rogues when people see them land sneak attacks while TWFing.

We're still not allowed to willfully misinterpret the rules for them while we're GMing PFS games.

If Pageant of the Peacock is overpowered, lobby to have it removed from the Additional resources. Do not try to warp the wording of the rule to make it work in some other way than what the rules clearly say. We give up that flexibility, as GMs, when we run for PFS in order to make the whole Organized Play thing work.

(And tell your player that knowledges are the icing on the Mindchemist's juicy, juicy cake. Then show him the Stink Bomb discovery.)

Rudy2 wrote:

@Akerlof:

I'm saying that people are assuming that PotP works the way that Versatile Performance does, and I don't think that's at all clear.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "works the way Versatile Performance does." Versatile Performance is a completely unrelated, Ex ability of the Bard. Pageant of the Peacock is an Su Bardic Masterpiece that works like a spell. I really don't see what they have to do with each other aside from the meta concept that they trade one thing for another, have "Performance" in the name and are associated with skills.

Quote:

Versatile Performance says that you can take a bonus from one skill and use it in place of the bonus from another skill. So, if you're using Perform (Comedy) to make an Intimidate check, you're still making an Intimidate check. It still does everything an Intimidate check does.

In contrast, PotP says that you make a Bluff check in place of another skill check.

I'm with you here, this is true.

Quote:

My claim is that, if you make a Bluff check in place of a Knowledge check, you are by definition no longer making a knowledge check, you are making a bluff check. That's tautological, but I think the implication of this is that it therefore acts like a Bluff check, in terms of what it can and cannot do.

That's not tautological, that's a non sequitor. You are doing exactly what Pageant of the Peacock says you are doing: "...may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check."

"In place of" does not mean "pretend that you are making," or "convince others that you have made," or "in order to further your bluff." There are no ifs, ands, buts, fors, or tos in Pageant of the Peacock: It says you can make a bluff check in place of an int-based check and that's what you can do with it.

[Rudy2]

I disagree, sorry. If you make a bluff check in place of a knowledge check, you are bluffing instead of knowing. This is a valid interpretation by the English language. I acknowledge your interpretation is also valid.

Hence why the only thing I think we'll end on agreeing today is that this ability could use some official clarification.

[nosig]

Chris Mortika wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

How would you specifically handle this ability at your table (both in how it would work mechanically, and if necessary, how you'd make sure that its use didn't ruin the fun of others)?

In terms of flavor, I'm imagining a Bard spouting off reasonable-sounding information, and the magic of Pageant influencing the bard so that it turns out to be right more often than not. In the same way that a cleric announces whether a possible course of action is a good idea, and is right more often than not, thanks to the magic of augury.

...

Wow... this is exactly like I was viewing this.

Thank you Chris.

I had given up on this thread, and then I pop in here this morning and find this nugget of golden wisdom.

[wakedown]

This seems like a good time to point out...

RAW can be taken to mean two different things: rules-as-written or run-as-written.

PFS does have a run-as-written rule which means GMs are not supposed to modify the encounters in scenarios, perhaps by adding additional enemies, or changing the enemies or the bones of the scenario.

Rules-as-written (the other RAW) actually provides no guidance in how to adjudicate a rule. This acronym almost literally means nothing more than pointing out there are rules printed on a page. Two people will read the print and their independent minds will use whatever knowledge base they have in their backgrounds and form their methods of running the rule.

PFS comes with text that instructs GMs to "use common sense in your interpretation of the rules." This is page 5 of the Guide to Organized play.

When you look at Pageant of the Peacock, there's several sentences there to help guide your common sense that explain this bardic masterpiece is being used in the context of strutting about socially. There's other 2nd level abilities to help guide your common sense and allow you to see that similar masterpieces normally provide a highly situational bonus. The fact it lasts ten minutes and not for a single check provides even more guidance for a common sense ruling.

There's folks out there who claim that Shield Master negates all attack penalties. Evil eye hex? No problem. Drained five levels? No problem. Some folks claim the feat suggests you'd never, ever receive a penalty to attack. It's not hard to apply common sense to this feat in PFS and see its meant to negate the penalty for two-weapon fighting.

When you sit down at PFS, you're going to get common sense applied to rules. Not lawyers looking for loopholes in the English language.

I appreciate that there's folks who can take a single sentence from the masterpiece and try to wrangle it to apply to a plethora of their skills all the time. I appreciate there's an argument that "hey it's not that powerful, it's just skill checks, let me do it!". This is pretty long thread at this point, so I suspect we've reached a point where the folks who are hungering to exploit this ability are likely seeing that "yeah, the author meant for this ability to be used for strutting about and not for monster lore" but continue to press on because they don't find their interpretation unbalanced.

Even with a large number of PFS GMs applying common sense and disallowing Pageant to be used for all Int-checks in scenarios, I wager you'll still find some of us GMs will bend the rules for a character who has Pageant. If you sit down at a table and there's no single other PC who is going to make passable knowledge checks, and making those checks is critical to understanding the nature of the scenario, I'd certainly be flexible in letting a Pageant bard PC strut about to impress his fellow Pathfinders, just as I mentioned previously I'd allow a Profession (courtesan) to determine attributes of a succubus. You'd be getting a lot of mileage out of this masterpiece in PFS without it needing to be a blanket enabler to use Bluff in the place of a majority of PFS-employed skills all the time.

I've gone through my common sense ruling on this several times with local PFS players (who undoubtedly stumbled across a different forum thread claiming "hey you have a bard, you should take this spectacular awesome broken ability to base even more skills off Perform/Bluff") and I haven't had anyone come back a second time and continue to fight me on continuing to (ab)use it.

[Rudy2]

Ugh. I have to say, I feel really bad about something I wrote in the first post. If I could edit it out, I would, but it's far too late for that. I wrote: "does whomever wrote that still work for paizo, by the way?"

It's clear to me now that the author's only mistake was in assuming that pathfinder players and GMs would have the ability to extrapolate from context, and this is not the case of an author intentionally creating a ridiculously unbalanced ability.

They'll probably never read it, but I do want this apology out there. If anyone knows who did write the ability, please let me know so I can send the apology directly.

[LazarX]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

I've given you my Fake Einstein vs. Bohr example earlier upthread. Only entitled players believe that anything is possible if you can stack enough modifiers on the die. Some things, some lies simply won't fly without pre-req or three.

[LazarX]

Rudy2 wrote:

It's clear to me now that the author's only mistake was in assuming that pathfinder players and GMs would have the ability to extrapolate from context, and this is not the case of an author intentionally creating a ridiculously unbalanced ability.

So you're saying essentially that the author's mistake was to assume that most players of the game can read above a 4th grade reading level.

Your mistake was taking the overreaction of some strident few to be representative of the whole.

[Rudy2]

Regardless of my mistake, I do owe an apology to the author of the ability. My initial comment about them was crass and inappropriate.

[wakedown]

Rule #1 of Paizo Forums: Don't let the forums get you worked up.

The likely author of Pageant is one of: Amanda Hamon, David Ross, Gareth Hanrahan or Jerome Virnich.

Jerome's a Paizo intern. The two linkified contributors are forum regulars. I don't know, but suspect many don't watch the PFS subforums on a regular basis.

The closest to official commentary you have on Pageant to date is Mark Seifter, prior to joining as Paizo's latest design team member, weighed in that taking the single sentence and applying it to all checks would be imbalanced as a 2nd level masterpiece. He did this prior to joining the team though, but I wager he likely still carries the same interpretation of the rule and would eventually clean up the wording to diffuse forums angst when he gets around to it. Regardless, this is still a point among many in making a common sense ruling when judging PFS.

[Mark Seifter]

wakedown wrote:

Rule #1 of Paizo Forums: Don't let the forums get you worked up.

The likely author of Pageant is one of: Amanda Hamon, David Ross, Gareth Hanrahan or Jerome Virnich.

Jerome's a Paizo intern. The two linkified contributors are forum regulars. I don't know, but suspect many don't watch the PFS subforums on a regular basis.

The closest to official commentary you have on Pageant to date is Mark Seifter, prior to joining as Paizo's latest design team member, weighed in that taking the single sentence and applying it to all checks would be imbalanced as a 2nd level masterpiece. He did this prior to joining the team though, but I wager he likely still carries the same interpretation of the rule and would eventually clean up the wording to diffuse forums angst when he gets around to it. Regardless, this is still a point among many in making a common sense ruling when judging PFS.

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

[Rudy2]

wakedown wrote:

Rule #1 of Paizo Forums: Don't let the forums get you worked up.

Yeah, I need to internalize that one better.

wakedown wrote:

The likely author of Pageant is one of: Amanda Hamon, David Ross, Gareth Hanrahan or Jerome Virnich.

Hmm... would it be weird/inappropriate to PM the first two out of the blue? "I don't know if you wrote this ability, but if you did..." sort of thing? I feel I should, but I don't know forum etiquette very well.

[Kyle Baird]

Then maybe for PFS we can just get it removed.

[Rudy2]

Kyle Baird wrote:

Then maybe for PFS we can just get it removed.

That would be almost a shame, since I think it could be a lot of fun when used in (what I view to be) to correct way. However, it does seem that it would require a savvy GM to utilize it well in that way, so it may be for the best for it to be removed from the additional resources. There are already a few calls for that in the thread about removing additional resources.

[Cao Phen]

GM Bold Strider, remember the Lantern Lodge and Shadow Lodge boon from such scenarios does not stack.

Also, A FAQ section for companion booklets?

[BigNorseWolf]

Mark Seifter wrote:

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

I really don't get the why of this. I know you don't do FAQs until there's a reprint... but thats a rule you make yourselves. Couldn't you just toss up an "FAQ in progress" or something? Its not like FAQs haven't themselves changed before.

[Wyntr]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

I really don't get the why of this. I know you don't do FAQs until there's a reprint... but thats a rule you make yourselves. Couldn't you just toss up an "FAQ in progress" or something? Its not like FAQs haven't themselves changed before.

My understanding is that they do FAQs outside of the cycles of reprints; it is errata that is tied to reprints. Which is why there is some of the tension over issuing "errata" in the FAQ instead of as errata.

[Jeff Merola]

LazarX wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

I've given you my Fake Einstein vs. Bohr example earlier upthread. Only entitled players believe that anything is possible if you can stack enough modifiers on the die. Some things, some lies simply won't fly without pre-req or three.

If you can come up with a logical explanation for your lie, why won't it work, beyond a GM just deciding that "no, this lie will never work don't bother"? I'm a really bad liar, and even I can get people to believe some really silly things if I take the time to come up with a convincing enough reason.

And even if that's the case, as I clarified later, there's nothing in the Pageant that implies that it would somehow let you make an impossible lie possible.

Mark Seifter wrote:

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Golarion Rules and Questions was added for that very purpose.

[BigNorseWolf]

The seperation and division of the FAQs into different sections also confuses the heck out of me.

[wakedown]

Mark Seifter wrote:

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

I had a hunch that invoking your name might summon you...

This might be something to push for change up there in Redmond as the Player Companion line typically is the one with the most experimental rules and includes the rawest/freshest/newest contributors. Thus, it ends up being the one that at least in PFS is most in need of a little post-published TLC.

That, or you can simply provide an updated wording of Pageant in a future supplement. :)

[andreww]

LazarX wrote:

I've given you my Fake Einstein vs. Bohr example earlier upthread. Only entitled players believe that anything is possible if you can stack enough modifiers on the die. Some things, some lies simply won't fly without pre-req or three.

Or alternatively this thread is great evidence that some GM's lack basic reading comprehension and/or are far too invested in shutting down options which they personally disapprove of to be able to judge PFS games with any degree of impartiality.

Hey, that making gross generalisations thing to dismiss any form of disagreement is dead easy...

[andreww]

LazarX wrote:

So you're saying essentially that the author's mistake was to assume that most players of the game can read above a 4th grade reading level.

Indeed, basic reading comprehension makes it very clear what this ability does. It allows you to use your bluff check to generate Int based checks like knowledge skills. No great complication there.

Whether or not it should do that is a quite different question.

[Mark Seifter]

wakedown wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

What I've learned is that it's best not to expect an FAQ if the book isn't in the Pathfinder RPG line (the hardcover rules stuff, like CRB, Bestiary, APG, UM, and beyond). Right now we don't have an easy way to FAQ companions.

I had a hunch that invoking your name might summon you...

This might be something to push for change up there in Redmond as the Player Companion line typically is the one with the most experimental rules and includes the rawest/freshest/newest contributors. Thus, it ends up being the one that at least in PFS is most in need of updating.

The important thing to note about Paizo is that the company is a collection of talented, creative, and amazing people, but at the end of the day, it's still a company, organized into different divisions and subdivisions. To make a FAQ in that Golarion FAQ, we would need to convene not only all the designers (to ensure rules consensus) but also the developers of the lines in question, and the creative director. It's still a pipe dream of mine to have a robust and awesome Golarion FAQ for you guys some day (for all the reasons you've stated), but I'm guessing you can see why a confluence like that isn't something that would be easy for the new guy to set up? Imagine a new hire trying to set up a meeting like that at your company!

[Kyle Baird]

It would be a shame to ban cool options, but if they can't be consistently interpreted and implemented across the entire campaign, they should either be fixed or removed.

[wakedown]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Imagine a new hire trying to set up a meeting like that at your company!

But, wait... you're Mark freaking Seifter! You can do it!

But, seriously... it's threads like this and customer commentary that are useful tools of empowerment for those "FNGs" to garner the attention of senior folks and become tools of change at any company.

[..begin ominous marketing voice..]

Maybe you guys just need some software where:

1. You log a proposed change that would make its way to the Golarion FAQ
2. You pick the distribution list of reviewers for the change
3. An email hits everyone's inbox inviting them to review the proposed change
4. Folks can either click to approve the proposal, or it can get mired down in discussion
5. Things that unanimously get approved follow a shortcut to the FAQ
6. Thinks that lack unanimous approval after 1-week get automatically rejected, forcing the proposer to try again with a different angle/revision in a subsequent week/period.

All with no meetings called.

Just think of the competitive advantage such a living rules review engine/LRRE (tm) could provide for a company in this space! :)

[FLite]

Actually, while a FAQ would be nice, all we really need is a Developer statement of intent.

GtoP wrote:

The Pathfinder Society Community
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications or rulings.

If you can get Mike Brock or John Compton to take a look at this (probably won't happen till after Gen Con, I know) then we can get a post from them and that's all we need.

The FAQ entry would just be gravy.

[Mark Seifter]

wakedown wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Imagine a new hire trying to set up a meeting like that at your company!

But, wait... you're Mark freaking Seifter! You can do it!

But, seriously... it's threads like this and customer commentary that are useful tools of empowerment for those "FNGs" to garner the attention of senior folks and become tools of change at any company.

[..begin ominous marketing voice..]

Maybe you guys just need some software where:

1. You log a proposed change that would make its way to the Golarion FAQ
2. You pick the distribution list of reviewers for the change
3. An email hits everyone's inbox inviting them to review the proposed change
4. Folks can either click to approve the proposal, or it can get mired down in discussion
5. Things that unanimously get approved follow a shortcut to the FAQ
6. Thinks that lack unanimous approval after 1-week get automatically rejected, forcing the proposer to try again with a different angle/revision in a subsequent week/period.

All with no meetings called.

Just think of the competitive advantage such a living rules review engine/LRRE (tm) could provide for a company in this space! :)

It's an interesting idea, to be sure. People are busy, though, so I suspect that almost nothing would meet with unanimous approval within 1 week.

[Kyle Baird]

This is very much like a controlled Engineering Change Notice system.

Investigate a problem, determine root cause, develop a countermeasure, prove out the countermeasure, propose change to a cross-functional team, receive approval, implement change.

Knowledge (engineering) +17

[Acedio]

Or are you just peacocking?!

[wakedown]

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's an interesting idea, to be sure. People are busy, though, so I suspect that almost nothing would meet with unanimous approval within 1 week.

This is where the proposer uses his or her lobbying skills to purchase exotic beers for Bulmahn and other needed reviewers to, shall we say, grease the wheels of the machine?

Can someone make a Bluff check to adopt a series of postures in place of the Knowledge (engineering) check to code this system today for Paizo?

[WalterGM]

Acedio wrote:

Or are you just peacocking?!

Beat it nerd!!

slams down papers

[Arassuil]

Tangent: Woah. Rogue Eidolon is now a Designer? How did I miss that? Must have fallen asleep. Or failed my Perception check. Or dumped Wisdom. Something like that.

Congrats btw.

You may resume your discussion on the topic at hand. /Tangent

[Akerlof]

Kyle Baird wrote:

It would be a shame to ban cool options, but if they can't be consistently interpreted and implemented across the entire campaign, they should either be fixed or removed.

The thing is, if this "can't be consistently interpreted and implemented," nothing can. The Masterpiece has been around for a year, there was a Rules Question thread back when it came out and the consensus was very quickly reached that "yup, it does what it says it does."

Now that we have people complaining about it in PFS, we're getting multiple, convoluted explanations that evolve over time as to why it doesn't do what it says it does. This isn't adding Dex to damage twice or flurrying while in armor, or even mounted charging Vital Strike. This is people actively looking for any possible way to interpret the wording in a way that they like. If anything should stand out, it's that it's being inconsistently misinterpreted: As one person puts out their theory, the next person uses that to advance their own, or create a new theory.

The arguments have gone from making a Bluff check to simulate a knowledge check; to making a bluff check as a knowledge check in certain situations; to making a bluff check to simulate a knowledge check to eliminate the penalties of making a bluff check; to making a bluff check isn't making a knowledge check therefore it can't be substituted for making a knowledge check; with a bit of "it's too powerful so it obviously can't do what it says it does," thrown in.

That's not a gray area, that's not confusion over unclear wording, that's refusing to accept the rule as written.

[FLite]

Akerlof wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

It would be a shame to ban cool options, but if they can't be consistently interpreted and implemented across the entire campaign, they should either be fixed or removed.

The thing is, if this "can't be consistently interpreted and implemented," nothing can. The Masterpiece has been around for a year, there was a Rules Question thread back when it came out and the consensus was very quickly reached that "yup, it does what it says it does."

Can you link me that thread? My recollection was that the tread petered out waiting for the dev to come back and say which way it was supposed to work. Then people got derailed onto billy idol being possessed by baba yaga or something. (And actually, several people in that thread a year ago, made the same arguement I did, that this doesn't let you use bluff to know things, just to seem to know things.

[DrakeRoberts]

Okay, I've tried and tried and tried to stay out of this, but as long as I'm addicted to reading it anyhow, I'm going to make a post.

First of all, Thank You to Chris Mortika for your response.

Now, to all of those who are insistent on bashing, insulting, and making flat-out accusations of motive to the people that don't share your opinion... SHAME on you!

I'm not sure why you take your stance to be the righteous act you seem to think it is, and degrade those who argue against you as players trying to abuse loopholes, break games, or cheat, but I find such accusations horribly insulting. It is one thing to argue a rule based on its content, its another to generalize personal motives behind such things.

I will say this straight out: you are wrong on multiple levels, the most important of which is the way you are interacting with your fellow society members. People who have supported you in running games, in sharing their time and presence with you, and in helping support Paizo with their purchases as well. We are all here to have fun.

You are wrong as to how to handle the situation presented in the OP. This is not about the wording or effects of an ability. A game will not be made more fun because a group of people in this thread decided they have an excuse to interpret a power differently than what is written. For that matter, it would equally remain unsolved if everyone protesting the 'RAW' suddenly decided to allow all knowledges to be made with bluff using this power. The OP's problem will be truly solved only through communication with your players. Coming to a consensus with them, on an individual basis, as to the purview of this ability.. and most importantly, how that player should use any interpretation of this ability. If you go to someone who's role-playing identity encompasses the 'RAW' interpretation of the power and you just say "Nah, that's not how I read it", then all you will do is have a bitter player. If, instead, you discuss with them your concerns over them overshadowing other players, asking them to tone down/moderate their use of the power, and allow them to use it less frequently (or after other players' checks, or whatever) the way they envisioned it, then your players... that one, and the others.. will have a better experience as a whole. THAT is the job of a GM, to make sure everyone has a good time.

This entire thread went way off topic a long time ago. Let this fix it. I personally disagree with your rules interpretation, and I will post that over in the rules forum where such arguments belong. Let's keep this conversation on point: Can you refuse to GM at all? Yes. Should you deal with the problem that way? No. Should you deal with it by using the argument that the rule is unclear to force your own desires upon your players? No. You should talk with them, see what their expectations are, and try to get them to agree to terms that you feel would keep them from ruining the fun of others. That is, after all, the point of this whole thread, right? If the player refuses to moderate his choices and actions to allow everyone to share the spotlight at times... well that's a whole different problem and should be made into it's own thread which doesn't deal with just this power. Because, as has been said before, the problem isn't an issue of the power, but of player management and communication.

[Rudy2]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Now, to all of those who are insistent on bashing, insulting, and making flat-out accusations of motive to the people that don't share your opinion... SHAME on you!

I'll assume this SHAME also applies to those who attribute my motives to being nothing more than irritation at players who too easily overcome obstacles? For example?

[Mark Stratton]

Or, rather than continue the thread in this fashion, why don't we just let it die here?

[Rudy2]

@Drake Roberts: I should add that I don't assume that players who use this in the "one skill does everything" way are trying to cheat. The player who I had as a GM was nothing more than the product of reading a thread on optimizing a bard, according to him. It's a bit disappointing to have players who build their characters solely based on the optimization advice of guides, but I fully recognize that's a player problem, not an ability problem.

The original questions have already been answered, though I do appreciate further input on that. It's 100% absolutely clear that table variation on this ability is legitimate within the confines of PFS, given the differing interpretations and opinions within this thread. Maybe there will be further official input, but until that point, that's not even up for debate anymore, from my perspective. My responsibility as a GM is to make players aware of the variation I will be using from the outset, and work with them for ways in which they can apply the ability within the game.

Your SHAME speech is histrionic, and unnecessary. While my original post was, I freely admit, too emotionally fueled, this thread is no longer so, and there is no need to go demagoguing as the Protector Of The Players.

[Rudy2]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Or, rather than continue the thread in this fashion, why don't we just let it die here?

Yeah, probably for the best. Barring direct questions asked to me, or further official input from designer type people, I'll stop here.

[Katisha]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Or, rather than continue the thread in this fashion, why don't we just let it die here?

yes please!

[wakedown]

I tried to derail it already by going on a tangent by summoning a demon lord... or an eidolon, or something.

I suppose I could always email Billy Idol or Baba Yaga if you guys really want a Peacock thread derailed again...

[pauljathome]

Rudy2 wrote:

It's 100% absolutely clear that table variation on this ability is legitimate within the confines of PFS,

No, it really isn't.

A great many people think that the text is about as clear cut as the rules ever get.

What IS clear is that there WILL be some table variation. It is NOT clear that the variation is legitimate.

For the record, I hate this feat with a fiery passion and REALLY wanted to be convinced that it was ambiguous. But I still think that the text is clear. Its insanely wrong, but its clear.

[Andrew Christian]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

As a reasonable GM, I'm giving you a -20 for an impossible lie. I don't care how creative you get. There are just some people that aren't going to believe what you say unless you are impossibly good at lying.

Pageant of the Peacock allows you to mitigate that.

Your reasonable is my rewriting mechanics. Pageant of the Peacock says nothing about negating penalties.

Edit: I also wouldn't consider "No matter how creative you are some lies will always be impossible" to be reasonable GMing.

Bluff is written so that a GM gets to decide how likely the target is to believe the lie. They assign the penalties.

If you have a special magical ability that makes it easier for you to make crap up that people who know more than you might believe, then as a GM wouldn't it make sense to reduce the penalty for the lie itself?

You don't need mechanics written for everything. You use what's given to you and move on.

But allowing a Bluff Check to actually be all Intelligence based skills for the cost of a feat or 2nd level spell, is way outside the realms of reasonable.