|
This might be a simple way to look at this and I don't know if anybody pointed his out yet. The way I interpret the spell/feat is to use it in dealings with NPCs; not to research/gather information or identify creatures. Someone stated an example earlier of bluffing NPCs into believing you are nobility (Pageant of Peacock ok); but I fail to see how "I want to ID this wall mural, artifact or beast so let me use Pageant of Peacock." is valid. How does a character's ability to spout believable lies actually help a party correctly ID an unknown artifact, lore or beast?
Rudy 2 - I vote that you make it clear up front that Pageant of Peacock is only usable when dealing with NPCs. Tha's how I read and understand it.
Thanks Karlisle; that's more or less the direction I'm leaning, unless the current argument produces something more convincing.
Also, popular avatar for this thread =D
At least, that is, if I understand his position correctly.That's correct, thank you.
Just in case you missed it, my rebuttal to that is on the previous page.
It's not a huge deal, though; at worst (for you) it means that the example doesn't help you case, but it doesn't hurt your case either, since both of our interpretations run into the same problem.
|
|
fixed that for you. PotP is a Bardic Masterpiece, not a spell or feat.
Thanks, nosig. I had that typo in there that you clean up. Having read through the rules on Bardic Masterpieces and PoP; I'll say this... As a player I always want the best rolls so PoP is a great meta-game resource o boost my chances. However, as a DM, I can't think of any sound in-game reason (excluding divine intervention) for a party's bard in the middle of a dungeon/crypt/ruin to use "bluff" to figure out the correct meaning of items, artifacts, creatures etc... That's what the class ability "Bardic Knowledge" is for. Of course, you could argue (and if I was DM I might allow) the bard's "bluff" check causes the party to engage in open discussion with the roll being the party's "collective" Idea/thought/answer.
I dunno; I actually don't care so much about the Pageant of the Peacock argument any more (I don't think anyone is going to be swayed further), but I'm really interested in getting at the notion of what a "knowledge check" is, exactly. I'm having fun, now, in debate =D
One side says that the word "knowledge" does nothing more than tell you what bonuses to apply, where I believe the word "knowledge" tells you something about what the check does.
So, I'd like to summarize the conclusions I've drawn from seeing these examples. First, there seems to be a pattern in how the wording of check v. bonus v. modifier is used.
In cases where it the thing being replaced is the 'type' of thing the skill can normally be used for the "check" terminology is used.
You have learned how to exploit the fear felt by creatures of the natural world when they sense the shadow in your soul. You can make an Intimidate check instead of a Handle Animal check when trying to handle or push an animal.
You really are intimidating, this just lets you intimidate an animal.
A rogue with this talent can, as an immediate action, attempt an Escape Artist check in place of a Reflex saving throw against any effect that would impose the entangled condition on her.
You really are escaping, this just lets you escape magical effects you could not otherwise.
A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check in place of a combat maneuver check when attempting to disarm an opponent.
You really are sleight of handing, this just lets you use it in a combat situation you could not otherwise.
In cases where it wouldn't normally "make sense" to use the replacing skill to accomplish the tash, the "bonus" or "modifier" language is used.
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.
Cruel Anatomist: At 3rd level, a vivisectionist may use his Knowledge (nature) skill bonus in place of his Heal skill bonus.
Combat Trickery (Ex): Through buffoonery and deceit, you can trick opponents into moving where you want them. You can make a single combat maneuver check using your Bluff check modifier in place of your CMB.
Now, it seems to be there are two stances you can take here. One is that this pattern is not significant. The other is that it is. If it is significant, then the implication is that saying something uses a "Bluff check" as opposed to using the "Bluff bonus" is a meaningful difference, and that has to be taken into account.
If you believe the pattern is not significant, then that's fine; it's not conclusive proof, I understand. What I don't understand is why people think that this point of view is so obviously wrong, though, given that there is such a pattern in ability language. Why is it so plainly incorrect to you?
I don't mind being disagreed with here, because I don't think it's conclusive either way, but what I'm trying to understand is why people think it's so crystal clear that the wording is not significant.
Or, tldr: Why is it crystal clear that a "Bluff check" does not mean a check made to do the things that bluff does, using your Bluff modifier?
Okay, I'm just gonna respond to the first of these, because first seems like the most reasonable way to approach this. Your reading says that this trait actually lets me Intimidate animals. And, that because I'm substituting an Intimidate check for a Handle Animal check it does what Intimidate does, rather than what Handle Animal does. As paralleled with Bluff check for knowledge check not giving you real knowledge, but rather just being fake knowledge (aka a bluff), yes?
Close, but not quite. I'm saying that an "intimidate check" is a check which has the quality, or attribute, of allowing you to intimidate things. The intimidate skill description spells out the baseline forms and uses that this "intimidation" takes, such as applying the shaken condition.
This ability specifically and clearly extends the uses of intimidate to allow you to "intimidate" an animal in the form of pushing or handling it.
I'll stop you directly at the first paragraph. It's not a direct parallel at all.
Here, it is saying "You can use an intimidate check to either push an animal, or handle it". In my view, this means "You can intimidate a creature into performing a trick, or into doing a trick it doesn't know." This still has the quality of intimidation. You are still being intimidating, which fits with the fact that it is an intimidate check.
The true parallel from my interpretation would be that when you substitute a Bluff check for a Knowledge check, you use the quality of the bluff check, which is of bluffing, or falsehood.
I'm generally suspicious of phrases like "Can't we all just get along?" when what is meant is "Can't we all just use my idea?". Sorry.
I may end up using it anyway, just to avoid hassle, but I still don't understand the fundamental error that you seem to think I'm making.
|
I'm not sure this thread needs a universal agreement on how to run Pageant.
For example, I know of at least one GM in the local area that does allow Pageant of the Peacock to be used for any Int-based check regardless if the PC is preening/convincing others.
However, he doesn't allow the PC making that check to get the results of a "trained knowledge check", so when used for any knowledge check, the results cap at DC10 (which usually isn't enough for anything really useful).
You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10.
When the Peacock player uses Peacock for Knowledge, he asks the binary question - "Are you trained in that knowledge?". Depending on if the answer is yes or no, he will limit the results at DC10 as his read of Peacock says nothing about ignoring that specific rule for knowledge checks.
I'm fairly certain I'll see at least a half-dozen different ways that GMs officiate Peacock over the next year. I think players are kind of getting used to the wide variance and potentially retraining it away if it was critical to them in certain interpretations.
The fundamental error is comparing EX abilities to SU abilities and expecting them to relate exactly as nicely and mundanely as the other. There are other errors, but they stem from that one I think.
I don't expect them to. If I did, I'd be arguing that I was correct, as opposed to arguing that it's ambiguous.
The trained/untrained thing is actually the response I got from the rules forums about a week before this thread started as well. I'm good with that. Vanilla bards aren't affected by it because of Bardic Knowledge, but my bard (if this doesn't get banned from this thread before I get my bard to 4) gave up bardic knowledge and would need to have a rank in every trained-only int skill he wanted to use this for.
That's not consistent with your interpretation, though. In order for the trained/untrained thing to be applicable, you have to be making a knowledge check (because you can't attempt knowledge checks untrained). The ability clearly states you are making a bluff check. Unless you are claiming it counts as both a bluff check and a knowledge check, which opens up all sorts of problems.
So, while I admire any attempt to scale back this ability, there's no basis for requiring that they need to be trained, if your view is that they really are making a bluff check.
Ok, so let me clarify, then.
Suppose I had an ability that said something like "When you make a Bluff check, you can roll twice and take the better result." Right?
Suppose further that we take your view that it is still a knowledge check, just using your bluff number.
It would be your position, then, that the made up ability could not actually apply, since it is a knowledge check, not a bluff check?
|
|
Only 40 more posts and this thread can surpass the GM Shared Prep sticky in post count!
Who'd have thought this could be more heated/controversial thread than Risen from the Sands or Waking Rune... with such little risk of PC death?
Incidentally, this has been a fairly civil discussion around rules in PFS. It may have set a record for a rules based discussion without moderator involvement in some form. :)
@DrakeRoberts
See, I understood your position when I thought you were arguing "Yes, it's a bluff check, it acts like a bluff check, except that it lets you do things that a knowledge check does." I don't agree with that argument, but I find it at least defensible.
If what you've actually been arguing is "No, it's really a knowledge check that uses a bluff bonus," then that argument is completely indefensible. Why? The ability says you "may attempt a Bluff check". You would literally be arguing that although it says to attempt a bluff check, it doesn't really mean a bluff check. And then further arguing that such an interpretation is clear and unambiguous. This is absurdity.
Your argument is much stronger under the first interpretation.
The motivation on the boards to require training in a knowledge check is, I think, completely motivated by balance concerns.
Though I share those concerns, obviously, and I'd like to be able to place more limitations on it, I really don't think there's any basis for it if you're going to call it a Bluff check *shrug*. You can't make knowledge checks untrained, but you're not making a knowledge check.
Perhaps it doesn't require training, although majority opinion seems to say it does. I'll admit I've gotten a bit twisted up in things as well due to a post made about versatile performance and what does/doesn't transfer.
Heh. I was just thinking about a bit ago how little majority opinion means in rules debates. It's so informed by personal biases and desires (and don't get me wrong, I'm not counting myself immune to this).
The confusion about versatile performance is why I made the earlier comparison to it, to distinguish between using the bonus of one check for another type of check, and replacing one check with another. The two things have different effects.
You can make knowledge checks untrained, but only if the DC is 10 or less.
True, true; I humbly accept the correction. The larger point stands, though.
So, let me see if I can fairly summarize where we stand.
We both agree at this point that it is actually a bluff check being made. We agree that any abilities or modifiers that apply to a bluff check would apply to use of the ability.
We disagree about what the bluff check can do. You believe that the bluff check can accomplish whatever the skill it is replacing can accomplish. I believe that a "bluff check" has inherent qualities which limit the nature of what it can do.
Your argument for why I am wrong is that the supernatural nature of the bluff check removes any such limitations than an extraordinary bluff check might have.
My counter to this is that, while that is possible, it is also possible that the nature of a bluff check (lying/misrepresentation/misleading) is fundamental to what a bluff check is, as opposed to an extraordinary limitation.
Is this fair? If I've misrepresented your position in any way, please let me know.
If I haven't misrepresented you, then we may have to leave it there. I certainly have no evidence to bring against your interpretation, but it's never been my goal to prove that your interpretation is wrong.
*citation needed*
Um... the last dozen posts? Wherein it was made clear that using a bluff bonus for a knowledge check has different effects than making a Bluff check in place of a knowledge check.
Starting from here
If you'd like me to summarize the differences, though:
If you are using a bluff bonus for a knowledge check, then since it is a knowledge check, it is subject to the properties and limitations of a knowledge check, such as requiring training.
If you are using a bluff check in place of a knowledge check, then it is a bluff check, and so subject to abilities that affect bluff checks.
None of those are actual evidence, they are your suppositions. Evidence might include a developer comment or reference in the PRD that such a difference exists.
That's fair. Let's assume, then, that there is no difference, and see where our conclusions lead us.
Supposition: there is no distinction between using a bluff bonus for a knowledge check, and using a bluff check in place of a knowledge check.
Claim 1: If you use a bluff bonus for a knowledge check, then it is still a knowledge check, and counts as a knowledge check for abilities that affect such checks. This is just as if you use Versatile Performance to make a Intimidate check, it still counts as an intimidate check.
Claim 2: Given the supposition and claim 1, using a bluff check in place of a knowledge check is actually still a knowledge check.
Claim 3: Given claim 2, despite Pageant of the Peacock saying "attempt a Bluff check in place of an int-based check", it doesn't actually mean "a bluff check". In other words, it literally does not mean what it says.
Conclusion: Based on the supposition, you are arguing in the most literal and direct way that the words "attempt a bluff check" do not mean "attempt a bluff check". Any claims you have to clarity or unambiguity crumble to ashes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are using a bluff bonus for a knowledge check, then since it is a knowledge check, it is subject to the properties and limitations of a knowledge check, such as requiring training.
This is essentially how I approach the whole replacement check business. You get the bonuses for rolling the bluff check, but after the result is calculated the result is then evaluated per the rules for the check being replaced. I think it's totally fair game to impose the training requirement rule in this case.
@Acedio then you are arguing very directly that the ability does not mean what it says. That you are not making a bluff check, despite it saying "attempt a bluff check"
On the other hand, if you are claiming that it counts as a bluff check in some ways, and a knowledge check in other ways, your division is completely arbitrary. On what basis are you claiming that it counts as a bluff check for purposes of the roll, but a knowledge check for purposes of limitations on training?
We are simply back to you making stuff up because you dislike the ability.
I'd also really appreciate it if you'd stop impugning my motives. I get that you've taken a dislike to me, or whatever, but it's not necessary. We're arguing about rules, not about serious ethical matters.
I'll also note that if my only motive was to nerf the ability, I wouldn't be arguing against requiring training.
|
|
It's really quite simple. You're doing a knowledge check, but you're actually rolling a bluff check. Because you're rolling a bluff check, you get the modifiers associated with rolling a bluff check from your character's build. But the results of said check are evaluated as if it was a knowledge check.
Let's go back to weapon snatcher for some context.
Here, you're making a disarm attempt, but you get to roll a sleight of hand instead. Because you're rolling a sleight of hand, you get your sleight of hand bonuses. However, you can't do the SoH as a move action (per the SoH rules) because you're confined to the use of SoH as a Disarm. You therefore have to use SoH in the same way you would use the disarm. You'll also note that normally SoH is against an opposed perception check from the target, but this doesn't happen because Weapon Snatcher treats the SoH roll as if it was a disarm, which is the entire point of the ability. If you have feats that augment your disarm such as improved/greater disarm, you may or may not get bonuses to your check from those depending on the wording. Because it says "checks" and not "disarm checks" you get the bonuses. Cool.
For this, you're doing a knowledge check. You roll a bluff. You get the bonuses you have from rolling the bluff (likely skill focus or racial traits). Because the penalties for rolling a bluff check don't apply in this context, they don't happen. After you figure out the result your roll, you evaluate as if you had rolled a knowledge check. Because that's ultimately what you're doing in the big picture, it's just you're rolling something that has different modifiers attached to it instead.
Edit: But it's getting more difficult to participate in this debate because people are getting heated, so I'm just going to step out and let others cool off.
It's really quite simple. You're doing a knowledge check, but you're actually rolling a bluff check. Because you're rolling a bluff check, you get the modifiers associated with rolling a bluff check from your character's build. But the results of said check are evaluated as if it was a knowledge check.
And where in the world did you get that interpretation from? That it's rolled as a bluff check, I mean, but evaluated as if it was a knowledge check?
You are actually saying in this paragraph that it counts as both a knowledge check and a bluff check in some weird and arbitrary manner. If they have an ability that lets them re-roll knowledge checks, can they use it? If not, why not? What about an ability that lets them re-roll bluff checks?
There's no basis at all for saying it counts as a bluff check in this way, and a knowledge check in that.
Edit: But it's getting more difficult to participate in this debate because people are getting heated, so I'm just going to step out and let others cool off.
Heat is sometimes necessary if you want light. I'm not taking it personal-like, though, if you're not. :)
|
|
And where in the world did you get that interpretation from? That it's rolled as a bluff check, I mean, but evaluated as if it was a knowledge check?
Here and here we see that effectively an ability with this wording
There?
I feel like you're resisting an ability that allows you to make a check in a situation where it does not apply to serve a purpose it does not normally serve with the logic of "that's not how the check is supposed to be used or what it's supposed to do." Normally that'd be correct, except for situations where you have these abilities...