|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Outside the realms of reasonable? Very likely.
Clearly how the ability functions as written at the moment? Absolutely.
|
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.
This kind of falls over when you start to think about exactly how you're going to determine the penalty for the bluff check in question. It's easy for a normal bluff; you just have the player articulate exactly what they're doing or saying as part of their bluff and you determine what a reasonable penalty is. But how do you do that when the bluff check is being used to glean information as per a knowledge or appraise check? For that matter, what does that bluff even look like? Do you make them tell you a lie about what information they think they're going to get? That's basically meta gaming. Do you apply a blanket -20 penalty? They might as well use bardic knowledge.
I'm firmly convinced that all of this alternate interpretation is more damaging and problematic than the feat itself, as poorly rationalized and absurd as it is. The feat is clearly written. We have in this thread 4 or 5 guesses on what the intention is, but there's no consensus on the correct interpretation, and they've all got some issues when stood up against the text. I don't think anyone is saying that the feat as written makes a lot of sense, but it is not good to make up the RAI and run with that.
I'm very fond of the interpretation presented in the rules forum topic, and I think it imposes an appropriate limit to the feat while standing up to the text as written, and without utterly breaking it or imposing wild table variance.
EDIT: It helps "the medicine go down" if you keep in mind that Bardic Masterpieces are supernatural abilities.
|
That's basically meta gaming. Do you apply a blanket -20 penalty?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.
If it boils down to using Bluff to make knowledge checks to discern what a monster does, then yeah, its a -20, and then you get the +4 for Pageant.
|
|
I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.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.
I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.
|
|
What I'm seeing is a bunch of people who are doing their best to mangle the wording into something they feel is an appropriate power level, rather than saying it's too strong and working to get it changed from there.I don't believe, based on all the conversation here, that its as clearly written as you think it is.I don't think it's reasonable to take a very clearly written ability and change it because you don't like the power level. Is it too strong? Probably! But so are a lot of other things that I'm not allowed to change because PFS isn't my home game.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.
Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.
I mean seriously. If people want everything always run exactly RAW (or rather their interpretation thereof) and clarification or needed change doesn't or can't happen... then the only recourse (rather than let your GM come up with some reasonable interpretation) is to remove it from play.
Because as you are interpreting it, this ability is WAY outside the scope of what a single feat or 2nd level spell should be able to do.
|
|
EDIT: I'm strongly of the opinion that banning it is more beneficial than trying to impose arbitrary limits on it that don't have basis in rules.
So the other problem with the assertion that the bluff check used in place of an intelligence check constitutes a penalty for telling an impossible lie is that you're automatically assuming that the lie is impossible.
Why? Under what basis? Is this not contextual to who the lie is being told to?
Circumstances Bluff Modifier
The target wants to believe you +5
The lie is believable +0
The lie is unlikely –5
The lie is far-fetched –10
The lie is impossible –20
The target is drunk or impaired +5
You possess convincing proof up to +10
(excuse bad table quote)
Who is the target of the "lie" when a bluff check is used for a knowledge check. Is it the creature? Is it the rest of the party? Is it the user?
And depending on the target, how does the target know that the lie that you're some expert in their creature type is impossible? If you're posturing like you are an expert in that area (as per the feat description), is the lie not at the very least far-fetched, if not somewhat believable? Is feigning that you're knowledgeable about a field you know nothing about not the lie? Because it seems to me that it would eliminate "impossible" out the door.
That penalty is based on who is being lied to. And because the target of the bluff in the context of int checks is not spelled out at all in the feat, the interpretation that the bluff check needs a penalty for lying has no basis. It's too much to grasp for.
It seems to me that it's much more likely that this feat is providing an alternate use for the bluff skill akin to feint or pass a secret message, neither of which invoke a penalty for the infeasibility of the lie.
|
|
Well based on what Mark Seifter has said, the best thing I can do is lobby to get it banned in PFS.Then I believe you should do that, instead of insisting that it somehow lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible, despite containing no language to that effect.
I won't repeat it, cause its all through this thread.
But there certainly is language that says it lets you make bluff checks that would otherwise be impossible.
Not in those exact words. But it does essentially say that.
I'm very fond of the interpretation presented in the rules forum topic, and I think it imposes an appropriate limit to the feat while standing up to...
I popped back in to say that I saw that too, and I think it's reasonable. I'll still think it should be banned in PFS, and I still think it is meant to be read the way Andrew Christian describes, but that is probably a more straightforward way to introduce table variation that is very easy to explain to players, especially unimaginative ones, while limiting the power level to "powerful" instead of "ridiculously broken".
|
Is the fact there is GM variation in running Pageant that big of a deal?
Could a bard using Pageant of the Peacock, sitting alone in a 5x5 room start strutting about and remember an obscure bit of Osirion history? There's nobody to impress, but they can certainly dance around the room a bit, as long as they aren't bound.
1) Some GMs look at this and think common sense is: "nope, no way this bard can spout out some obscure Osirion history."
They base their rationale on the fact the ability says nothing about actually obtaining real knowledge, but all the text in the ability references convincing others you are knowledgeable when in fact you aren't.
2) Some GMs look at this and think, sure it's a supernatural ability, and while the bard is daft and possibly prone to spewing out nonsense as they strut about, they will spout out a real, true fact in the process.
They base their rationale that if you're told to use an Int-check, resolve it just like an Int-check would be normally resolved if it were used independently of the ability.
I have absolutely no issue that while playing PFS I will encounter GMs from camp #1 and at other times encounter GMs from camp #2.
A lot of bardic masterpieces are subject to the GM. I've quoted another level 2 one earlier which I think is an amazing, flavorful ability:
Effect: Your dance entices one creature within 30 feet that is able to see you, invoking every imaginable vice and craving until finally the desire the creature personally finds most appealing overwhelms its thoughts. You always know what your target wants, and, if you have the means to provide it, can offer it to the creature in exchange for a specific service...
In this case your bard starts dancing for the half-orc guard who's standing in front of the door with the prisoner behind that you want to release.
Sure, you could say you could've just rolled a Diplomacy check and bribed him to get him to leave his post... this ability must be worthless. Well, like Peacock and many other masterpieces, there's a lot that relies on your GM here. Who knows if this half-orc's deepest desire is to be a mime? Or to marry a blonde halfling lass? Or to murder the gnome who killed his cousin?
In the case of this masterpiece, I also accept rampantly wild table variation... as I always expect when a significant fraction of the ability/feat/spell's word budget is allocated to text like this.
What's the rush to lobby and ban Pageant (or any masterpiece, spell, feat subject to variations)? There's certainly a ton more other highly contentious area of the rules that wildly vary depending on GMs: How Diplomacy is handled. How circumstance bonuses are used. What bluffs are actually possible. How chases are run. How surprise rounds are handled. The list is quite long and has a bigger player impact that various GM stances on Pageant.
I'm pretty "low level" in the PFS GM things, obviously, but it's apparent from this thread alone that there is an awful lot of hostility to anything that has table variance. I would love if this wasn't the case, as I don't personally see a problem with it.
However, if the choice is between lobbying to have it banned, and having vitriol directed at me for varying my interpretation, I'll choose the first.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that there is an important difference between table variation due to legitimate ambiguity in the text, and table variation due to the GMs personal opinions on how content should work. The first kind is inevitable and fair game, a GM ultimately has to resolve the ambiguity to keep the game running. The latter is highly problematic, and as we can see here often leads content to range from overpowered, to nerfed beyond practical use.
As far as I am concerned, the text here is very clear but the rationale is difficult to understand, and it is not properly balanced. And this is causing people to introduce their own rulings in order to nerf it to what they believe are acceptable power levels. That's great for a home game, seriously, but for PFS it is not ok. People are literally making stuff up.
There are a number of ways to address the obvious problems with this feat, but trying to scrape for rules to use to nerf it is not the answer.
Seriously, the concrete problem here where this one feat overshadows entire builds is ultimately a social one. If someone has built a character to do knowledge checks and has put a lot of effort into being good at that, politely tell the Pageant of the Peacock user to ease up on the spotlight hogging.
And I believe there is legitimate ambiguity, due to the substituting a bonus v. substituting a check, and the first sentence. You don't agree. 'Legitimate ambiguity' is an incredibly subjective term.
That being said, I'm willing to go with the one check per use interpretation, despite not agreeing with it, if it engenders less hostility.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM I want people to make knowledge checks. The writers take great oathfinder lore and make a story of it.
If the PC are dumb as rocks and can not make the knowledge checks to learn this lore I feel they are missing part of the scenario.
If that allows them to identify the monster once they see them, well that is fine them. identifying monsters is pretty much the same boat.
|
And I believe there is legitimate ambiguity, due to the substituting a bonus v. substituting a check, and the first sentence. You don't agree. 'Legitimate ambiguity' is an incredibly subjective term.
That being said, I'm willing to go with the one check per use interpretation, despite not agreeing with it, if it engenders less hostility.
If you were going with a different argument I might buy that you had a legitimate interpretation difference, but that particular argument is nitpicking the rules to a level that would make writing anything impossible.
Yes, yes, you've said so already. I believe there was a comment about splitting atoms, or something. Opinion, though, and if people are going to be concerned over RAW, I have yet to see a good reason why it wouldn't be worded like Versatile Performance is.
You don't agree, fine, neither of us will agree with each other, tired and repetitive for both of us. What I'm going to do is pretty much set, it's just a matter of which table variation I'm going to use (one check per use, or the actually-is-lying version). That's a decision I'll make on my own, after discussing it with players that I actually game with, though.
Yup. Disagree. A knowledge check is more than just a d20 roll. It's a d20 roll that lets you do know something. A bluff check is a check that lets you lie (and feint). So, substituting a bluff check for a knowledge check is, in my view, substituting (a check to lie) for (a check to know). You are lying "in place of" knowing.
I'm well aware that you disagree, but unless you have some pretty concrete textual evidence that this interpretation is flatly wrong (in which case I'm willing to listen), you're just going to be dragging this out pointlessly for both of us.
I've read through the "Skills" section of the Core Rulebook three times today, and can't find anything that goes against my interpretation. So, I'm not sure where you are getting the "definition of the word check" that goes against my interpretation.
That being said, I'll have a look at the SKR quote to see what you're talking about, either tonight or tomorrow.
If you're referring to this, I honestly have no idea how that contradicts my interpretation... perhaps I'm just being slow, though.
And just to be sure that we're not entirely talking past each other, let me make it absolutely clear that I'm well aware that a "check" is a d20 roll plus relevant modifiers. My claim is that a "knowledge check" is a specific kind of check, that has its own properties, such as being able to provide knowledge to the character making the check.
|
|
So correct me if I'm wrong, but your point with the versatile performance is that it's inconsistent that Pageant of the Peacock substitutes a check whereas versatile performance substitutes a bonus. Therefore you're claiming that its a typo or a mistake?
If that's the case, Pageant of the Peacock is not the only feat/ability that allows substitution of an entire check for a different use. Weapon Snatcher for instance allows substitution of sleight of hand check for disarm (which on a side note is a key ability to getting a 40+ to disarm). I'll give you that this substitution makes more sense, but it's not unique to Pageant of the Peacock. Bonus is used in one and check is used in another because they're completely different abilities. They're just different. It'd be like comparing Snake Style to Side Step Secret (lore oracle) and saying that Snake Style should only give sense motive bonus to AC because Side Step Secret is only a bonus.
But really, claiming that it should have been worded like versatile performance has less basis and is based far more on conjecture than the argument that the bluff check should be given a -20 for an impossible lie. There's next to nothing to suggest it.
Nope. Not claiming that it should be worded like Versatile Performance. Claiming that because it isn't worded like Versatile Performance, you cannot necessarily assume that it works like Versatile Performance. That's all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, so lets go down that path using Weapon Snatcher as a precedent.
Here and here we see that effectively an ability with this wording:
Benefit: 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.
replaces their sleight of hand bonuses for their CMB when making a Disarm combat maneuver. They still get the benefit of Improved Disarm, because they're ultimately making a disarm maneuver (just with the sleight of hand bonuses) and they're not subject to the awareness clause in the sleight of hand ability. After the replacement, it functions as the check being replaced. So now what is originally a sleight of hand check is made versus the target's CMD instead of an opposed perception that is spelled out in sleight of hand.
I'm going to go join the camp that says the lack of additional clarification text that's present in Versatile Performance is a non issue.
But yeah, there's a precedent for this kind of check replacement, it's been around for a while. The only problem is that this particular replacement is waaaayyyy too flexible and kind of hard to picture.
EDIT: Fortunately for us, because the bluff check is being done in place of the knowledge check, skill focus for the check being replaced doesn't apply because of it's wording.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Rudy, for all I think that other people are overreaching the feat and that it needs scaling back to meet the way it is written, I think your "replace check vs replace bonus" is grasping at straws.
Acedio, one point I am stuck on, when the check is replaced, does the DC stay the same? For example, in weapon snatcher, does he use his slight of hand against their CMD? or their Perception?
I know that in the case of the Gnome Prankster, which has the same wording, they get an additional bonus if they beat the opponents CMD by 10, which implies that you only replace the PC's side of the check, the DC stays the same.
Why would skill focus for the check being replaced be a concern? You just get Skill Focus (Bluff), and then that adds to ALL the skills being replaced.
In any case, in the Weapon Snatcher case, the reason you get the Improved Disarm bonus of +2 is because it says "In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to disarm a foe.", it doesn't say you receive the bonus on combat maneuver checks made to disarm a foe, so that doesn't prove anything (for either of our arguments, admittedly). And I would argue that they are not subject to the awareness clause because the feat specifically lets you do it; specific trumping general.
As for Versatile Performance, the only reason I even brought it up as an issue is that I thought that most people would look at Pageant of the Peacock and think "oh, that works like Versatile Performance", so I thought it important to point out that the wording is distinctly different. This isn't proof that it doesn't work like Versatile Performance, I am happy to admit, but it does mean we can't assume that the two abilities work in a similar manner.
Are there any other examples similar to Weapon Snatcher? This is a serious question, not a taunting one. That example, for the reasons I gave above, doesn't help either case one way or the other, but if there are examples for which my interpretation of "no, a knowledge check is a a specific kind of check with specific properties" doesn't hold up, then that could be more conclusive.
Rudy, for all I think that other people are overreaching the feat and that it needs scaling back to meet the way it is written, I think your "replace check vs replace bonus" is grasping at straws.
To understand your position, it is your belief that appending the word "knowledge" to the word "check" has only the function of changing the bonuses that the check receives? For example, a "knowledge check" is the same thing as an "acrobatics check", except for the bonuses that are applied?
I think that a "knowledge check" has the property of providing knowledge. You believe this is an incorrect interpretation?
Sleep for me now, but I will respond tomorrow to further posts challenging the interpretation. If there is a good reason to think that skill checks cannot be thought of this way, I would like to know it, since it informs the entire way I've been looking at skill checks for years.
"You are grasping at straws", "That is nitpicking" is not a 'good' reason without supporting details.
|
|
Ah, the meaning of my skill focus point was that in reading Improved Disarm I was worried that similar wording was used on Skill Focus, such that you could stack Skill Focus (bluff) and Skill Focus (Know(X)) but that is fortunately not the case.
But I'll speak for myself when I say I was not evaluating Pageant of the Peacock through the lens of Versatile Performance (or the lens of any other ability up until my previous post for that matter).
More examples are good to look at because there is likely a trend in how similar replacements are dealt with.
A quick search yields the following abilities which allow replacement checks:
Benefit(s): 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.
This seems like a pretty good example to look at. You make an escape artist check in place of a reflex saving throw. An analogous question would be "do you get evasion." I would say yes. Technically, you are making an escape artist check, and using it as a reflex saving throw for the purposes of this ability.
If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Also in Escape Artist Skill
Grappler
You can make an Escape Artist check in place of a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple or to change from a pinned condition to merely grappled.
You can make an Escape Artist check in place of a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple or a pin.
This one's kind of obvious and pretty well known, but I'm not certain its a good example.
Rules. I love them and I hate them. Unless I'm mistaken, the concept of this game is to have fun and tell a good story. If any of the rules are a detriment to either of those aims, they should be ignored. I absolutely despise it when some rule interferes with a good story.
That having been said, it seems that ignoring the rules may not be an option in Official PFS play.
My advice would be to inform your players that just because something is allowed in the rules does not mean that it is best for your table. Cite your specific pet peeve (see also other completely legal but game balance destroying race/class/feat/skill/gear combos) and how having it in the game made you feel like GM'ing was a difficult and painful chore. Don't be melodramatic, just be honest.
Few players want to hear that their GM's heart isn't in it... Nine times out of ten that signals an imminent end to a campaign.
If they ignore you and populate the game with things that they know you hate, then it is clear that your players don't care about whether or not you are enjoying your shared playtime together. They feel you owe them a game on their terms, and to heck with your opinions. The only solution to that is different players. That's all there is to it.
DM'ing *should not* be an unpleasant obligation: It should be every bit as fun as playing on the other side of the table. If a player(s) make that impossible for you, then don't do it for them.
|
|
Yes, yes, you've said so already. I believe there was a comment about splitting atoms, or something. Opinion, though, and if people are going to be concerned over RAW, I have yet to see a good reason why it wouldn't be worded like Versatile Performance is.
You're assuming that everything is worded the same when it patently is not in this game, mostly because it would be boring to read.
Your argument that there is a difference between the two and that the difference is raw is based on the notion that there is only one way to phrase something, and that is patently not the case.
________
Table: Skill Check Bonuses Skil: Skill Check is Equal To*
Untrained: 1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained: 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier
Trained Class Skill: 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier + 3
______________
The skill check and the bonus to it are the same thing, other than adding the D 20.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if there is one thing that I have gathered from this thread, it's that when my Bard picks up this Masterpiece (which is what it is, and not a feat, which some people have mentioned; just FYI), is this: declare to the GM about my having it before the game starts (or at the beginning of the game).
Something along the lines of "By the way, my character has Pageant of the Peacock. If you don't know what it does, here is a printout. I understand that there is some controversy surrounding this Masterpiece, so I'll use it however you say. I'm perfectly OK with using it only when other people have failed their Knowledge checks just to see if I can succeed, or if people don't have the appropriate Knowledge check. Regardless, the main use of it is to convince everyone, both PCs and NPCs, that this character is really a Prince." :D
Because at the end of the day, it's all about everyone having fun (both GM and players), and that's the main reason I like playing RPGs in the first place.
So thanks to everyone for allowing me to figure out how I want to present this Masterpiece to the GM in PFS. :)
Quick point: PotP doesn't mention "knowledge checks".
True, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. One of the ways in which it can be used is to make a Bluff check "in place of" a Knowledge check. This is an example, yes, but it's an illustrative one.
A quick search yields the following abilities which allow replacement checks:
Benefit(s): 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.This seems like a pretty good example to look at. You make an escape artist check in place of a reflex saving throw. An analogous question would be "do you get evasion." I would say yes. Technically, you are making an escape artist check, and using it as a reflex saving throw for the purposes of this ability.
If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
This is a good example, and I'm happy to admit that it is the first thing to have given me pause. However, I'll show that both of our interpretations lead to the same difficulties, though it will turn out not to be a major problem, in either case.
I am happy to admit that under my interpretation, evasion would not apply, since you wouldn't be making a Reflex saving throw, you'd be making an escape artist check.
But consider your interpretation. Your claim is that it is still a Reflex saving throw. Fine, but if it's a reflex saving throw, it's not an Escape Artist check, and therefore bonuses to escape artist would not apply. You may say in response that it is both a reflex saving throw (the thing being replaced) and an escape artist check (the thing replacing), and has the properties and bonuses of both. I hope you will see that the extension of this is that when you replace a Knowledge check with a Bluff check, it would count as both types of checks, and therefore get, for example, two skill focus bonuses. Or both bonuses to bluff and bonuses from Bardic knowledge.
I believe that both of our interpretations lead us to conclude that, by RAW, evasion does not apply. That being said, it's mostly a non-issue, because I can't think of entangling effects for which there is a "half" effect, so evasion is irrelevant.
Also in Escape Artist Skill
This one's kind of obvious and pretty well known, but I'm not certain its a good example.Grappler
You can make an Escape Artist check in place of a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple or to change from a pinned condition to merely grappled.
You can make an Escape Artist check in place of a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple or a pin.
Yeah, that one isn't a good example, as it works under either of our interpretations.
What I'd really like to find is another example of replacing one skill with another when the replacing skill could not actually do the thing it is replacing. That would be solid evidence against my position.
@BigNorseWolf. I agree that a skill check is a d20 roll plus relevant bonuses. My claim is that adding the prefix "knowledge" to the word "check" gives the check additional properties, which is not counterclaimed by your statements.
|
|
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 am not sure if anyone replied to this yet, but want to comment on Mark here...
Mark isn't that what the Golarion Rules and Questions FAQ is for?
@Dragnmoon, Mark already addressed that a bit further up.
@Primary Argument, So far, all of the other examples of things where one type of check is flatly said to replace another are situations where it "makes sense" for the replacing skill to work. Escape artist replaces saves against entangling effects, since Escape Artist is a skill that has the property of getting you out of stuck situations. Sleight of Hand replaces disarm, because Sleight of Hand is a skill that has the property (in one application, anyway) of grabbing things from an opponent.
In contrast, the other examples of things where the replacing skill wouldn't make sense normally, uses the "bonus" language. You've already had the Versatile Performance example, further examples are:
Cruel Anatomist: At 3rd level, a vivisectionist may use his Knowledge (nature) skill bonus in place of his Heal skill bonus.
Normally, a Knowledge check does not have the property of letting one do what the Heal skill does.
Combat Trickery (Ex) (Mythic Adventures pg. 45 (Amazon)): 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.
Normally, a Bluff check does not have the property of letting you Sunder, or Bull Rush, for example
This is not conclusive evidence, by any means, but it does reveal a pattern. "Sensible" replacements use the "check" language, where by sensible I mean a situation in which the action being taken fits with the properties of the skill/check that is replacing. Other replacements, where the replacing skill clearly would not normally make sense, use the "bonus" or "modifier" language.
|
|
You're forgetting rime metamagic. So the consequences of your interpretation would be that if a rogue chose to use an escape artist check to save against a cold riming fireball (as it leaves the entangled effect) they would not benefit from evasion because the replacement roll was escape artist.
Consider that the entire point behind these feats is to use a skill in which you have a better chance at success in place of another, to achieve the effect of the check being replaced. It makes no sense to do any such replacement if the check is being penalized for being of both types. Especially when some of those penalties are applied contextually to how to check is being used.
That's the consequences of your interpretation, too. Is it an Escape Artist check, or is it a reflex saving throw?
I agree that the intent is probably for it to apply, but it doesn't work any better under your interpretation.
Sorry, but I'm afraid that doesn't jive. If that's your claim, then you're saying that it gets both the benefits of what it is replacing, AND the benefits of what is replacing it. That is, the benefits of being an Escape Artist check AND of being a reflex save.
In other words, evasion is something that applies "when you make a reflex saving throw". If you want it to receive bonuses to escape artist checks, and evasion, you are saying it is both an escape artist check, AND a reflex saving throw.
If that's the case, then when you replace a Knowledge check with a Bluff check, it would receive the benefits of being a knowledge check AND the benefits of being a bluff check, such as getting bonuses to either. Is that your position?