To be fair if being good skills made you "all powerful" then Rogue wouldn't be considered bad. But he is.
To be fair, part of the reason the rogue is bad is that a bard with Versatile Performance is already better at skills than he is.
Where does "gamebreaking" come into play?
Oh, it's not likely to "break" any given game. In running home games, I'd be more concerned with it making any other build with skills be redundant, or other players with skills unnecessary.
My general problem is, again, that it makes this one, very specific build the obvious best skill monkey in the game.
Anything that is so good that it's obviously "best" makes the game worse, because it restricts choice for players who feel they should try and 'optimize'.
No, a rogue would still be bad because being dedicated primarily to skills is bad if that's all ya got. Skills are handy, but being good at them does not make you "all powerful." With that in mind I agree with BBT: How is someone being good at a lot of skills breaking the game?
I don't think you can blame players for a badly designed game aspect.
Players are under pressure to be "effective" in most situations, whether PFS or in home games. A well designed game balances choices of effectiveness, it doesn't leave only one clear choice.
Of course there are other roles, but do you honestly think that it's a desirable thing that in any "optimal" party, the "skill" role is always played by a Bard with Pageant of the Peacock? Is that a well designed game?
Two points to that:
One, there is no truly optimal party, because it always depends on the situation. Hence the quotations. By "optimal" I simply mean a party designed by players trying to optimize their characters.
Two, if the gap between the "best" choice and any other choice is massive, as I claim it is here, then any party even approaching optimization would use this specific build. Which, again, makes the game worse, not better.
|
I don't understand.
There is always going to be a "best" option.
Going for any focus, there will be a best race, best trait, best feat, best spell, or best class ability.
If you want every Race/Class to be perfectly balanced, then you are playing the wrong game.
You can try 4E. Where all the classes are exactly the same.
Here's what I don't want. I don't want a game where, any time a group of people who enjoy building optimized/effective characters sits down to build a party together to play an upcoming adventure path, and decide that they want a skilled character, one of them inevitably agrees to be a Bard with Pageant of the Peacock.
If you think there is no problem with that scenario, then we just have very different views on what makes a good game, and we needn't continue arguing.
The optimal party will by definition be the one that stands the best chance of succeeding in the widest variety of situations.
That's your definition and it's not even well-defined, since you haven't given any bounds by which to balance the best chances and the widest variety.
Is a party that has a 90% of succeeding in 80% of situations "better" than a party that has an 80% change of succeeding in 95% of situations? Or worse?
Trying to define the optimal party is nonsensical.
That's completely arbitrary, and doesn't derive from any objective meaning of the word "optimal".
What if it's 90/80 and 80/90. Are they both "optimal" under your mathematical definition? How are you defining success? What if one party can 'succeed' more often, but has a higher chance of casualties.
There are far too many variables for you to reduce it to a ranking.
I was recently asked about this by one of my own players. I read the description provided for Pageant of the Peacock, and promptly advised that the use of Bluff for Knowledge implicitly means his Bard PC would be making stuff up and persuading other people he knew what he was on about. And that he should be fully aware that relying on anything I told him after a use of Bluff in place of Knowledge would be unwise.
Golarion appears to run on slightly different rules than reality, but it does NOT run on rules that different. Suspension of disbelief is ruined when any Bard can potentially know anything with simple performance. From my perspective, the 'this does allow Bluff to provide real Knowledge' interpretation is being pursued by people who want it to be true, without any apparent consideration for the consequences.
One major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.
My reason for posting this? I am unhappy with both the performance itself, and my handling of it, which seems to nerf it. What have other people done with it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC6zixT-MMs
If you're using bluff to get knowledge from the DM... then I feel that knowledge should be true and accurate.
I can make crap up on my own... I don't NEED a roll or info from the DM to do that. In fact that doesn't have anything to do with knowledge at all... that's just straight up Bluff RAW... You lie, and see if people believe it.
This ability, I see it as the knowledge/skill monkey/Jack of all trades guy knowing more then he thought he did. He has a bazillion facts and figures in his head... but frankly he has a tough time PROVING it.
I may be able to spout out how big Jupiter is... or how many earth years it takes for Neptune to complete their year... but I have NOTHING to back it up. I don't even remember where I heard it from... but the numbers are still in there.
If there was a debate going on with serious science being tossed around... it would be all bluff. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that WHEREVER he heard it... was wrong! The facts may be right, but he's pulling them out of his hat all the same.
...
This actually happens to me all the time... stupid tidbits from weird parts of the brain.
So, this only effects a group of players focused solely on pure optimization?
Nah, that's just the extreme end of the spectrum. "optimizer" is not a binary state; all players have an attitude toward optimization that exists on a spectrum. On one end are those who don't care at all about being effective, or the other are those who think it's the only thing that matters.
The more nuanced statement, then, would be that as you drew closer to the "optimization" end of the spectrum, Bards with Pageant of the Peacock would begin to dominate party choice for the "skilled" role, and after a certain point on the spectrum, they would be the only thing remaining.
Then each mission becomes probability of succeeding X Probability of Keeping each person alive.
This is a fully arbitrary formula that you made up. There is nothing clear about it, nor does it follow from the meaning of the word "optimal".
I can accept that you believe this is what optimal means, but it has no explanatory power, nor any objective basis which you can use to prevail upon others that it is correct.
@blackbloodtroll
Again, if you think it's "ok" that Bard with Pageant of the Peacock is the most effective skill monkey by a wide margin, then we just have very different ideas about what makes good game design, and I don't think there is much more to be gained in discussing it.
He still will not be the master of every skill.
No, not every skill, true.
I got Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Perform (Oratory), all Knowledge skills, Appraise, all Craft skills, UMD and Linguistics all being based on Perform (Act). So... that's one rank per level.
Let's assume he only has a 10 intelligence (he could easily have more, of course), and is not human. This leaves 5 more skills he can master, in addition to the above list. That's disregarding the later Versatile Performances he'll get.
And if he has a 12 intelligence and is human? He'll can have every important skill maximized. Add, say, Stealth, Acrobatics, Perception, Disable Device*, Intimidate, Fly, and Survival to the list of what he's mastered. Or sub in Sleight of Hand or Handle Animal, if the other members of your party can handle any of those.
*Granted, he still can't disable magical traps.
Actually its a completely common sense one.
No; I'm not sure you understand the difference between consistent and objective. Objective implies that it is the only formula that you could have possibly reached.
You made it up, but there are other formulae that could be made up to do the same thing, so there's no basis to say yours is the one true "correct" one.
True, but much more feat intensive, for much less long term gain. The Bard will easily outpace him, especially if he does things like take skill focus in Perform (Act), which then translates into a bonus for that huge list of skills.
The human improvisation wins for style, though.
To the idea that POTP produces infinitely high, rebalancing, knowledge checks, the lore Oracle with lore keeper, focused trance and think on it says check out my +36 before accounting for ranks or feats. Useable less times per day than POTP (which itself is not infinite) and after the first use it drops to only a +26 before accounting for ranks and feats but still... better knowledge checks and full casting.
What level is the character, and could you break down that bonus at all? I can't do a comparison with just that.
I'm should say that I'm not doubtful that it's the case that the Lore Oracle is better at knowledge checks in particular. But the Bard build above handles much, much more than just knowledge, with much, much less character investment. With a Lore Oracle, you're speaking of a very large chunk of your class features devoted to knowledge checks.
Again, what character level are you basing your numbers on? What charisma are you assuming? I want to know, so I can see what knowledge check bonuses I can get with a Pageant Bard at the same level.
Rudy2 appears to have done an excellent job of speaking about my perspective in my absence :) Boiling it down, yes, my entire problem with the Pageant of the Peacock is the 'knowledge arising from nothing' aspect of it...
To actually get back to answering your question, I really do think the best solution is just to remove it from your game; there is no easy 'fix' that doesn't introduce all sorts of complications.
Sure, say third level to get knowledges based off charisma and trance for the big +20 bonus a number of times per day equal to your charisma mod. Just for being a lore Oracle all knowledge skills are class skills. since you are a prime casting class assume starting charisma of at least 18? Ignoring any intelligence bonus or favored class bonus. Assume of the 12 skill points available at this level 9 have gone to knowledges? So that's 4/day make a knowledge check at +28 by level 3. It goes up in uses and bonus as you level.
Fair enough. Though I will note you can't use trance in combat, or in any situation where you need to make the check right away, so no identifying monsters, which is kind of a huge deal. Identifying monsters you're still at a +8.
The bard, admittedly, sucks at knowledge before level 4, because that's when he can get Pageant of the Peacock. So, I'm going to make him level 4, and just admit that at level 3 you win flat out.
I'll make him Azata-Blooded Aasimar, and I'll conservatively assume a 16 charisma (after the +2 racial). So, 4 ranks in Perform (act), +3 trained bonus, +2 racial, +3 charisma = +12, off the top of my head. If you are going with this build you would also get Skill Focus (Perform(Act)), and some other stuff, which would add to all of your knowledge checks at once. Has the advantage of being able to identify monsters in combat.
I'm, I'll confess, tired, so my analysis there is probably a bit shoddy. I'll take another look at it over the weekend.
One major consequence is this: if a Bard PC can do it, then a Bard NPC can do it. This would mean that their enemies in the campaign would eventually know EVERYTHING about the PCs. Down to what colour of socks they had chosen to wear that day, what their plans are, how much resources they have left, how badly they want to buy stuff... just imagine haggling with a storekeeper who knows everything about you.
Not a one of these examples is something within the purview of Knowledge checks.
Color of socks they are wearing is a Perception check.
Learning their plans is a Diplomacy check.
Learning what resources they have left is a Diplomacy check.
How badly they want to buy stuff is a Sense Motive check.
If you're using bluff to get knowledge from the DM... then I feel that knowledge should be true and accurate.Nope. PCs can Bluff all they please on my hapless NPCs. That doesn't mean the NPC will tell them anything more than the NPC knows. Because NPCs almost certainly don't know everything in-character. Or are you saying the Bluff skill should work on the GM?
The case is different with actual Knowledge Skills, which represent having studied the subject. There, if the DC is met, I will tell the truth as known to scholars who have studied that particular subject. If the DC is exceeded, I may tell more of the truth. In my view, no GM is ever under any obligation more than that, though. This is why visiting libraries is usually an excellent idea. :)
I'm not talking about getting info from the NPCs... I'm talking about getting the 'knowledge from nothing' aspect. If he's actually questioning people... by all means have them lie or be wrong or whatever...
But if someone asks how many elements on the periodic table... and he is using his ability to get the number FROM the GM... then that number should be accurate.
IF he made the roll of course. The idea is that you can substitute bluff for knowledge training. You can't PROVE or Cite where you got the information from... it came from the GM when I ask the question. There are still DCs for the check that I would have to make.
If it's going to be just another lie/guess/falsehood... I don't NEED the GM OR the 'substitute for Knowledge.' It's just a bluff check.
And really? Is this much different then Bardic Knowledge? It's still free Knowledge skill points just for being a certain class... They just reworked a few mechanics. What if this ability was 'add your full level to knowledge checks' instead of just 1/2?
One of my friends is playing a 'master spy' in Kingmaker. She has this ability....
Superficial knowledge: master spy gives the appearance of knowing more than she actually does. Starting at 3rd level, she can make untrained Knowledge and Profession checks pertaining to her cover or assumed identity as if she were trained and gains a bonus equal to half her level on these checks. For example, a master spy masquerading as a noblewoman can make untrained Knowledge (history) checks about the kingdom and Knowledge (nobility) checks about its noble and royal families as if she were trained, but she cannot make untrained Knowledge (nature) skill checks to identify herbs.
Same basic principle. You're putting on an act that you know more then you do... and get some right.
It's just a bluff check.
With a +4 bonus for it being a Masterpiece Performance in applied falsehood.
At the Heart of It All: +4 to CHA skill checks.
Illusion's Decree: +4 bonus on saving throws.
Rat Quadrille: Target gets -2 on attacks, -4 on a concentration check.
See a pattern there?
But yes, the best advice is probably not to bother with this headache and just ban it until an official clarification is issued.
It is very straightforward about what it does. The only people who don't think so only say that because they think its overpowered and therefore must be wrong. It lets you use Bluff "in place of" any INT check. That's super clear. You need to make an INT check to get information about ancient Sin Magic? You can use Bluff in place of Knowledge (Arcana). Note that succeeding hasn't changed, if you succeed you know about Sin Magic, you just change the skill you use to determine success. There's really no ambiguity, the side that thinks it's overpowered is just muddying the water. Pageant of the Peacock is about as ambiguous as Weapon Focus, and I don't see anyone arguing that applies to only one specific that if you lose or replace you are out of luck.
And seriously... are people really complaining about Bards getting lots of skills at low cost? I'll admit it is a *lot* of skills at a low cost, but I hate to break it to people but they've been doing that since their PF remake.
It is very straightforward about what it does. The only people who don't think so only say that because they think its overpowered and therefore must be wrong. It lets you use Bluff "in place of" any INT check. That's super clear.
This isn't the rules section, and this isn't another RAW discussion. We're not arguing about what it does by RAW here.
My issues with the ability have been adequately outlined above, in terms of outshining other options, and I see no need to repeat them, anyway.