|
Let me give a more PFS example. I have a sensei/qinggong/ki mystic monk. Let's say that one day, sensei was deemed too powerful and was banned (probably will never happen, but run with it).
You'd get a full rebuild, as stated on p28 of the PFS Guide. But this is a whole class, not a single feat/2nd-level spell known-equivalent ability.
I feel that every time an ability is taken away, a character concept is ruined.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
The two reasons for worry are because of the current trend of guidelines on retraining a lost ability,
As far as I know, out of the huge quantity of feats/traits/etc. allowed in PFS, there have only been two banned/altered in recent history (Crane Wing being the other). I hardly think it constitutes a trend.
I obviously can't know for sure, but I imagine Mike and John wish that PotP hadn't slipped through the net into Additional Resources in the first place. I think in general they do a great job at keeping things balanced and foreseeing 'problem' options.
|
Let me give a more PFS example. I have a sensei/qinggong/ki mystic monk. Let's say that one day, sensei was deemed too powerful and was banned (probably will never happen, but run with it).You'd get a full rebuild, as stated on p28 of the PFS Guide. But this is a whole class, not a single feat/2nd-level spell known-equivalent ability.
And even if there WAS a banning of the Sensei, you could make a Wisdom-based monk quite easily with a cleric dip for Guided Hand.
|
Let me give a more PFS example. I have a sensei/qinggong/ki mystic monk. Let's say that one day, sensei was deemed too powerful and was banned (probably will never happen, but run with it).You'd get a full rebuild, as stated on p28 of the PFS Guide. But this is a whole class, not a single feat/2nd-level spell known-equivalent ability.
Sure, in that case. A better example would probably be if Vital Strike was removed, and someone had built a character around single attacks each round (I know someone who has one, actually, and without vital strike his character would do far less damage. Far less).
I obviously can't know for sure, but I imagine Mike and John wish that PotP hadn't slipped through the net into Additional Resources in the first place. I think in general they do a great job at keeping things balanced and foreseeing 'problem' options.
Oh, I think they do a great job, too. My quandary is about the lack of rebuild.
|
|
And even if there WAS a banning of the Sensei, you could make a Wisdom-based monk quite easily with a cleric dip for Guided Hand.
|
|
And even if there WAS a banning of the Sensei, you could make a Wisdom-based monk quite easily with a cleric dip for Guided Hand.** spoiler omitted **
Eh, I made a wisdom based Martial Artist for a home game with Guided hand. Thanks to a very high Sense Weakness check and Weapon Specialization, damage was decent, and with mantis style and pain points the Stunning Fist DC was insanely high.
Different focus than a Sensei, but he was a very effective debuffer and was able to contribute to damage.
|
Ah, but because the performance has a duration of 10 minutes, and a day job is understood to be compensation for a long period of work, you cannot get a bonus to day job rolls from PotP as you would run out of performance rounds (despite the long duration).
[Pedantic]
You could make a good argument that as long as you have enough performance to last 8 hours you'd qualify. Which is only 16 rounds worth if you have lingering performance (maybe you'd also have to be able to start a new performance as a move action so bard level 7)[/pedantic]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul: But the question is do you get upset when some one else makes the knowledge check even though you are specialized in it ?
Actually, the level of randomness inherent in a d20 system does sometimes amuse/irk me, especially when the character with a +18 fails a check that the character with a +0 makes.
But no, it doesn't upset me if another knowledgeable character makes a check. They've spent significant resources to do so. A huge part of my distaste for Pageant is how incredibly cheap it is for a great many bards.
|
I find myself a bit disappointed on the banning of the PotP Masterpiece. In one of the threads discussing it, I mentioned there that I was planning on picking it up for my Bard who is a self-proclaimed Prince. The main reason was to use it as a way to help convince everyone (PCs and NPCs alike) that he really is a Prince (which was alluded to in the fluff text). Using it for Knowledge checks was to be a secondary use (and I probably would have used it only when no one else was able to make said check).
Lucky for me I didn't really lose much as I was already planning on putting ranks into Perform (Dance) for the Dance of 23 Steps Masterpiece, and PotP just naturally fit into my character.
Guess I just have to go with ordinary Bluff checks to convince people he's really a Prince. C'est la vie.
|
|
I obviously can't know for sure, but I imagine Mike and John wish that PotP hadn't slipped through the net into Additional Resources in the first place. I think in general they do a great job at keeping things balanced and foreseeing 'problem' options.
Absolutely. We need to cut them done slack. Given the amount of stuff that is published and given all their responsibilities it is inevitable that some things will be allowed that "should" have been banned. At which point you either ban it or allow it to remain. Both options having their problems.
|
|
Whoops, you're wrong! Condescendingly so, even!
Cost: Each masterpiece has an associated cost to learn it. Typically, a bard must spend one of his bard spells known of a specific spell level or select it in place of a feat. The bard can spend a bard spell known of a level higher than the listed level to learn a masterpiece (for example, spending a 4th-level spell known to learn a masterpiece that requires spending a 3rd-level spell known).
|
|
I think the real problem with Pageant is that it was way out of line with other masterpieces. If you look at most of the masterpieces they can be situationally useful, but generally not worth spending performance rounds for, much less a feat or known spell.
The only masterpiece I've ever seen anyone take that wasn't Pageant of the Peacock was someone with a hatred of oozes who took The Dumbshow of Gorroc to psuedo-blast.
|
|
Ah, but because the performance has a duration of 10 minutes, and a day job is understood to be compensation for a long period of work, you cannot get a bonus to day job rolls from PotP as you would run out of performance rounds (despite the long duration).
[Pedantic]
You could make a good argument that as long as you have enough performance to last 8 hours you'd qualify. Which is only 16 rounds worth if you have lingering performance (maybe you'd also have to be able to start a new performance as a move action so bard level 7)
[/pedantic]
Lingering Performance adds 2 rounds after a performance ends, not triple the duration. In order to get a full 8 hours, you need 48 rounds to gain any benefit, rather than 16.
|
|
I think the real problem with Pageant is that it was way out of line with other masterpieces. If you look at most of the masterpieces they can be situationally useful, but generally not worth spending performance rounds for, much less a feat or known spell.
Pallavi of Nirvana’s Blossoming is good. 100-foot radius Daylight that last minutes, while giveing Plant Growth (Overgrowth) to the area in light, while providing you and your allies normal movement in the growth. All for 3 rounds of performance.
|
|
Typically, a bard must spend one of his bard spells known of a specific spell level or select it in place of a feat.
Okay, fair enough. Although why any wizard would spend a class level, a feat, and a trait to be sub par to a pure bard when it comes to knowledge skills is beyond me (especially when a bard that is focused on knowledge skills will outshine a wizard to begin with).
|
|
Lingering Performance adds 2 rounds after a performance ends, not triple the duration. In order to get a full 8 hours, you need 48 rounds to gain any benefit, rather than 16.
Ah, but because the performance has a duration of 10 minutes, and a day job is understood to be compensation for a long period of work, you cannot get a bonus to day job rolls from PotP as you would run out of performance rounds (despite the long duration).
[Pedantic]
You could make a good argument that as long as you have enough performance to last 8 hours you'd qualify. Which is only 16 rounds worth if you have lingering performance (maybe you'd also have to be able to start a new performance as a move action so bard level 7)
[/pedantic]
Lingering performance does not apply to masterpieces.
Action: This line indicates the type of action performing the masterpiece requires. If it only requires a standard action to activate, being able to activate a bardic performance more quickly (at 7th level, activation is a move action, and at 13th, it becomes a swift action) applies to the masterpiece as well. Unless otherwise stated, effects or feats that extend the duration of bardic performance (such as the Lingering Performance feat in the Advanced Player’s Guide) do not apply to masterpieces.
|
|
Lingering Performance adds 2 rounds after a performance ends, not triple the duration. In order to get a full 8 hours, you need 48 rounds to gain any benefit, rather than 16.
Ah, but because the performance has a duration of 10 minutes, and a day job is understood to be compensation for a long period of work, you cannot get a bonus to day job rolls from PotP as you would run out of performance rounds (despite the long duration).
[Pedantic]
You could make a good argument that as long as you have enough performance to last 8 hours you'd qualify. Which is only 16 rounds worth if you have lingering performance (maybe you'd also have to be able to start a new performance as a move action so bard level 7)
[/pedantic]
Even if It lasted 8 hours, it's not an always on bonus, so you don't get to use it on a day job check. Crafter's Fortune was called out because it has a 24 hour duration, so is essentially always on. But, if you were basing Bluff on Versatile Performance, you're in luck, because you could just use Perform for your Day Job check in the first place.
As for Pageant being banned, I don't have the book, but it does appear controversial at the least, so that was probably reason enough. I could see an argument for someone who dumped Int but also took traits, etc. to turn skills into Int skills being put in a bad spot without a larger retrain.
|
It was not really controversial the end thought was it does what it says it does just some people were unable to accept that due to its fluff as for it being broken it really was used to benefit the party I see no such arguments against a mind chemest or lore oracle ruining a skill monkey bards day because they get massive perks for knowledge checks
Pageant of the Peacock itself wasn't a powerful ability on its own, but it was a highly build defining feat for a bard like weapon finesse is for any dexterity based build. it would be as defining to some bard builds as an eidolon is to the summoner.
imagine if you built a character around weapon finesse, only for weapon finesse to get banned and all you got to retrain only that one feat. the bards who depended on this masterpiece should be entitled to a full rebuild of their character.
yes, i avoid pathfinder society like the plague, but i am still crusading for the full rebuild for those who were depending on such a cornerstone ability only to have it banned. if pageant of the peacock were illegal in the first place, nobody would have focused their resources around this one potent non combat ability that requires a minimum of 4 bard levels and was the only masterpiece that was actually worth its cost. because it had practical repetitive uses that no masterpiece could match, because it was the only non-circumstantial masterpiece. it might not have been balanced against the other masterpieces, but it was balanced against 2nd level spells.
They already have a lot real and virtual skill points due to versatile performance and bardic knowledge. Bardic knwledge by itself make them knowledge monkeys.Plenty of Bard archetypes do not have Bardic Knowledge and/or Versatile Performance.
and that is what pageant of the peacock is for, it is a way for bards to make up the skill ranks lost by the loss of bardic knowledge and versatile performance. however, most of those archetypes lose something more precious, inspire courage.
|
|
and that is what pageant of the peacock is for, it is a way for bards to make up the skill ranks lost by the loss of bardic knowledge and versatile performance. however, most of those archetypes lose something more precious, inspire courage.They already have a lot real and virtual skill points due to versatile performance and bardic knowledge. Bardic knwledge by itself make them knowledge monkeys.Plenty of Bard archetypes do not have Bardic Knowledge and/or Versatile Performance.
You mean a way to gain power from an archetype for effectively NO cost, because bardic knowledge is completely obviated the second your get peacock? That's rarely the intent.
|
|
and that is what pageant of the peacock is for, it is a way for bards to make up the skill ranks lost by the loss of bardic knowledge and versatile performance. however, most of those archetypes lose something more precious, inspire courage.They already have a lot real and virtual skill points due to versatile performance and bardic knowledge. Bardic knwledge by itself make them knowledge monkeys.Plenty of Bard archetypes do not have Bardic Knowledge and/or Versatile Performance.You mean a way to gain power from an archetype for effectively NO cost, because bardic knowledge is completely obviated the second your get peacock? That's rarely the intent.
Well the staff allowed it, now they do not and you are stuck with that archetype because someone did not review the rule enough before the feature was allowed.
and that is what pageant of the peacock is for, it is a way for bards to make up the skill ranks lost by the loss of bardic knowledge and versatile performance. however, most of those archetypes lose something more precious, inspire courage.They already have a lot real and virtual skill points due to versatile performance and bardic knowledge. Bardic knwledge by itself make them knowledge monkeys.Plenty of Bard archetypes do not have Bardic Knowledge and/or Versatile Performance.You mean a way to gain power from an archetype for effectively NO cost, because bardic knowledge is completely obviated the second your get peacock? That's rarely the intent.
you mean the loss of a 2nd level spell known, which is actually a pretty heavy cost. and most archetypes that trade out bardic knowledge trade out a lot of other important things, like inspire courage or versatile performance
a 2nd level spell known is a bigger thing to give up than a 1st level class feature. but the loss of inspire courage for most archetypes is already the larger cost in most places, inspire courage never being traded for an equivalent advantage. always something weaker.
It is not a bigger thing than a 1st level class feature. You can easily gain it back with an FCB, a feat, or a page a spell knowledge. Class features? Not so much.
It is not a bigger thing than a 1st level class feature. You can easily gain it back with an FCB, a feat, or a page a spell knowledge. Class features? Not so much.
a feat is a pretty big thing to give up, the favored class bonus requires you to be a specific race, and the page is too expensive to really be affordable enough to be viable before levels beyond PFS play
Its exactly 4k to get that class feature back. 4 k for 10 skill points per level is obscene.
it's not even 10 skill points per level, it is the ability to use your bluff score to replace 10 predetermined skills that have very little relevance beyond highly specific circumstances to make the skills shine. it isn't equal to 10 skill points per level, it is a skill substitution done to mitigate 10 skills few people ever pick up and used to replace an old 3.5 class feature.
|
|
it's not even 10 skill points per level, it is the ability to use your bluff score to replace 10 predetermined skills that have very little relevance beyond highly specific circumstances to make the skills shine.Its exactly 4k to get that class feature back. 4 k for 10 skill points per level is obscene.
In a home game perhaps, but in the PFS campaign because of its importance on knowing what the heck it is you're fighting, what those floor tiles underneath you actually mean, and the significance of the iconography on the statue that just bit off the rogues hand that is 7 very relevant knowledge skills, spell craft, and a few more situational knowledges and bonuses.
8k for ONE skill point and a mere +1 for your int based skills via the mossy agate ioun stone isn't an uncommon purchase at higher levels.
|
|
For me, the sad thing about the situation is that the knee-jerk reaction is to just ban something rather than fix it.
While I agree with you - I'm guessing that many fans of Pageant would be every bit as grumpy about a nerf to bring it in balance with other masterpieces.
Perhaps it could have been nerfed into doing what some were arguing at one point - that it only affects Int skills insofar as it relates to bluffing. Frankly - that along with the +4 to bluff would still make it among the most powerful masterpieces.
|
For me, the sad thing about the situation is that the knee-jerk reaction is to just ban something rather than fix it.
It's not the PFS Staff's job to fix things. That's the job of the designers. PFS's default response to a problem rule is to ban it because that is generally the only thing they have the authority to do. Only rarely do they change something as that would undermine the authority of the designers. And the designers traditionally only make changes when there is a new publishing run of a given product.
Obviously Pageant of the Peacock is very powerful, that's why they decided to ban it. The issue I have is how severely limited the rebuild is for characters that have just lost such a powerful option that may have been quite central in their build.
this part i can understand, it is such a build defining feature, that the characters who use it need a lot bigger of a rebuild to get around it, because a feature like this, heavily influences how your character is built.
