I'm not sure where the double str and con bonuses are coming from. If I'm reading this right, inspire rage grants up to +6 to str and con (at 16th level) but I don't see anything in battle dance that would modify that.
yes, this would work, as Battle Dance is not a performance, but an rules-change to how your performances work. But, Rage Song isn't listed as one of the performances modified by Battle Dance (which is only Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics), so you'd need a GM ruling for that.
For my 2 cents, I'd allow it at my table, but then I'd seriously question the player who wanted to play THE party buff class that doesn't buff their party...
As merpius stated, morale bonuses do not stack.
Also, battle dance doesn't simply let you use any performance you have from any class and use it as a dance; it alters the performance feature gained by the bard class. Your skald abilities still work like skald abilities; you cannot battle dance (inspired rage).
Finally, even if the above were not applicable, the same source rule would nix it, same as if you tried to cast haste on someone twice to make them double-hasted.
As merpius stated, morale bonuses do not stack.
(...)
Finally, even if the above were not applicable, the same source rule would nix it, same as if you tried to cast haste on someone twice to make them double-hasted.
I might misunderstand you, but I think you've got it wrong. If Battle Dance was for instance from a prestige class that altered Bardic Performance, it would indeed double Raging Song's bonuses, just as it doubles the morale bonuses of Inspire Courage. Battle Dance modifies the performance, it's not a performance of its own. Likewise, it merely alters existing bonuses, it doesn't grant any bonuses itself.
That said...
Also, battle dance doesn't simply let you use any performance you have from any class and use it as a dance; it alters the performance feature gained by the bard class. Your skald abilities still work like skald abilities; you cannot battle dance (inspired rage).
This is very much true.
Hosestly though, while +8 Strength (at 9th level) may sound overpowered to some, that's the same attack roll bonus (and damage roll bonus unless two-handing) a straigth Dawnflover Dervish had four levels ago. Allowing it for a multiclass character would not break the game.
I'd seriously question the player who wanted to play THE party buff class that doesn't buff their party...
First, that's true for any Dawnflover Dervish or Archaeologist Bard, and second, Bard can be played in more ways than just "THE party buff class". If you have problems accepting that Pathfinder classes allow more than one playstyle, think of it as a Rogue with a different name (only not sucking).
I see, you're referring to the double bonus from battle dance itself, not stacking battle dance with some other performance. My mistake! There's no double-stacking or same-source happening here. (My one Dawnflower Dervish character died horribly before getting to make much use of battle dance, so my memory's a bit rusty.)
Unfortunately, battle dance still can't be used with skald performances, per above. But you could totally allow it without breaking the game, naturally. (There's a spell that grants +8 to Strength already, though it's limited to followers of one specific dwarven god.)
If you have problems accepting that Pathfinder classes allow more than one playstyle, think of it as a Rogue with a different name (only not sucking).
oh I don't have a problem, but then I do question it, like if someone jumped on the Cleric slot and said they're never going to cast a healing spell or channel. Sure you can do, but that class is kind of made for a certain job and the rest of the group may be put off when you announce you're the cleric/bard and you don't do your traditional job, at all. Or a pacifistic Barbarian, a Rogue who doesn't deal in traps or any other skills, a Wizard that only casts Endure Elements....(I've played with that last guy, ugh)
Archetypes often change a class's role. That's kind of the point--they alter the class to do something that the original didn't (or to specialize in one particular aspect of the original at the expense of the other aspects). I don't expect an elder mythos cultist to be a healbot, and I don't expect a Dawnflower dervish to buff the party with performances.
If you have problems accepting that Pathfinder classes allow more than one playstyle, think of it as a Rogue with a different name (only not sucking).oh I don't have a problem, but then I do question it, like if someone jumped on the Cleric slot and said they're never going to cast a healing spell or channel. Sure you can do, but that class is kind of made for a certain job and the rest of the group may be put off when you announce you're the cleric/bard and you don't do your traditional job, at all. Or a pacifistic Barbarian, a Rogue who doesn't deal in traps or any other skills, a Wizard that only casts Endure Elements....(I've played with that last guy, ugh)
What's a "Cleric slot"? I feel this is where we're diverging. You see, I've never played D&D. That's why I don't abide by any traditional group setup or party role presumption for classes. In Pathfinder, a Cleric can be a frontliner and a Fighter a mid-/backliner just fine. Likewise, there's no rule that says a party can't have two Clerics. No class or even 'class from the group of classes presumed to fulfill that role' is needed in Pathfinder.
Yes, if the party does have a cleric, I presume he can remove most ailments come next morning, but with Cardinal and Elder Mythos Cultist, not even using unused spell slots to heal at the end of a day can be presumed anymore. Any Cleric can use CLW wands without expending resources, though, so even an Elder Mythos Cultist who (rightfully) thinks that cure spells are a waste can still heal just fine.
I think if other players make presumptions about my character based on the class name, it's their duty to check if they're true. If the unBarb player didn't take Accurate Stance because they presumed my Bard would grant a circumstance bonus, that's not my fault. If you can plan the party, you can also ask about the player's actual builds.
|
You left the third paragraph out of Battle Dance:
Dervish dancers gain the inspire courage, inspire greatness, and inspire heroics bardic performance types as , but these only provide benefit to the dervish dancer himself.
Battle dance only applies to inspire courage inspire greatness, and inspire heroics
No doubleling of inspired rage, but there is a way to have two bardic performances up at the same time, at higher level.
You left the third paragraph out of Battle Dance:
Dervish dancers gain the inspire courage, inspire greatness, and inspire heroics bardic performance types as , but these only provide benefit to the dervish dancer himself.Battle dance only applies to inspire courage inspire greatness, and inspire heroics
No doubleling of inspired rage, but there is a way to have two bardic performances up at the same time, at higher level.
Did the skald class exist when the dervish dancer archetype was created? How could anything the skald brings to the table be considered or addressed by material that pre-dates its existence?
How would it matter? They aren't bards. They aren't a bard class and this is an archetype for a bard.
One with clear rules on what gets altered.
So the better reasoning is that the skald ability doesn't say it is compatible with the material that pre-dates it. When a rule pre-dates other material, that the rule doesn't mention the material it pre-dates is a terrible reason to exclude it. It is impossible to account for material that doesn't exist.
The better reasoning is that battle dance does exactly what it says it does--no more, and no less.
The better reasoning is that battle dance does exactly what it says it does--no more, and no less.
Yes I agree and stated as much.
Battle dance didn't and couldn't address anything from the skald class. What excludes battle dance from working with any skald abilities is that the skald abilities don't say they do, not that battle dance didn't mention the non-existent material.
If we are to exclude new abilities that aren't mentioned in the material that pre-dates it then a witch could not cackle to extend protective luck because cackle makes no mention of protective luck, for example.
The inverse situation to what he is saying would, however, allow them to be used; if Skald has specifically called out in particular performances that those performances could be used with battle dance, then they could. I believe that is born_of_fire's point; they could have, when they made skald, had some/all/whatever of that stuff work with battle dance. But they didn't.
Unless there is something specific, the non-existant specific doesn't trump the real, printed, general. ;) (you know, if you want a really confusing way to say it).
This precisely. How could they have included anything regarding the skald while creating the dervish dancer? Time travel??
"But they didn't" is all you need to know about it.
It isn't what they did when they made battle dancers. It's about when they made skalds. They could have addressed it Then, but tgey dont get those abilities. They don't get them so it doesn't matter. They don't mix.
Thanks for telling me what I've been telling you all along. You have to look at the new material to see how it addresses the old material. You can't look at the old material and say the new stuff doesn't apply because it's not specifically mentioned. It won't be. It can't be. This is my point.
Dude. Did you look at my example? I’m not saying a skald is a bard. This isn’t even about the archetype in question, skalds or bards AT ALL. It’s about the chronology of publications and how to apply the rules accordingly.
The person I responded to quoted rules from a book published in 2011 as justification for disallowing something from a book published in 2014. That makes no sense because there is no way for the author of the 2011 publication to anticipate and write rules for what will be published 3 years later.
What is so hard to understand about the statement that old material cannot account for new material so you must look at the new material rather than the old to see how they interact??
|
Dude. Did you look at my example? I’m not saying a skald is a bard. This isn’t even about the archetype in question, skalds or bards AT ALL. It’s about the chronology of publications and how to apply the rules accordingly.
The person I responded to quoted rules from a book published in 2011 as justification for disallowing something from a book published in 2014. That makes no sense because there is no way for the author of the 2011 publication to anticipate and write rules for what will be published 3 years later.
What is so hard to understand about the statement that old material cannot account for new material so you must look at the new material rather than the old to see how they interact??
Let me make a counter example.
Draconic
....
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell with an energy descriptor that matches your draconic bloodline's energy type, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
That bloodline arcana was printed in the first edition of the CRB in 2009. It will affect spells printed in the books that will be available in august. So yes, an older ability can affect new abilities if it is phrased in a way that will allow it.
If instead it was phrased in a way that preclude newer abilities from being affected you need a explicit permission in the new material to benefit from the old ability.
It is not "order of printing", what matter is "open to additions" or "closed to additions" or specific exceptions spelled out in the more recent material.