D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy

[babomb]

I can understand that bard players wouldn't like having to spend more skill points in one skill for a mostly cosmetic benefit. On the other hand, I always thought the way Perform worked in 3.0 was weird.

However, it seems to me that the categories are broad enough that a bard would technically know MORE instruments than before. I can certainly think of more wind instruments than a level 20 bard could play with maxed-out ranks. A bard with only ranks in Perform(wind instruments) can play flute, panpipes, a wide variety of different horns, bugle, trumpet, clarinet, oboe, basoon, bagpipes, crumhorn, harmonica, shawm, hautbaois, whistle-pipe, recorder-flute, lur, trombone, tuba, and more, even at first level (albeit not especially well). At level 20, he is a master at all of those. Granted, you lose the ability to mix-and-match between types without spending extra ranks (like a bard who can sing, play a lute, a lyre, and a few wind instruments), which is nothing to sneeze at.

A few people have compared it to proficiency with individual weapons. However, look at the subskills. It's closer to proficiency with simple weapons, martial weapons, light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, and shields than to proficiency with dagger, short sword, long sword, etc. While it might hurt the bard who wants to be good at several very different types of performance, it makes a lot more sense. Anyway, bards get more skill points now, so if you max out three types (like singing, wind instruments, and string instruments), you'll have the same number of leftover skill points as a 3.0 bard. Max out two, and you come out ahead.

If you don't like the rule, give two ranks in different subskills for each skill point spent on Perform. It's hardly unbalancing.

 

[Technik4]

Compare a fighter who can use perhaps 24-odd weapons well. He can use them well in that his BAB applies to all of them. There are some that he can use better than others, for instance, if he has maxed out WF, WS, GWF, GWS, Imp Crit with 1 weapon, he will be far more effective with it than the other 23 weapons he chose. Note, his ability to use the other 23 weapons is not diminished, he can still use them and perform rather well, he is after all 20th level.

A 20th level bard may only have 1 instrument/aristic talent/what-have-you with the max, 24 ranks. However lets not be confused, there is no "non-weapon proficiencies" in 3rd edition. He could pick up a non-perform-maxed instrument and play well (as he would add his inherent Cha modifier to his playing). Perhaps he should have some synergistic bonus to playing other things well, after all it is 2 very different things, swinging a sword and singing a song. There is no reason a bard wouldn't have invested some skill points in other Perform categories though, dancing would certainly come in handy in a formal social setting, and drum-playing may work its way in against orcs or goblins who use drums as weapons of war.

"My question still stands: why is this level of abstraction acceptable for combat - which is a huge part of the game - and not for Perform - which is a miniscule part of the game?"

I argue the abstraction is different. Perhaps because of the nature of the mechanics, perhaps because of the nature of the 2 things, but in d&d when you compare BAB and perform you compare apples and oranges.

I think it silly to have a 20th level bard who has 24 different performance styles all maxed out. Much more ridiculous than the 20th level fighter detailed above. He has room for some generic feats that apply to all weapons, and room for completing (or half-completing) his chain of improving perhaps 1 more weapon, thats it. Bards get specific perform bonuses much easier than fighters get bonuses with specific weapons in 3.5

A 20th level 3.5 bard could spend 48 skill points and have 1 maxed perform skill, 1 with 10 ranks, and 2 with 5 ranks. The 3.5 bard would still have 4 skill points per level unallocated. A 3.0 bard could spend 24 skill points and have 24 maxed perform skills, but would only have 3 skill points per level unallocated. I know which one seems like it makes more sense to me.

Technik

 

[Felix]

BVB:

drnuncheon asked the question, I merely quoted it. It's his citation.

The question is based on a faulty assumptions: that the performance skill is a "miniscule" part of the game, and that weapon choices are abstract.

The perform skill is mentioned in a blurb within the Bard Class section, and in the Skill chapter. Compared to Combat, which has a chapter. Relatively speaking, performance is a miniscule part of the game. But perhaps I am talking to a all-roleplay-all-the-time player? How much time do you spend describing bardic (or monk) performances compared to time spent in combat?

If he assumed anything, it's that combat is an abstraction. [Weapon choices being part of that.] I have a hard time considering this an assumption, as I think it's pretty self evident. Combat is abstract; it does not model reality exactly. (I hear that GURPS has a nice precice system for realistic combat.)

-------

Since this is the second page of the thread, I figured I'd put up the categories again:

Perform:
Act
Comedy
Dance
Keyboard instruments
Oratory
Percussion Instruments
String Instruments
Wind Instruments
Sing

Let's say you had 10 ranks in Sing and 0 ranks in Comedy. And you wanted to sing a funny song. Would you roll Perform (Sing) because that's what you're good at? Or Perform (Comedy) because your inept comic timing would interfere with your song?

A better question: why should this question even be asked? As a lot of people have already said, there is little similarity between these 9 categories, so they should be seperate. What is that elusive similarity?

Stage Presence perhaps? Actors need it. (Al Pacino) Comedians need it.(Seinfeld) The great instrumentalists need it (Liberace, Yo-yo Ma, Louis Armstrong...) Public Speakers need it (Clinton and Bush). Dancers need it (Fred Asaire and Giner Rodgers). Singers need it (Barry White, R.I.P.).

If Stage Presence is the ubiquitous quality of great performers, why can the Perform skill not measure that, and the method of performance be damned? The answer is to find a mechanic to limit the number of performance types without limiting the presence of the bard; 3e did that, albeit rather ham-fistedly.

One last thing. Monks still get Perform right? Where do you stick their Kata?

 

[Technik4]

The similarity is the easiest thing for me to see. What is similar between arcana, religion, and geography? They are all studies of knowledge, they are all governed by Intelligence. What is similar between comedy, acting, dancing, and playing a musical instrument? They are all performances, they are all governed by Charisma.

The nice thing about "splitting" up perform is that heavy "role" playing groups can use them as seperate skills. Acting and Dancing for instance can be 2 seperate skills. You could even change the ability mod it is linked to, perhaps making Dancing based on Dex instead of Cha.

The reason I like the new Perform is that it makes so much more sense with the rest of skills. Look at Craft, Knowledge, or Profession. For investing ranks you do not get more subjects with which you can use those ranks, they are each considered seperate.

As someone suggested earlier, I think having 5+ ranks in perform give a +2 synergy bonus to another perform skill is quite alright. For instance, if you have 5+ ranks in dancing, you get a +2 on acting. Or 5 ranks in singing giving a +2 to lute playing.

I dont like that my poetic, contemplative monk had to pick up 4 other performance types when I wanted him to have 5 ranks in perform (poetry). I chose things similar to poetry, but it was a hassle the rules forced me to do. The new rules have no such "focred" feeling.

I do think that some characters (especially newbies) may need to be reigned in a little, for instance if they are making a bard and spend more than half their skill points on various perform skills.

Technik

 

[LightPhoenix]

(For my own reference):
Act
Comedy
Dance
Keyboard instruments
Oratory
Percussion Instruments
String Instruments
Wind Instruments
Sing

Well, being an amateur musician with about ten-ish years training on one instrument, I can tell you that I can at least understand the basic concepts of playing any of the instruments above. I understand pitch and rhythm, know a bit about how each one works. Does that equate to a Perform rank of 20 with each of those? Hell no. Most of these would probably be Cha mod (there's stage presence right there), synergy, and a couple ranks representing limited study. Knowing how to play a flute or horn is VASTLY different from playing a guitar or a drum set - try it some time. Besides the musical theory, there's almost no overlap.

A dedicated bard, like everyone seems to be talking about, is literally studying nothing but how to perform - every single skill rank is going towards those skills. They're not learning how to climb a rock face or brew a poison or sneak around - no time for that. If you want a performing bard, this is the price you pay. Most professional performers today can't play more than a few instruments anyway. Put Yo-Yo Ma on a euphonium and I'd be a better player than he would more than likely (and that's saying a lot). On a violin though, he'd be much better than I am, even though he is a dedicated cellist. There are certainly violin players better than he would be. So personally I think that for realism, these categories are STILL too broad, but for metagaming these work much better.

The only think I would change would be splitting wind instruments in woodwind and brass, since they are fairly different mechanically - double-reed instruments are a pain for me to play, for example. Give me a trumpet, french horn, trombone, euphonium, or tuba, and I can wail though. Under this system I should be able to play both equally well. Though it could go either way, it didn't take me long to get the hang of flute or clarinet.

Yeah, I rambled.

 

[drnuncheon]

You know, you guys are right. I'm convinced. Perform should absolutely be split up. But while we're at it, there are a few other problems I have with the skill system. It seems to me like most of these skills are way too broad. They encompass too many subdivisions, and that's just way too unrealistic for me.

Alchemy? Sure, there are some similarities between creating a tanglefoot bag and a thunderstone, but they can't be that great. Alchemy shoul dbe one skill for every different type of item, with maybe some synergy bonuses for related types.

Appraise? Someone who's knowledgable about good weaponry or furniture doesn't necessarily know antique jewelry from costume pieces. This skill should obviously be split up into areas of specialization.

Bluff? Someone who is an expert liar in a social situation shouldn't have to be a master of feinting in combat. This one should be split into Bluff and Feint.

Diplomacy should be a different skill for each culture one is expected to deal with, because the customs aren't the same when you're talking about orcish raiders from the north or the Byzantine interplays of the Sultan's court, and what will get you respectfully listened to in one place will have you lose your head in the other.

Disable device lets you get around not only pressure plates and tripwires, but also glyphs of warding - surely that should be two separate skills! They're so different, after all, and rogues have plenty of skill points.

Handle Animal should be separated by type of animal. Dogs are different from horses, after all.

Heal? Treating someone for poison is different than curing a disease, which is different from bandaging a wound. We'd better make this into three skills.

Open Lock? Padlocks use different techniques from combination locks or puzzle locks. Three skills here, because we wouldn't want to be unrealistic about things. Right?

Ride...ride should be a different skill for each kind of mount, don't you agree? Riding a giant eagle is nothing like riding a horse!

Survival should be split up, too. It could either be split by type of acticity - tracking, intuit direction, shelter building, etc. - or by terrain that you are familiar with surviving in, because surviving in the jungle takes different skills than surviving in the arctic. To be safe we'd better split it up both ways.

...then again, maybe leaving 'Perform' as a single skill isn't any more unrealistic than anything else in the skill system.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ride...ride should be a different skill for each kind of mount, don't you agree? Riding a giant eagle is nothing like riding a horse!

It already is.

From the 3.0 SRD:

Ride (DEX)
When the character selects this skill, choose the type of mount the character is familiar with. For this purpose, "horses" includes mules, donkeys, and ponies. If the character uses the skill with a different mount (such as riding a giant lizard when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 2 (but not below 0). If the character uses this skill with a very different mount (such as riding a griffon when the character is used to riding horses), the character's rank is reduced by 5 (but not below 0).

-----

Any reason this wouldn't work for Perform?

You can max out your Perform: Woodwind to, say, 10 ranks. You can then use 8 of those ranks to play a trumpet, or 5 of those ranks to recite a poem.

If you want to recite poetry just as well as you play the clarinet, you need to spend 10 ranks in Perform: Poetry, which would also give you the equivalent of 8 ranks in related performance styles like Oratory or Ballad...

-Hyp.

 

[Technik4]

Replying to drnucheon:

Alchemy now falls under Craft.

I daresay that someone who could accurately price an armchair could also price a rare jewel or an intricately made sword. These people tend to devote a lot of time and energy to such things, and I believe there are whole TV shows concerned with it. There are also less "things" in general in a medieval setting.

Bluff arguably should be split into Bluff and Feint. However it is not so much to say that a gambler who bluffs well in cards would also bluff well in combat, as long as he knows how to fight. The "bluffing" part is whats difficult to get down, what you apply it to is the easy part.

Diplomacy is basically the curbing of ones tongue and the skillfull employment of tact. Being a good diplomat transcends mere vocal language and applies with how you carry yourself, how you react, etc. If you have many ranks in Diplomacy you would know how to be diplomatic towards elves, dwarves, troglodytes, and dragons, you would change your tactics based on what you know about who you are dealing with, but the strategy employed would be the same.

Disable Device possibly should have 2 components, a magical and a non-magical version. However most rogues have to give up enough to get by standard "locked" things: Search, Open Locks, Disable Device - 3 skills to basically do one things as it is. I would say that as a younger rogue you learn the mechanics, and as you get older you begin to become steeped with knowledge of the arcane, able to bluff your way past the mightiest glyphs

I think youre just getting silly with Heal. While treating 3 different wounds is not "exactly the same thing" it is not necessarily 3 different things. All of the basics apply, there are only so many afflictions (read- less broad afflictions than say notes in music) and the ways to treat them overlap a lot, usually involving leaving them lying down, applying pressure, and making an ungent.

Open Locks, assuming you are interested in opening locks I assume you would check out all what - 3 varieties? This is becoming a pretty weak arguement.

Ride is a different skill for different mounts, IIRC.

Survival seems to be a good catch-all type skill. Hopefully it has many synergies with Spot, Listen, Knowledge (Nature) being a few of the more obvious ones. I think this is one that doesnt really have much of a leg to stand on, so I won't bother defending it.

Your arguement seems flawed from a few points. You seem to think that Perform has been split into infinite divisions while it has only been split into 10. While Knowledge (Nature) and Knowledge (History) may have little to do with each other, they are both studies of knowledge. In the same way, while Dancing and Singing may not necessarily have anything to do with each other, they are both considered "performing arts" are they not?

Perform has always been in the sub-category of skills like Craft, Knowledge, and Profession. Your attempts to make it seem like everything should be divided up are pretty weak, I hope it was a post going for a smile, not trolling.

I do think a good "easy" fix would have been to tie a Perform bonus to the level of bard you have obtained, thus simulating that a 20th level bard can "pick up" any instrument and run with it. Base Perform Bonus anyone?

Technik

 

[Felix]

Technik4:

The nice thing about "splitting" up perform is that heavy "role" playing groups can use them as seperate skills. Acting and Dancing for instance can be 2 seperate skills.

So you impliment a flavor change with the result of making the Bard class mechanically weaker (by reducing the number of skill points available if a bard wanted to do 2 things well)? If the heavy "role" playing groups were so role-play heavy, why worry if they have two skills instead of one? Why worry about the numbers? Just role play it; that's what they were going to do anyway...

LightPhoenix

Most professional performers today can't play more than a few instruments anyway.

And there are those who can. Kid Rock can play a whole bunch of instruments very well; he also can ride a motorcycle, fix a car, and do a lot of other "skill based" things. The members of Phish each play oodles of instruments well, and I bet they have Craft (Alchemy) as well. So you don't have to spend all your time studying instruments. At least, these exceptional performers don't. And any PC bard is supposed to be exceptional, right?

Also, as an amateur actor, I can't understand how they could seperate "Act", "Comedy", "Oratory", and "Sing". So what is an actor in Shakespeare's 12th Night? He's not acting, but doing comedy? Orators prepare their scripts (like actors) and try to make the audience feel what they feel. Actors try to transmit the feelings of the character to the audience. Singers do the same thing: and vocal classes for singers and actors are remarkably similar! They both have to exhale using their diaphram, speak from "the bottom of their stomach", and not strain their throat. Facial expressions are important in all 4 of these things. They're the same bloody thing! They're all acting!

"But singing is something totally different!" you might say.

And how many singers have not had perfect voices, and yet became stars? Listen to the radio. Country music singers don't have melodic voices, and yet they're popular. Heavy metal: voice lessons not required. George Throughgood never warmed up his voice before a performance; it was all his stage presence.

Bah!

.
.
.
.
.

Tell you what. Why don't we agree to disagree. We'll all walk away thinking the other a tosser, and play our game the way we damn well please. Not like rules ever stopped us before. It just feels like there are no more insights to be made; there are reasons on both sides. We have already read all of them, and already noted how stupid those reasons are. Sarcasm has laced a few posts already, and once that happens nothing good will come of it.

So, goodnight gentlemen. Adieu, adieu, adieu.

 

[drnuncheon]

Replying to drnucheon:

I daresay that someone who could accurately price an armchair could also price a rare jewel or an intricately made sword. These people tend to devote a lot of time and energy to such things, and I believe there are whole TV shows concerned with it.

Those are obviously people who spend all of their skill ranks on the various divisions of Appraise, just as the widely-skilled jongeleurs have spent all of their skill ranks on the various divisions of Perform. The guys on Antiques Roadshow aren't spending time learning how to climb walls or defuse traps or ride horses.

Bluff arguably should be split into Bluff and Feint. However it is not so much to say that a gambler who bluffs well in cards would also bluff well in combat, as long as he knows how to fight. The "bluffing" part is whats difficult to get down, what you apply it to is the easy part.

So, a card shark should be able to pick up a sword and be able to bluff a master fencer, even though he doesn't know what he's doing with the blade? Riiiight. Just like James Galway can really jam out on a marima.

Diplomacy is basically the curbing of ones tongue and the skillfull employment of tact. Being a good diplomat transcends mere vocal language and applies with how you carry yourself, how you react, etc. If you have many ranks in Diplomacy you would know how to be diplomatic towards elves, dwarves, troglodytes, and dragons, you would change your tactics based on what you know about who you are dealing with, but the strategy employed would be the same.

Performance is basically the ability to read the audience, know what they will find entertaining, and provide it. One can be a technical master at an instument and get every note perfect, but a computer can do that - delivering a compelling performance is something else entirely. If you have many ranks in Perform, you would know how to deliver a compelling performance in many different ways. You would change your tactics based on your audience, but the strategy employed would be the same.

Disable Device possibly should have 2 components, a magical and a non-magical version. However most rogues have to give up enough to get by standard "locked" things: Search, Open Locks, Disable Device - 3 skills to basically do one things as it is. I would say that as a younger rogue you learn the mechanics, and as you get older you begin to become steeped with knowledge of the arcane, able to bluff your way past the mightiest glyphs

Most bards have to give up enough to do standard performances anyway - one skill to do one thing is what everyone else pays. I would say that as a younger bard you learn the basics of many different types of performance, and as you get older you learn to integrate them effectively into your own style (and bardic music).

I think youre just getting silly with Heal. While treating 3 different wounds is not "exactly the same thing" it is not necessarily 3 different things. All of the basics apply, there are only so many afflictions (read- less broad afflictions than say notes in music) and the ways to treat them overlap a lot, usually involving leaving them lying down, applying pressure, and making an ungent.

Sure. That's why we have cardiac surgeons and immunologists, right? It's all the same skill, they could swap around with no problem.

Yeah, that's realistic.

Your arguement seems flawed from a few points. You seem to think that Perform has been split into infinite divisions while it has only been split into 10.

Which is 10 more divisions than any of the other skills I cited are split into - even though each is arguably just as broad as the original 'Perform'.

That was my point. You're absolutely right, the argument for splitting up any of those other skills was extremely weak.

So is the argument for splitting up Perform.

J