D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy

[Christian]

hmm...

I was thinking about maybe powering bardic music via TOTAL ranks in perform skills, not just one skill. (The powers are still based on bard level, no freebies for having 6 maxed out perform skills.)

For Example, a 6th level bard has

P: Singing 4 ranks
P: Act 2 ranks
P: Stringed 3 ranks

Thus, you'd have 9 ranks for bardic music use, but only those ranks for performance checks. You could use those skill points to be great in one type of performance, or be okay-pretty good in 2-4.

Sounds like a fair compromise.

I really like this idea. Out of curiosity, what is the precise wording of the requirements for the bardic music ability in the 3.5 PH? Inquiring rules lawyers want to know!!

 

[drnuncheon]

I really like this idea. Out of curiosity, what is the precise wording of the requirements for the bardic music ability in the 3.5 PH? Inquiring rules lawyers want to know!!

It's an intersting idea until you consider that, say, a 2nd level bard with 3 performance types maxxed out could fascinate a creature with an average save DC of 25. The 20th level bard with the same 3 maxxed out could have an average save DC of 79.

J

 

[Christian]

Either I misunderstood Remathilis' idea, or you misunderstood both of us. :-D The idea is that your Perform roll (and the effect of your music) is based on whichever Perform type your bard is using, but the character qualifies for bardic music abilities based on his total Perform ranks of all types. Eg. To Inspire Greatness, a bard needs to be 9th level and have twelve ranks in Perform. The idea is that a 9th level bard with six ranks each in Perform (singing) and Perform (dancing) would be able to use this ability, even though he didn't have twelve ranks in any single Perform skill. That way, the bard wouldn't be seriously penalized in terms of class abilities (basically just the save DC's for his Fascinate attempts) for failing to specialize ...

So, with that in mind, could one of the lucky folks with a 3.5 PH let us know exactly what the prereqs are for the bardic music abilities?

 

[IanB]

I believe the bardic music abilities are now gained at particular levels, not with a specified number of ranks in perform.

But why is Perform special in this regard? That's been my point all along. There are plenty of other skills that are equally broad, if not broader, that aren't being split up.

I don't agree that there are any other skills as broad as the difference between being able to play the guitar and being able to dance ballet - and there are certainly no other skills where you can go for most of your career knowing everything about one skill, go up a level, put in one rank, and suddenly become the best in the world at another almost completely unrelated skill.

It strains realism to an unacceptable point.

And before someone jumps in and says "but there's magic why do you care about realism" I've always found that to be about the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Add magic and you can still try to create a setting that is internally consistent and realistic. To me that includes a skill system that works for normal mortals as well as heroic PCs. Most musicians in the game I run aren't bards, they're experts. The skill system has to work for generic experts as well as bards - not to mention the other classes with Perform as a class skill. That is why I don't buy the argument 'but the bard is supposed to be the ultimate performer!' He isn't the only one who gets the perform skill - should monks be the ultimate performer too? In 3.0 they can be. Rogues too.

 

[drnuncheon]

I I don't agree that there are any other skills as broad as the difference between being able to play the guitar and being able to dance ballet - and there are certainly no other skills where you can go for most of your career knowing everything about one skill, go up a level, put in one rank, and suddenly become the best in the world at another almost completely unrelated skill.

Speak Language.

It strains realism to an unacceptable point.

Maybe there ought to be some other way of doing it - but the 3.5 method is just as bad as the 3.0 method, in its own way (see other folks' posts about Acting/Oratory/Comedy, for one example.)

J

 

[IanB]

Well without clarification of what they mean by Oratory/Comedy/Acting it is hard to tell if that's bad or not. Comedy could mean telling jokes, not playing in a comedy, for example. At the very least I would think they should all give each other synergy bonuses in any case.

 

[Technik4]

How is something that turns Character A3.0, with 11 (maxed out ranks) in Perform, and "singing" & "lute" as types (along with 11 variations -- chant, melody, melody, chant, etc.), into Character A3.5, with maxed out ranks in "singing" or "stringed instruments" (but not both), a "benefit"?

3.0 Brd8: Perform (Singing, Chanting, Lute, Mandolin, Lyre, Guitar, Bass, Viola, Harp, Fiddle, Banjolele) +11 + Cha modifier

[With help form Song and Silence]

with 3 skill points/level left over.



3.5 Brd8: Perform (Sing, Stringed Instruments) +11 + Cha modifier

with 4 skill points/level left over.

I'm honestly curious why you accept a high level fighter being a master of every normal weapon in the world, despite never having used most of them, but can't accept the same with performance skills. Don't just limit your response to fighting though. D&D is filled with skills and other mechanics that have multiple uses which all improve despite possibly only using one aspect of the skill.

I think you are using excessive vague-ness to try and win this point. Lets start with the fighter. We'll take 12th level, its a good level to base our theories on. A 12th level fighter is not a "master" of every normal weapon in the world. He can wield a dagger as well as a longsword, a longsword as well as a bastard sword (2-handed), and so forth. But what does that mean? Well, for it to mean anything we have to compare it to challenges he will be facing as a 12th level fighter. Oh wait, the game is almost entirely balanced to facilitate a level-based system and the fighter not necessarily a master by 12th level (or really, ever).

A 12th level fighter does in fact get 3 attacks with any weapon of his choosing. The fact of the matter is, those attacks are designed to let him keep up with other characters in terms of damage output and challenge overcoming. I can accept that if I were trained with a sword, and only a sword, by the end of my training I could pick up a dagger, a pick, or any other "normal" weapon and perform adequately. Since I probably spent feats on the sword, I would naturally use it most of the time - I prefer it.

Now lets peek at perform. The game is NOT built around perform, and while it may occasionally bypass challenges, for the most part it is considered little more than a roleplaying decision, primarily for bard characters (much like obscure knowledge is for a wizard, or professions and crafts are for everyone else). But the 12th level bard is "only" a master of 15 instruments (instead of categories of instruments, as in 3.5). The fighter can use more normal weapons. What gives!!! But what is the bard the master of? Which does he favor? The game isnt built with this in mind, so there is no Instrument Focus, Instrument Specialization, etc - the bard is equally good with all instruments he has selected. We'll ignore that having primarily focused on stringed instruments the bard decides to pick up dancing, singing, and horn-playing in one level. We'll accept that suddenly, those skills will be just as good as all the others which have been being honed since 1st level. Wait, this example still isnt really like a fighter, not when you start actually looking at it.

However each weapon is manipulated by using by and large one of 3 styles: slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. Can the same be said of musical instruments "in 3e"? No. In 3.5? Yes. When one "style" applies, the perform check for all of those styles is used. For instance - Stringed Instruments would apply to all the instruments listed in the above example as well as any other stringed instruments the bard comes across.

As others have pointed out, we dont have perform down to the science of having simple instruments, martial instruments, and exotic instruments - there is no penalty for choosing any one instrument over another, in fact in 3.5 you usually get more than 1 instrument for your trouble. The same cannot be said of the wizard who chooses to spend a feat (which is worth far more than a skillpoint) on martial weapon - longsword. The wizard doesnt gain proficiency with many weapons, merely 1. Is martial weapon proficiency "broken"?

I am weary of these backs-and-forths. By nature I can be a combative person, and if I have caused anyone undue amounts of stress than I am sorry. I was merely discussing a matter which seemed so obvious to me, that in my bafflement I continued to post. I see now that those who oppose me will do so no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what angle used to discuss, so I admit defeat. I will question those people on one thing: Which do you think is better for the game?

Not your game, not people on ENWorld's game, but the game in general. Which is a better system for a new player, or a player from 2e, or in other words - the average gamer. I am content that the new system is more intuitive and easier to use than the older system. Can you say the same about the older version?

Technik

 

[Centaur]

I'm with "Speaks With Stone", if we want to break the skills down into more realistic subsets, let's all play Rolemaster, otherwise lets leave the perform skill alone.

Now as a compromise, why not run perform as it is described in 3e with one minor change. Assume that you can do any kind of performance with your perform skill, but if you havn't listed it, your get a -4, just like if you weren't proficient in a weapon!

How does that sound?

And I didn't read all the posts so if someone already suggeted this then here is your seconding...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Allow me to agree that the "pick one perform type per rank in perform" mechanic was kind of odd in the first place. But both the old and the new version of the perform mechanics are just a somewhat arbitrary decision. The 3.0 edition is a crude attempt to latch on some individuation on what falls under a single type of action. The 3.5 edition is a crude attempt at addressing the logical difference in cost to benifit between this and other skills.

For me, it's like the division between knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft. One's how much you know about spells on paper, the other's how much you know about spells as they're being cast. For me the mechanic "Identifying info about magic" covers both well enough. Maybe to someone else it makes a difference.

Can I ask something stupid? How much of an issue is this? How many people do you deal with who have multiple ranks in perform anyway? Heck, how many bards do you deal with? As far as my stuff goes, I'm the only bard I know of. My group asked me to play a bard in place of the other ideas I was tinkering with simply because they'd never seen anyone play a bard. So, at least as far as the games I'm in, or the people around me have been in, the perform skill hasn't come up much.

How big of an impact does perform have anyway? In the campaign I've been in, It's distracted some people so my allies could work, and made a few silver. I just don't see this as a large enough part of any given campaign to warrent more than a single skill. Maybe if I need to get into epic battles of musical prowress across a series of instruments, or if there's an actual mechanical difference, then I'd care. As far as I can see though, there's just no reason for it. You know, maybe if stringed insturments had an additional bonus to the duration of effects, but required more time, while comedy brought easy but short lived responses, while singing had a wider crit range, then there might be a reason for the difference. But otherwise you're asking me to expend a whole lot of skill points to keep my ability for multiple types of performance. As a bard, I've got a thin enough allotment of skill points (though 3.5 does alleviate this to a degree).

Frankly, I like Technik4's idea better. Divide up musical skills into a few discreet sets to follow the same model as weapon skills. Working with an instrument you're not proficient with provides a -4 to the perform check. Simple instruments could include: Singing, clapping, whistling, and telling tales. Musical instrumetns would include all the mundane stuff. Exotic instruments would include the gnomish electric axe and elven tree harp. Everyone could start with simple instrument proficiency. Bards would get musical instrument proficiency. Exotic instrument proficiency would be obtained via a feat. There would also be feats along the lines of the combat feats for instrument specialization and special techniques. This sticks with my gut feeling that a trained jack-of-all-trades musician should know the basics of a lot of instruments, keeps the skill used for "entertaining a crowd" one skill, makes sure odd instruments aren't easy to pick up and learn, provides measures for instrument specialization, and allows any normal person to be versed in whatever instrument they want, though it does have an opertunity cost.

Technic, this is my arguement to you. To me, it's simply a question of "How much time, energy, and detail is perform worth?" And I just don't think it's worth 9 separate skills. Personally, I don't think it's worth more than one skill in any of the games I've run or played. It's about entertaining a crowd, and nine times out of ten it doesn't matter how I do it.

Now, as far as the "if it's just about the perform ranks, just max one skill" line goes, my question is if you can gain the entire benifit of the skill from one, why have the division? What's the point?

I also happen to like the base instrument bonus idea, except for the fact that it's still just doubleing up on a pretty well unnecessarry skill.

Mostly, the difference in resolution just means that my DM can drop a magic keyboard in the game, and I'll have to debate getting a rank in keyboards next level. But unless it's a keyboard of "better than increasing my tumble" it'll probablly just go in the generic sell loot pile.

Now, if we were going to say, make Gitaroo Man D20 or Battle of the Bands D20, I'd be all up for something more complex.

Finally, a few stupid questions.
1. How do I act in combat?
2. How does dancing stop spells that need to be heard to have an effect from affecting my party?
3. How do I get a masterwork sing instrument?


I can't believe I complained that much about the freaking perform skill. What a waste of my evening.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I am weary of these backs-and-forths. By nature I can be a combative person, and if I have caused anyone undue amounts of stress than I am sorry. I was merely discussing a matter which seemed so obvious to me, that in my bafflement I continued to post. I see now that those who oppose me will do so no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what angle used to discuss, so I admit defeat. I will question those people on one thing: Which do you think is better for the game?

Not your game, not people on ENWorld's game, but the game in general. Which is a better system for a new player, or a player from 2e, or in other words - the average gamer. I am content that the new system is more intuitive and easier to use than the older system. Can you say the same about the older version?

Actually, I'm kinda sad you're weary, it's been fun to see your opinions on it.

It is obvious that going from 14 perform to 15 perform, and suddenly realizing a new instrument type with a staggering 15 point difference is silly, and mechanically not like the other skills.

However, I think the other viewpoint is that killing monsters and dungeoneerig (arguably the focus of Dungeons and Dragons) doesn't need a detailed perform skill.

Thus, I do think that if they stripped off the flavor text detailing what types of perform you can do, and simply said that it's the skill used for entertaining people, it would be more intituive and easier to use.