D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy

[Michael Tree]

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.

Good point. However, the natural solution to that disparity isn't to split one skill in 11 completely seperate skills, it's to allow non-proficient performance types at -4. Ta ta! Now it works identically to the way fighting skill works. The only difference is that proficiencies come free with skill ranks instead of having to be bought with feats. But since, as you said, performance is much less important and prevalent than combat, that isn't a problem.

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.

Funny, I was about to write essentially the same thing. We obviously differ in our opinions such that discussion won't make any changes. We all differ too fundementally in what we value in the game. We are interested in what is fair and balanced game-mechanically, while you are interesed in what is realistic and uncomplicated. I don't really care about realistically modeling the real world, I care about dramatically modeling adventure fantasy. Frankly, if I cared at all about realism, I wouldn't be playing D&D.

D&D is full of unrealistic rules, and I fail to see why an unrealistic performance is any more unacceptable than unrealistic fighting, skill learning, bluffing and feinting, and so on. "Leaning more languages by killing creatures and avoiding traps" and "being an incredibly good archer despite never having fired a bow in your life, because you have fought a lot in melee" are far more ridiculous than being able to play many musical instruments.

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?

My entire point is that 3.0 perform is better for the game. The older version is definitely odd, but it is also balanced and fair. The 3.0 version needed changes, but the 3.5 change created far more problems and imbalances than it solved.

 

[Michael Tree]

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.

It's a bigger issue than you think. One of the main reasons why so few bards were seen in 3.0 was that the class was seriously underpowered. When I first heard about the 3.5 bard I was overjoyed, because the simple addition of 2 more skill points per level and a few other minor bonuses, in my estimation, made the class balanced and playable. But that was an illusion. Unless a bard wants to focus on only one or two perform types, to the exclusion of all others, the 3.5 bard effectively has the same number of skill points or less, than the 3.0 bard.

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.

That's exactly the point I and others have been trying to make. Moreover, in 3.5, once you have one perform skill, adding a second one has no game effect whatsoever. Mechanically, all perform skills serve the exact same function. The same cannot be said for any other collection of skills.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Basically, the correct solution (unlike the 3.0 solution or the 3.5 solution) is pretty clear to me.

Make "Perform" a single skill which indicates how good you are at entertaining people. Period. No -4 unfamiliarity penalty for things outside your specialty. No specialization by forms of performance whatsoever. Nothin'. Who cares?

For purposes of the actual D&D rules, it simply doesn't matter 99% of the time whether you know how to play an accordian and not a nose flute. So why are there rules for it, much less rules that the designers seem to (mysteriously) have cared enough about to overhaul completely? If you want to say there are certain kinds of performance you are not good at, go ahead, role-play; knock yourself out.

 

[Malin Genie]

I think Dr_Rictus has hit the nail on the head; and that is probably the version I will use in 3.5

 

[stevelabny]

and anyone who plays with the 3.5 rules will find every bard only has Perform:singing and nothing else.
and all the instrument-makers will go broke and starve to death.
sad really.

 

[Christian]

I dunno. I'd kind of miss my +2 to Perform checks from my masterwork instrument ...

 

[Shalewind]

Wow. I never thought Perform could spawn such a downpour.

So far, a variety of people have brought the bard into this discuss as the primary point of contention. What I haven't heard: why the other classes haven't been mentioned?

I like to have a fighter that knows some poetry or a cleric that can act. I think this adds much needed spice and flavor to the game. I love using the profession and craft skills, makes the game more realistic to me.

And I always hated the fact, that if I wanted a character to be good at say the flute at say 10 ranks, that he would have to know 9 other instruments equally well just to play that flute with a +10.

Sure, you can look at this two ways: The perform is an abstract all encompassing skill (that's fine, but you loose a lot of detial and flavor in the system this way). Two: Perform is about proficiency in different types of performing styles (in which case it only makes sense to have it as seperate skills, otherwise you are simpling using an abtract skill like option one).

If you run a campaign where the bard is the only one that entertains others, and it isn't a big part of the game: use Dr_Rictus's solution. It's quick, simple, and with the 3e style. If you want more detail (as I do) play with 3.5.

 

[Fenes 2]

I don't undertsand how anyone can have a problem with knowing too many instruments or performance styles in 3.0 - no one forces you to choose that many styles. If you just want to be able to play a flute really well, don't choose 9 other styles and get those 10 ranks anway.

 

[BSF]

Wow! I came here looking to lurk and find out if anyone else had any thoughts on the perform skill changes. I've been lurking for years! Usually, all of you have rehashed a point beyond where I have anything of any real value to say. I read your debates, come away with more enlightenment and I am happy. But, now I find myself registering and jumping into the fray, so to speak.

As you can guess, I play a Bard! But, I also DM. Two games a week, one a player with one group, the other as the DM with a completely different group. I am trying to balance my viewpoint with both perspectives in mind, but it will definitely sound more like the player's view.

For me, the "problems" become reasonably concise.

Look at Inspire Courage (and Inspire Greatness and presumably Inspire Heroics). If you want to effectively fight and help the group, you will take Perform (Sing) and you will max it out to gain the benefits at higher levels.

If you want to sit out the combat and play your instrument to help out, the rest of the party will look at you funny and may get a little mad.

Look at Countersong. If you want to benefit the party with the (potentially) better saving throw when those harpies fly up and start charming your friends, while you are on a road that runs along a cliff, you will have maxed out Perform (Sing)

These two situations will pretty much assure that all Bards max out Perform (Sing). Not really a problem! And if you don't worry about silly Roleplay considerations, that is all you need to max out. All combat Bards will be singers, or possibly chanters, or something that does NOT involve using your hands.

Let me be clear, this is not a BAD thing! But, there are musical instruments. Many of which require a certain amount of skill ranks to play. Don't pretend that the "extra" skill points given to the Bard are anything more than to cover the cost of these "new" skills.

Yes, I said new skills. Essentially, that is what it is. I admit that the skill mechanic was flawed. Badly in some cases! The only way to keep that mechanic in check was through roleplaying. Adding a game mechanic is nice, in it's own way.

The categories are both too broad, and too limiting. While my character has Brehon Storytelling, I suppose that should now be rolled into Oratory. Even though he only learned, in game, through roleplaying, a very formalized method of storytelling. At least poetry rolls into Oratory. While my character knows how to play a bodhran, he will also know how to play the Kettledrums. And technically, the piano is a percussion instrument, while the harpsichord is a string instrument. Now, they roll into Keyboard instruments? (Yes, I know, anything played with keys should be a keyboard instrument. Accordians, harpsichords, organs and pianos all. But, ask a music major and you will find that they are not considered the same thing.) Since my character knows how to play the whistle, he should now play all wind instruments with the same skill? And he spent time learning the fiddle, mandolin, lute and harp. Now they are all the same too. And then there is dance...

In game mechanic terms, all of these fit in nicely under one skill. Was it "realistic" that he can do them all with the same finesse? Maybe, but probably not. On the other hand, if he picked up a crumhorn, he could only use his CHA modifier as his skill check. The mechanic wasn't perfect, but it wasn't entirely "broken" either. I daresay, a crumhorm is considerably different from a tin whistle in terms of how you play them.

In some ways, the new skills are just as "broken" as the old. You can argue that it is "more" realistic. Perhaps it is. But, what constant affect does it have on the game? The only affect it has is to determine which abilities you get to use, how effective your Countersong is, and which magical instruments you get to play. The last one is the big wildcard.

At least Perform (Stringed Instruments) will pretty much cover all the Instruments of the Bards. But, it won't cover any pipes at all. Or drums. If you want to use all the above, add in more skills that you are using. Those 2 bonus skill points shuold cover it.

Of course, when you first saw that Bards were getting extra skill points, you thought you were going to be more useful to the party didn't you? Maybe a new Knowledge skill? Perhaps a few more ranks in Use Magic Device? Heck, maybe even a few more languages! Especially if you are in an established campaign and might have a few magical instruments.

That is where the problem really arises isn't it? All of us with established characters, in established campaigns, thought we would have a few skill points to pick up another skill or two. We didn't realize it was just going to be new Perform skills.

Think about it for a moment. Now, a 5th level bard really isn't all that much more useful in 3.5 than he or she was in 3.0. Until they get those new abilities, at higher levels, they really haven't improved any. Less armor, some spells you no longer have, some nerfed buff spells in exchange for new abilities later on and a slightly greater range of weapons. A 10th level Bard is a bit more cool. A 15th level bard is better. It all depends on where you were when your campaign converts. And only because of the new Bardic Music abilities. Nothing else about the class seems to have improved. Except that they now prefer to specialize in enchantments and illusions. Whether that was what your Bard did before, or not.

I am disappointed in the changes. I agree that Perform is broken in 3.0. But, it is simple to play. Perform in 3.5 might be a little less broken, but it is still broken. The changes made to Perform did not address the widely held view that Bard's have too few skill points in 3.0. If you want to be good at a variety of Perform types, you gain no benefit from the added skill points. And, in many cases, you will have a variety of numbers to look up when you use a perform check. (DM: Ok, make a perform check. Player: Ok, let me see, if that is singing, I have a +8, but if it is stringed instruments, it is +11.) The game just got a little more complicated to play. The good news, is that you don't need to worry that the King prefers the sound of the harp. If you have stringed instruments, you are covered. (Whereas, in the past, you might have had lute and mandolin, but not enough ranks to have taken harp yet.)

I can see an arguement that this change forces more diversity in Bards. And in a world where you have 20-30 instruments/perform types, that is true. But, if you use a wider range of perform types (Formalized storytelling styles, chants, singing, a wide variety of instruments, a variety of formalized dances, etc.) the diversity just dropped.

Unfortunately, I don't have a "solution". As I said, I consider both 3.0 and 3.5 mechanics to be flawed. Both have strengths and weaknesses. However, the change in 3.5 Perform probably negate the skill point bonuses for the bard. And that is what I don't like.

Will this keep me from buying the books? Heck no! It will mean that I keep my eye out for an easy, elegant solution to ease a conversion and adoption of the 3.5 rules for the Bard and for Perform.

 

[Fenes 2]

Really good points there.