D&D 3.x 3.5 Perform, Diplomacy

[Artimoff]

I certanly hope my DM sticks to the 3.0 bard. This change stinks. Fighters fight, Bards perform. 'nuff Said.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Only they don't become instant masters. In order to be considered to master a weapon, you'd probably be considered to spend five feats on it: Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, GWF, GWS, and Improved Crit. That's not something that happens instantly and for "free" when improving skill in another weapon.

Well, but see this:
If a Fighter is not profiecient in a weapon, he suffers a -4 penalty when using it. He still adds his full BAB and his full Strength/Dex Bonus to his roll.
If a Bard did not learn an appropriate Perform skill, he can only add his charisma bonus, if at all (I don`t know the current rule about it). That`s everything.

A Fighter uses a feat to gain profiency, that offsets the -4 penalty. He adds his full BAB, and full Dex or Strength Bonus to attack. If he is a 15th level fighter, this means he has a +15 base attack bonus.
He could have used another feat, he could have taken Skill Focus to gain a +3 bonus to a single skill. Let us assume that this bonus is roughly equivalent between 2 ranks (since it doesn`t allow you to use untrained only skills) or 4 ranks (since he could have taken Alertness or Stealthy to gain 2 +2 bonus)
The Bard adds 4 ranks to the skill. If he is a 15th level Bard, this means he has now a +4 +charisma bonus for his perform check.

There is an obvious difference, I think.
Maybe the 1 rank equals 1 instrument rule wasn`t that great, but Iam not sure that 1 skill for every instrument type is that great, either.

Maybe it would have been better if they just explained "Perform means your ability to perform using various instruments and methods to entertain others. You may assume that you know one instrument or one method for every rank).

A compensation with the current rules might be, that if you just want to "impress" a certain audience using variours performance styles, you use your highest Perform (XX) and adds a +2 synergy bonus for every Perform (YZ) you have at least 5 ranks in.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[AuraSeer]

If you're going to talk about how ridiculous it is for a bard to 'suddenly' become a master of dance when he puts a new rank in perform, why not talk about how ridiculous it is for fighters, rangers, barbarians, and paladins to 'suddenly' become masters of weapons they've never used once before in the campaign?

The idea is that a fighter has used those weapons before. During his training, when he was changing from an unclassed character into a Ftr1, he trained on the basics of every kind of martial weapon-- small blades, big blades, bows, axes, polearms, etc. Anything that is considered a martial weapon works along the same general principles. So even if a blacksmith invents a polearm that has never been seen before, if it's a martial weapon, the fighter understands basically how it's supposed to work.

The same reasoning doesn't work for Perform, though, because we're not talking about basic proficiency. At high levels we're talking about total mastery of the instrument, as if a fighter had the entire specialization feat chain (from weapon focus on up). A world-class player of one instrument must also be a world-class player of over a dozen more.

If a fighter wants to really master a weapon he's never used before, he needs to spend a bunch of feats and make slow progress. He first gets Weapon Focus for a measly +1 to hit, then he takes Weapon Spec, and moves on up the chain for that weapon. A 3.0 bard doesn't need that kind of incremental progress. If a Brd19 has 0 ranks in drumming, he can spend one skill point and suddenly have 23 ranks. It just didn't make sense, neither in terms of game balance nor real-world logic.

 

[Michael Tree]

That's it, I'm not buying 3.5. I've seen so many horrid changes, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

In all other cases where a skill category has multiple subskills, all the subskills are useful. Knowledge skills are all useful - even if you already have several knowledge skills, when you learn a new skill it's useful in entirely new situations. Likewise craft and profession, where you gain entirely new capabilities.

With this perform however... from a game rule perspective, once you already have a perform skill, all other perform skills are essentially useless wastes of skill points. Knowledge skills are entirely new domains of knowledge, new craft skills allow a character to build entirely new things, new perform skills... let you entertain a crowd in a slightly different but essentially identical way.

From a non-game perspective, it also sucks. Medieval minstrels and troubadors were quite often masters of multiple instuments. The concept of musicians as people dedicated to a single instrument is entirely a modern invention. So, to play a typical medieval minstrel, a bard has to spend a ludicrous number of skill points.

The 3.5 bard is, despite first appearances, worse than the 3.0 bard.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

 

[drnuncheon]

If a fighter wants to really master a weapon he's never used before, he needs to spend a bunch of feats and make slow progress.

Not to be rude, but...bull. There are any number of feats that one can take that apply with all weapons. Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise, Mounted Combat, etc, etc. And if you think that 20 levels of fighter taking those feats is not a 'world class master' then, frankly, you have a really strange definition of the term. (Especially when this 'non-master' would hit faster and more often than a 10th level fighter with the 5 'master' feats you desctibe.) Such a fighter is just as good with the sword he has used every day for the past 20 levels as he is with an axe, even though he hasn't touched an axe since level one.

You can't tell me that the same techniques work when applying Cleave to a rapier as opposed to a greataxe. Hell, you can't even tell me that all of the same techniques work when applying your base attack bonus. (You know, the thing that fighters get with any weapon they pick up?) Your stance is different, the muscles you use are different, the timing's different, the weapon handles differently...and yet, you can use your full BAB and all of your feats (barring weapon specific ones) with any weapon.

Sure, there are similarities between the various weapons, but there's similarities in different kinds of Perform as well. Timing, reading the audience, reading the other performers, musical theory, improvisation...

Fighters are supposed to be combat badasses. That's why they can pick up weapons that are completely unfamiliar to them and still use them effectively. Bards are supposed to be performance badasses. Why not let them do any kind of performance well?

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?

J

 

[BVB]

Medieval minstrels and troubadors were quite often masters of multiple instuments. The concept of musicians as people dedicated to a single instrument is entirely a modern invention. So, to play a typical medieval minstrel, a bard has to spend a ludicrous number of skill points.

The 3.5 bard is, despite first appearances, worse than the 3.0 bard.

Well, there's your answer! That "historical" bard that you just mentioned didn't have to spend his time learning new spells, either (poor sod; I pity him). So of course he can master all the performing arts!

This entire anti-skills argument seems pretty darn silly to me. In an average, legitimate gaming situation, the bard character will be singing songs most of the time, and/or playing the single instrument that fits his initial character concept ... OR juggling ... OR doing a sock-puppet show ... OR reciting poetry. But not all of them. Why? Because the roleplayer behind the facade really only has one or two interests himself anyway, and he knows better than to try to do everything at once. Only a power-hungry munchkin is going to whine about how his flute-tooting sissy bard should be able to instantly play the Majestic Tuba of Bigby (performing backup foot-cymbals himself, of course) without any previous training.

All I see here are complaints about "constraints" that really only force decent gaming.

 

[Centaur]

Game mechanics are a wonderfull thing.

While I agree in principle that having perform be one skill to cover all disciplines about as much as I think it realistic that someone is just as skilled with a bow as he is with a sword, if we want to divided it all up into realistic demarcations, we might was well just play rolemaster.

The beauty of the D20 system is the simplicity of the rules. Lets not muddy the waters.

 

[Felix]

Perform ranks each equaling an ability with one instrument was an abstraction that is absurd in reality. But it doesn't slow the game or cause any problems. While unrealistic, the mechanic works because it is unobtrusive and smooth.

For similar reasons, there is no facing in 3e, or 3.5e from what I've heard. This is unrealistic (although some have tried to reason through it), and an abstraction of combat. It is also a smooth mechanic that doesn't get in anyone's way, unless they are looking to exploit some poor sap's position.

In 2e, a PC would gradually get points to spend on their weapon proficiencies and specialization. The categories were narrow and contained very related weapons (bastard sword with two handed sword, the axe group,...). This mechanic was dropped in favor of a more open weapon proficiency system in 3e. Fighters can use all simple and martial weapons with no penalty. This is an abstraction. And I like it. It's smooth, and gets in no one's way.

In DnD, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcs, Paladins and Rangers all cast spells. IRL, there are no spells. This is an abstraction of reality. And folks love it. Bravo for this one.

Magic swords can talk.

You can travel the planes of the multiverse.

Druids can turn into a shrew.

You can have a personal 1-on-1 conversation with your god, when the time fits yourschedule.

Dragons are running around laying waste to places.

You can be an Elf.

But God forbid a Bard can play so many instruments? It's not realistic?

I think drnuncheon phrased it well:
"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'm waiting for a good answer.

 

[BVB]

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?

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.

I'm still hoping someone can explain why we don't just reduce all the profession and craft skills to a single "Career Thingy" skill category. Likewise with all knowledge: the "Stuff I Know" skill.

... But then that would reduce some of the roleplaying opportunties, eh?

Sort of like when a fighter who has spent feats to specialize and focus on rapier combat comes across a +3 quarterstaff in the treasure trove. Sure, I suppose he could use it well enough to get the job done, but it's not his weapon choice on his path toward mastery. Not as abstract representation as one might suppose, when magic items enter the equation. (Different subsystem in the game anyway -- killing attack rolls and performing skill checks. Different purposes.)