|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any of my NPCs with a decent intelligence and a few ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana can identify the Wonky Mask Of Lying and act appropriately. That's verisimilitude. This isn't a video game where NPCs bleat one line repeatedly or represent a single skill check in order to be bypassed. They think. They act. They don't like it when you wear the Wonky Mask of Lying when you talk to them. That's social etiquette 101 right there.If you were just told a story and you believed it (failed Sense Motive check), why would you cast Detect Magic to try to identify magic items on somebody?
"Really? Jimmy just fell down a well! Hold on, let me cast this spell and wait 30 seconds. Now don't move as I Spellcraft you. Hey, you were wearing a mask of stony demeanor. I don't think Jimmy really fell down that well."
Too much meta-gaming there, Lieutenant. And Knowledge Arcana doesn't ID magic items, only Spellcraft. And the DC is 21, so isn't a gimme.
Besides, there are people in the world that do have flat affect and/or monotone rate of speech. I guess they must be lying robots too.
DC 25 appraise check to recognize that your mask is magic.
Appraise
(Int)You can evaluate the monetary value of an object.
Check: A DC 20 Appraise check determines the value of a common item. If you succeed by 5 or more, you also determine if the item has magic properties, although this success does not grant knowledge of the magic item's abilities.
...
Action: Appraising an item takes 1 standard action.
It is a standard action, so not so useful in combat, but in a social situation you have all the time to use it.
If you have a magic mask, your face is stony and you spoke in a monotone voice I will think something is amiss and my initial reaction will be at least unfriendly.
Even without realizing that you are wearing a magic mask if you have a stony face and speak in a monotone I would think that you are dominated or under some form of geas.
The problem is that this item description and what it do clash horrendously.
|
|
as someone with +10 bluff naturally, I have only seen this thing actually work well once...In my experience, Bluff is one of those skills where paradoxically, if your PC is too good at it, it magically starts automatically failing. See also: Intimidate, Perception, DisguiseBack in the days of 3.5, I was playing in kind of a Monty Hall (Monty Haul?) campaign, and we were all about slotless items. I came up with a tongue ring that granted a bonus to Bluff. I pitched the idea to a crafter, who said he loved the idea. I told him I wanted royalties from the idea and my name on the brand (the character in question went on to own a chain of magic item shops), and the NPC stopped, and stared, and said to me, "You want people to know ... that you have ... in fact invented ... a magical item ... that helps you lie to them."
I had trouble arguing with that.
LOL
Great.
|
When a person lies emotions shown through the face voice and body language can make or break the lie depending on the situation. To have npcs ignore a compleatly emotionless person lieing to their face does make them robots programed to follow the number system and removes immersion from the game. Now in some situations a lack of emotions can help you sell a lie like in poker or threatening to blow yourself up unless you get x.
No, no, no and more no. You are trying to poke holes in an item just because you don't like it. Unless the NPCs have Detect Magic and sufficient Spellcraft they wouldn't even know the PC has a magic item. PF gives no rules on how PCs react to how a lie is told, so bluff is simply opposed by sense motive. With a world of insane magic, crazy races and creatures, "logic" doesn't often apply.
In short Bluff vs. Sense Motive and no more.
No, no, no and more no. You are trying to poke holes in an item just because you don't like it. Unless the NPCs have Detect Magic and sufficient Spellcraft they wouldn't even know the PC has a magic item. PF gives no rules on how PCs react to how a lie is told, so bluff is simply opposed by sense motive. With a world of insane magic, crazy races and creatures, "logic" doesn't often apply.
In short Bluff vs. Sense Motive and no more.
So pfs is just a numbers game with robot npcs when it comes down to skills.
|
|
So pfs is just a numbers game when it comes to skills.
No, no, no and more no. You are trying to poke holes in an item just because you don't like it. Unless the NPCs have Detect Magic and sufficient Spellcraft they wouldn't even know the PC has a magic item. PF gives no rules on how PCs react to how a lie is told, so bluff is simply opposed by sense motive. With a world of insane magic, crazy races and creatures, "logic" doesn't often apply.
In short Bluff vs. Sense Motive and no more.
PF in general is a numbers game when it comes to everything. If we didn't use the rules for such things, it'd just be arbitrary from one judge to the next.
So pfs is just a numbers game with robot npcs when it comes down to skills.
Do all of your NPCs make a DC 25 appraise check? Can they do so even taking a 20? If not, how do they know that it is a mask to help someone bluff?
If I used one and started out saying that I was under a curse that I receive while exploring area xxxx, or if I said I was Oread descended, and only then started with my other bluff, would I still get penalties?
What about the Oread race in general, as most of described as having a rock like appearance and as having a stoic demeanor, do they get penalties to bluff and diplomacy? If not, why not, as their face looks like stone and have a fairly monotone voice?
|
|
I haven't read this thread in a while, it still sounds like the mechanics are clear but some still want to add mechanics for the stone face fluff. Sometimes in PFS we accept that some things don't make perfect sense. The idea that two people looking through the same amount of obscuring mist but from different directions can see each other with different penalties really didn't sit well with me at first. Someone explained the line of sight mechanics and I set my realism hat to the side for the purpose of this spell in PFS. I do this because I don't get to choose which mechanics I like in this setting.
For a home game I would probably still allow this to function as written. It doesn't say anything about changing the color of the stone. Here is a decent statue face I pulled up on a quick search. If this face was colored as normal and was capable of movement, a necessity for speech, I don't think I would know it as stone without touching it. I might suspect Botox, but stone would not be my first assumption. The face in this example was actually sculpted by a person, imagine how much more realistic it would look if it were actually flesh magically transmuted. When people try to look like statues, almost the only thing they do is apply a rock-like color. Take out the generic colors, and it wouldn't look anything like stone.
EDIT: Here is also a nice pic. Do you think everyone could definitively say what we are looking at here.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So pfs is just a numbers game with robot npcs when it comes down to skills.
1) Nobody but you is saying this. Someone has already walked you through how this is doesn't follow logically from "mask makes you good at bluffing".
2) You sound like an AD&D 2nd Edition fan, looking at 3rd Edition. There was lots of hullabaloo back in 2000 when D&D shifted from a system where a PC succeeded on a social check on the basis of whether the DM thought that the player had role-played the encounter well enough, to a system where game mechanics, rather than a player's acting ability, determined success.
3) If it helps, imagine a mask that makes a character look and act like a Star Trek vulcan. You speak in simple, declarative sentences. There are no "tells" that suggest in any way that you are lying. Your words have a "ring of truth" about them, thanks to a magic-imparted knack.
Ultimately, however, it's up to you, as a GM to imagine how this works. If you say "I can't imagine how this item doesn't screw itself over,"then I suggest that that's a deficiency in your imagination, not the item.
|
|
I haven't read this thread in a while, it still sounds like the mechanics are clear but some still want to add mechanics for the stone face fluff. Sometimes in PFS we accept that some things don't make perfect sense. The idea that two people looking through the same amount of obscuring mist but from different directions can see each other with different penalties really didn't sit well with me at first. Someone explained the line of sight mechanics and I set my realism hat to the side for the purpose of this spell in PFS. I do this because I don't get to choose which mechanics I like in this setting.
For a home game I would probably still allow this to function as written. It doesn't say anything about changing the color of the stone. Here is a decent statue face I pulled up on a quick search. If this face was colored as normal and was capable of movement, a necessity for speech, I don't think I would know it as stone without touching it. I might suspect Botox, but stone would not be my first assumption. The face in this example was actually sculpted by a person, imagine how much more realistic it would look if it were actually flesh magically transmuted. When people try to look like statues, almost the only thing they do is apply a rock-like color. Take out the generic colors, and it wouldn't look anything like stone.
Sitri, that is a fantastic point. Seriously, I had been picturing one of the Easter Island heads on a human body (a la The Critic), and I don't think I'm alone. But it doesn't say it's not a life-like statue, and it doesn't say anything about color, and obviously the stone is capable of movement.
That pretty much nails it down for me. People may consider you very strangely unemotional, but it doesn't mean you can't lie to them.
|
|
/ˈstō-ik/What about the Oread race in general, as most of described as having a rock like appearance and as having a stoic demeanor, do they get penalties to bluff and diplomacy? If not, why not, as their face looks like stone and have a fairly monotone voice?Except you are ignoring the fact that this is how Oread actually look. Big difference between that and someone who has magically turned their face to stone and their voice to an emotionless monotone.
Also why would you think they were monotone?
noun
1. a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining.
|
It makes sense to apply the mask's modifiers in situations where such a stoic demeanor makes sense: military under orders, questioning by the town watch, etc.
It also makes to use the stated DC modifiers in situations where the mask's effect would run contrary to the social situation (unlikely: –5; far-fetched: –10; impossible: –20; or even the caveat "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).").
Since this both uses common sense and RAW, I expect criticism from both sides of this argument. ^_^
What about the Oread race in general, as most of described as having a rock like appearance and as having a stoic demeanor, do they get penalties to bluff and diplomacy? If not, why not, as their face looks like stone and have a fairly monotone voice?Except you are ignoring the fact that this is how Oread actually look. Big difference between that and someone who has magically turned their face to stone and their voice to an emotionless monotone.
Also why would you think they were monotone?
Master of Rhetoric answered why I think that Oreads usually speak in a monotone.
Could you point out which NPCs have an appraise check high enough to identify what the Mask of Stony Demeanor is?
Which skill were you having NPCs use to know what an Oread is? And DC?
Which skill were you having NPCs use to determine that the PC wasn't actually an Oread? And DC?
You seem to be making decisions based on what you, as a player know, and not what an NPC would know. To me, that appears to be metagaming, as would a penalty given to a PC using the mask.
It makes sense to apply the mask's modifiers in situations where such a stoic demeanor makes sense: military under orders, questioning by the town watch, etc.
It also makes to use the stated DC modifiers in situations where the mask's effect would run contrary to the social situation (unlikely: –5; far-fetched: –10; impossible: –20; or even the caveat "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).").
Since this both uses common sense and RAW, I expect criticism from both sides of this argument. ^_^
The penalties that you listed are for the story, not for the appearance of the speaker.
And it would appear that you haven't been to some of the social functions as I have, where wooden faces are the norm rather than the exception - while there is no real blood on the ground, you are ankle deep in figurative/positioning/social status blood.
|
|
It makes sense to apply the mask's modifiers in situations where such a stoic demeanor makes sense: military under orders, questioning by the town watch, etc.
It also makes to use the stated DC modifiers in situations where the mask's effect would run contrary to the social situation (unlikely: –5; far-fetched: –10; impossible: –20; or even the caveat "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).").
Since this both uses common sense and RAW, I expect criticism from both sides of this argument. ^_^
The penalties that you listed are for the story, not for the appearance of the speaker.
And it would appear that you haven't been to some of the social functions as I have, where wooden faces are the norm rather than the exception - while there is no real blood on the ground, you are ankle deep in figurative/positioning/social status blood.
(Durn phone browser!)
Per IRL:
"Judge Dredd Face" is appropriate for some social situations in which I have been, but it would have been disastrous in others in my experience, be they officer social functions (people can get silly in formal dress - as I suspect many cleaners know from laundering dress blues) to LARP socials. Arguing that ALL situations require stoicism seems odd to me; it lacks finesse and social engineering.
Per RAW:
Would you use the same argument against any conditional modifiers?
|
|
An aside:
It seems odd to me that most court houses and some schools in the U.S. use metals detectors to search for weapons - it was five decades ago, but that would have seemed paranoid in my youth. In like manner I suspect that House Thrune does Detect Magic sweeps in Cheliax and occupied territories like Isger. Ditto for Galt's "committee for public safety" analogs. In Andoran such might seem insane. And in Taldor the base assumption might be that EVERYONE lies or uses magic, but etiquette requires ignoring such (the "bless their hearts" attitude).
|
I personally hate the item, it's underpriced and stinks of possible exploit, however there might be no need to penalize PC at all.
PC still needs to tell a good lie. While this might sound easy, sometimes it's not and Diplomacy is better approach.
There is also the -5 penalty on passing secret message. If player is quick on tongue, he might be successful with a lie, but party might believe otherwise. This depends heavily that party doesn't metagame however, which all characters tend to do often, at least in my area.
This is why the -5 penalty tends to be, nonexistant and the item grants way more then it should.
Per IRL:
"Judge Dredd Face" is appropriate for some social situations in which I have been, but it would have been disastrous in others in my experience, be they officer social functions (people can get silly in formal dress - as I suspect many cleaners know from laundering dress blues) to LARP socials. Arguing that ALL situations require stoicism seems odd to me; it lacks finesse and social engineering.Per RAW:
Would you use the same argument against any conditional modifiers?
Oh, I am not saying that being calm and speaking in a monotone would not have an impact in some social situations, but I think that they would be rather rare. And even in some of them, you could incorporate it into your story.
Ex: At a Cayden Cailcan temple (pretty much a bar with a party going on all the time), wearing a poker face and speaking in a monotone could be explained that you can't get into a party mood or enjoy yourself until...add in the rest of the bluff here.
But speaking to an NPC guard, shopkeeper, magistrate, etc.. and have a penalty assigned because you are wearing a poker face (stone like) and speaking in a monotone (i.e. wearing the mask) is deliberately nerfing the player because you don't like the item that is legal and that they paid for.
If I am pretending to be replacement delivery guy delivering supplies to the castle kitchen (because I have left the real guy tied up and unconscious in a safe house), roll a 10, +15 skill, +10 mask for a total of 35 and you tell me that they didn't believe me, because you applied a -20 penalty because I had a poker face on, and was speaking in a bored monotone, then I will call shenanigans.
In PFS, I will likely run it up through my VO, as in my opinion, the GM would be cheating in applying that penalty.
|
|
If you are going to post something then it might help if you actually read the description. Enduring hardship without complaint suggests nothing whatsoever about the manner of speech.
sto·ic
/ˈstō-ik/
noun
1. a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining.
No, but "without showing emotions" sure does.
If you are going to complain about a post it might help if you actually read the whole thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couple points of clarification here from my perspective:
1) I'm probably going to be purchasing this for one of my characters, because that character is a Razmiran Priest, and they a) lie a lot and b) wear masks. And c) I can talk like Bane and that will be fun for me. But if I do, I'm going to be making it very clear that I have a statue face and talk like a robot, and I'm willing to accept whatever my GM chooses to do with that information.
2) I'm not saying I would immediately adopt an antagonistic approach to a PC with this item. But if they roll a Bluff check and get a 38, and when I ask how it's so high they mention they have the mask, I'm going to ask why their character hasn't been speaking in monotone the entire time. And if they attempt a sexy flirty lie with their monotone and statue face, I may tell them that they're going to get a healthy circumstance penalty. But I will tell them that beforehand.
It may be fluff, but it's very clearly written. Your face turns into a statue. Trying to "flavor" it that it's magical face-colored stone that moves and looks just like flesh seems a lot like someone who wants the benefits but is unwilling to accept any kind of limitations. Instead of ignoring the RP aspect, embrace them, and accept that sometimes, you might encounter a situational penalty. And then take the mask off and proceed.
Per IRL:
"Judge Dredd Face" is appropriate for some social situations in which I have been, but it would have been disastrous in others in my experience, be they officer social functions (people can get silly in formal dress - as I suspect many cleaners know from laundering dress blues) to LARP socials. Arguing that ALL situations require stoicism seems odd to me; it lacks finesse and social engineering.Per RAW:
Would you use the same argument against any conditional modifiers?
Oh, I am not saying that being calm and speaking in a monotone would not have an impact in some social situations, but I think that they would be rather rare. And even in some of them, you could incorporate it into your story.
Ex: At a Cayden Cailcan temple (pretty much a bar with a party going on all the time), wearing a poker face and speaking in a monotone could be explained that you can't get into a party mood or enjoy yourself until...add in the rest of the bluff here.
But speaking to an NPC guard, shopkeeper, magistrate, etc.. and have a penalty assigned because you are wearing a poker face (stone like) and speaking in a monotone (i.e. wearing the mask) is deliberately nerfing the player because you don't like the item that is legal and that they paid for.
If I am pretending to be replacement delivery guy delivering supplies to the castle kitchen (because I have left the real guy tied up and unconscious in a safe house), roll a 10, +15 skill, +10 mask for a total of 35 and you tell me that they didn't believe me, because you applied a -20 penalty because I had a poker face on, and was speaking in a bored monotone, then I will call shenanigans.
In PFS, I will likely run it up through my VO, as in my opinion, the GM would be cheating in applying that penalty.
and i did not say it would never work but there are some situations that having no emotions and a monotone voice would hurt instead of help.
It may be fluff, but it's very clearly written. Your face turns into a statue. Trying to "flavor" it that it's magical face-colored stone that moves and looks just like flesh seems a lot like someone who wants the benefits but is unwilling to accept any kind of limitations. Instead of ignoring the RP aspect, embrace them, and accept that sometimes, you might encounter a situational penalty. And then take the mask off and proceed.
That I have no problem with, and even agree with it. Sometimes it will not only not help, but could hurt my chances.
I have been responding to the those that are saying that they would automatically assign a penalty (so far, equal or higher than the bonus given by the mask) to anyone using the mask.
I have yet to purchase one of these, but I may, if I can come up with a character concept that would/could make good use of it.
|
|
~nod~
While I have been arguing for stricter limitations on how the mask would work, I have been sorely tempted but have so far avoided purchasing one of these on my Bard-2/Rogue (Thug)-4 Diplo/Bluff/Intimidate character. And I do note that it's my opinion that some-but-not-all GMs will short the social mechanics in favor of more clear cut combat mechanics because they feel more comfortable with the latter.
|
|
Couple points of clarification here from my perspective:
1) I'm probably going to be purchasing this for one of my characters, because that character is a Razmiran Priest, and they a) lie a lot and b) wear masks. And c) I can talk like Bane and that will be fun for me. But if I do, I'm going to be making it very clear that I have a statue face and talk like a robot, and I'm willing to accept whatever my GM chooses to do with that information.
2) I'm not saying I would immediately adopt an antagonistic approach to a PC with this item. But if they roll a Bluff check and get a 38, and when I ask how it's so high they mention they have the mask, I'm going to ask why their character hasn't been speaking in monotone the entire time. And if they attempt a sexy flirty lie with their monotone and statue face, I may tell them that they're going to get a healthy circumstance penalty. But I will tell them that beforehand.
It may be fluff, but it's very clearly written. Your face turns into a statue. Trying to "flavor" it that it's magical face-colored stone that moves and looks just like flesh seems a lot like someone who wants the benefits but is unwilling to accept any kind of limitations. Instead of ignoring the RP aspect, embrace them, and accept that sometimes, you might encounter a situational penalty. And then take the mask off and proceed.
I think what you have here is pretty reasonable for the most part. I admit that I don't RP the monotone part, but if a GM asked me to I would actively take on and off the mask, role play it, and not question the ruling. The reason I don't bother with that now is not to cheese the system, but to avoid killing the fun. In most cases we want people to be more animated at the table, it is much more engaging that way. Having someone who is bored at the table really saps the energy, while mr dull might be a great liar, he isn't necessarily a good person to roleplay with.
About the only part that I think you are outright wrong about is saying I am the one flavoring it as magical face colored stone. It is magical, and magic designed to help you lie, but even if that weren't the case I still would see it keeping your tones as a fairly natural conclusion. Nothing says it changes to a certain type of stone. Did you see the picture I linked earlier? Would you stake your life on the fact that you knew this was a close up of actual stone or actual skin? After considering that answer, then consider you will likely never be examining a person's face as closely as you were examining that picture.
Then again wouldent talking in a monotone voice with a stone face while trying to save somone make your lies unbelievable and give you a -20 or make the lie compleaty unbelievable anyways?
and
and i did not say it would never work but there are some situations that having no emotions and a monotone voice would hurt instead of help.
Have you ever been around medical personnel trying desperately to save someone's life? Or around pilots when they are trying to keep the plane from crashing?
They tend to speak in emotionless, monotones. They are concentrating on what they are doing, and for the most part know that showing emotion at that moment often makes the situation worse.
And I agree, it will not be appropriate in some circumstances -trying to convince the servant that you are interested in them, so that they let you in the side door late at night, may not work well with a stone face and monotone voice.
But if the player put in something like : "I am really interested in you, but if I don't keep my emotions in check and my heart off my sleeve, I will be a blubbering and drooling wreck", that may be enough to cancel any penalty due to the monotone voice and stony face.
|
|
About the only part that I think you are outright wrong about is saying I am the one flavoring it as magical face colored stone. It is magical, and magic designed to help you lie, but even if that weren't the case I still would see it keeping your tones as a fairly natural conclusion. Nothing says it changes to a certain type of stone. Did you see the picture I linked earlier? Would you stake your life on the fact that you knew this was a close up of actual stone or actual skin? After considering that answer, then consider you will likely never be examining a person's face as closely as you were examining that picture.
I did look at the pictures. The first statue's face appears to be painted. The face-painted person looks like a person with face paint. The last picture, while I would not stake my life, I am reasonably certain that it is marble and not skin.
When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.
I do think that if the intent were for the "stone face" to be nearly indistinguishable from a normal face, it would likely say so in the text.
EDIT:
I admit that I don't RP the monotone part, but if a GM asked me to I would actively take on and off the mask, role play it, and not question the ruling. The reason I don't bother with that now is not to cheese the system, but to avoid killing the fun.
The issue I have with this, is that it seems a lot to me like saying "my Oracle has the Lame curse, but I don't reduce his speed because I don't think the party would like me slowing them down." Or, "I know my Cestus is supposed to impose a penalty on precision-based tasks, but I don't think the party would like me taking a penalty to my Disable Device checks."
I also think having a face with a robotic monotone can be a lot of fun, in terms of RP.
The item says what it says. For all those complaining that GMs would ignore the item's bonus to Bluff as written, I don't see people as keen to enforce the aesthetic limitations as written.
|
|
I did look at the pictures. The first statue's face appears to be painted. The face-painted person looks like a person with face paint. The last picture, while I would not stake my life, I am reasonably certain that it is marble and not skin.
When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.
Marble is a type of stone.
The first bust is described as polished and honed, not painted, they are trying to sell it.The second picture I thought was a statue. It was actually the first one I posted before I did a little more digging and found out it was a girl.
If you can't be certain on the third one, which is a blown up picture I found after a couple minutes browsing the internet, I don't think it reasonable to say that NPCs standing at a distance not expecting stone would be.
I do think that if the intent were for the "stone face" to be nearly indistinguishable from a normal face, it would likely say so in the text.
So the item says it gives a mechanical bonus, the fluff can be interpreted to give that bonus, yet because the fluff could also be interpreted to do the opposite of that bonus and the text doesn't actively dispute this interpretation, then the item does the opposite of what the mechanical bonus says?
The issue I have with this, is that it seems a lot to me like saying "my Oracle has the Lame curse, but I don't reduce his speed because I don't think the party would like me slowing them down." Or, "I know my Cestus is supposed to impose a penalty on precision-based tasks, but I don't think the party would like me taking a penalty to my Disable Device checks."I also think having a face with a robotic monotone...
I would liken it more to not forcing a player to roleplay a sexual charged situation than simply changing quantitative values.
And yes it could be fun for certain characters, I can see the comedy value in your skit. But supposing it is more of a serious role the player has in mind, as it is supposed to be, or the player can't present it very well, I can see it being an unnecessary drag.
I would say if a GM says roleplay it I would, perhaps to the determent of the table, but I would never ask someone to do it. But then again, I never try to push anyone outside the comforts of their roleplay.
|
|
But supposing it is more of a serious role the player has in mind, as it is supposed to be, or the player can't present it very well, I can see it being an unnecessary drag.
I would argue that if someone isn't willing to roleplay the item, they should avoid purchasing it for their character. If there was a magic item that gave you +10 Diplomacy but changed your gender, I wouldn't let the player handwave it because they "don't want to play a girl."
It sounds like you really want to avoid applying any of the listed "fluff" of the item ("my stone face looks and moves exactly like flesh", "I don't want to do the voice"). I suppose that's your choice, but I think it gives you little ground to stand on when demanding that GMs allow the +10 bonus regardless of context.
|
|
When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.
Marble is a kind of stone. "Stone" is a category. There's no such thing as "stone" that doesn't have some kind of more specific label. One such label is "marble," which indicates a type of stone that is commonly used for statues of people.
|
|
When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.Marble is a kind of stone. "Stone" is a category. There's no such thing as "stone" that doesn't have some kind of more specific label. One such label is "marble," which indicates a type of stone that is commonly used for statues of people.
Yes, marble is a specific kind of stone. And if it was meant to be marble, I'd assume they would have said marble. Hide armor is "made up of the tanned and preserved skin of any thick-hided beast." Can I decide that mine happens to be made from a Dragon? It's a thick-hided beast.
|
|
I would argue that if someone isn't willing to roleplay the item, they should avoid purchasing it for their character. If there was a magic item that gave you +10 Diplomacy but changed your gender, I wouldn't let the player handwave it because they "don't want to play a girl."
It sounds like you really want to avoid applying any of the listed "fluff" of the item ("my stone face looks and moves exactly like flesh", "I don't want to do the voice"). I suppose that's your choice, but I think it gives you little ground to stand on when demanding that GMs allow the +10 bonus regardless of context.
Well I didn't say it moves exactly like flesh, if it did there wouldn't be any reason for the bonuses, but it must move like something resembling flesh to justify those bonuses.
And as I said before, I don't demand GMs give me the bonus without the roleplay, simply that I wouldn't make that request because I think there is more chance of harm than good coming from it.
I know a lot of people who have cross-gendered characters that don't role play it at all. Sometimes I don't know it until someone points it out for whatever reason part way through the game. I wouldn't think of forcing them to roleplay it.
I am all for roleplay, don't get me wrong. It just ins't an aspect of the game that I think actually improves by demand. I think the GMing 101 or 201 guide even advises such.
While I do think your take here is light years ahead of the punitive measures people were saying they take on this item earlier in the thread, I do still get the feeling that it is motivated by some measure of dislike for either the item or its price.
|
|
Yes, marble is a specific kind of stone. And if it was meant to be marble, I'd assume they would have said marble. Hide armor is "made up of the tanned and preserved skin of any thick-hided beast." Can I decide that mine happens to be made from a Dragon? It's a thick-hided beast.When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.Marble is a kind of stone. "Stone" is a category. There's no such thing as "stone" that doesn't have some kind of more specific label. One such label is "marble," which indicates a type of stone that is commonly used for statues of people.
As long as it provides the mechanical effects listed on Hide Armor, knock yourself out.
Once again with this idea "that they would have listed it if they wanted it that way/" Don't you think that argument holds a lot more water when referring to quantitative values rather than subdivisions of qualitative ones? It is very clear what this item is meant to do.
|
|
Yes, marble is a specific kind of stone. And if it was meant to be marble, I'd assume they would have said marble. Hide armor is "made up of the tanned and preserved skin of any thick-hided beast." Can I decide that mine happens to be made from a Dragon? It's a thick-hided beast.When I imagine what this mask looks like, I'd picture something like the first picture, but stone instead of marble. Since it says stone, and not marble.Marble is a kind of stone. "Stone" is a category. There's no such thing as "stone" that doesn't have some kind of more specific label. One such label is "marble," which indicates a type of stone that is commonly used for statues of people.
That analogy doesn't work, because dragonhide has specific properties. The point is, your hide armor can be cow, or pig, or buffalo, or freakin' T-Rex for all I care.
The stone equivalent of dragonhide might be, say, diamond--diamond has specific properties. But marble is just a type of stone like any other, and it also has the advantage of being one of the ones commonly used to make statues of people.
Hide armor has to be made of some kind of hide. It's not important, generally, but if it were, it would be facile to say, "it can't be cow, it's just 'hide.'" In the case of a human face crafted from stone, it's equally absurd to say, "it can't be marble, it's just 'stone.'"
|
|
Hide armor has to be made of some kind of hide. It's not important, generally, but if it were, it would be facile to say, "it can't be cow, it's just 'hide.'" In the case of a human face crafted from stone, it's equally absurd to say, "it can't be marble, it's just 'stone.'"
I'm not saying it can't be marble. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to say "well, clearly when they say 'stone' they mean flesh-colored stone that looks and moves like my normal face."
|
|
Hide armor has to be made of some kind of hide. It's not important, generally, but if it were, it would be facile to say, "it can't be cow, it's just 'hide.'" In the case of a human face crafted from stone, it's equally absurd to say, "it can't be marble, it's just 'stone.'"I'm not saying it can't be marble. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to say "well, clearly when they say 'stone' they mean flesh-colored stone that looks and moves like my normal face."
Yeah, but ... I'm pretty sure they do.
|
|
Yeah, but ... I'm pretty sure they do.Hide armor has to be made of some kind of hide. It's not important, generally, but if it were, it would be facile to say, "it can't be cow, it's just 'hide.'" In the case of a human face crafted from stone, it's equally absurd to say, "it can't be marble, it's just 'stone.'"I'm not saying it can't be marble. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to say "well, clearly when they say 'stone' they mean flesh-colored stone that looks and moves like my normal face."
Do you also assume that the "emotionless monotone" is regularly toned and inflected speech?
|
I also think having a face with a robotic monotone can be a lot of fun, in terms of RP.
I definitely have fun with it on my Geisha themed ninja. I've unofficially flavored it to turn her face into a porceline kabuki-style mask (or painted stone if you want to be boring). One of the reasons I don't wear it all the time is because I have really played up the monotone speech in the past. I remember one particular scenario where we were trying to stop some villagers from taking poison flowers from a group of cultists. She was wearing the mask because we were expecting trouble, so imagine this very colorful costumed geisha with two fighting fans and a porceline doll face running around and saying in a dry monotone, "The flowers are death. The flowers are death. The flowers are death." I'm pretty sure the villagers were more afraid of her than the cultists.