Mask of Stony Demeanor too cheap?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aureate wrote:

I agree that the item cost is probably a typo. 5,000G seems reasonable for an item that gives these bonuses. Maybe a little expensive, but reasonable.

For anyone that wants to screw over someone that buys this mask, either don't allow PC's to have the item or be very clear that the item has unwritten penalties that you are going to adjudicate on a whim because you don't like it.

The mask works EXACTLY as written. Which doesn't include penalties to the player for using the item that they bought. Don't like it? Then don't use it.

So, you mean to say, that no Paladin should ever bat an eye at someone carrying a dozen flasks of Unholy Water. Nor should a Good church be upset about someone carrying scrolls of Desecrate into their temple. Nor should a +5 Unholy Avenger cause any problems for the owner if a Good angel finds him wielding it, because, the item does exactly what it says it does and nothing more or less and there are never any RP considerations with regards to items.

The owner of a Darkskull should not be given any issues by any good or neutral clerics, and should be allowed to carry it into the main temple of any god or goddess, because there are no RP consequences for owning or using any item.

An orb of foul abbadon should be allowed to be a child's toy, and there is no RP issues if you walk around with it on the top of a staff casting spells from it in a LG aligned town. Because, there are no RP penalties stated in the item description.

Similarly, an Orb of Golden Heaven can be put on a staff, and walked around in Chelix with impunity, and used as much as you want, because there are no RP penalties for owning and using an item that an evil aligned country finds repulsive.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
The only social effect of the mask is a bonus to lie. That limits its usefulness in the above encounter with a merchant immediately. If you are trying to pass goods off to a merchant as being worth more than they are, it doesn't prevent him from making his own Appraise check. If it's not something that he knows the value of, he may be reluctant to buy even if he thinks (because of the lie) that it's a great deal as he doesn't know if it is something he is capable of reselling.

This is a very good point; far too many players see Bluff as a win-button, that allows them to dominate the actions of the bluffed.

It doesn't; it convinces them that you are sincere, which is not the same as convincing them that what you say is forced to be true. Only that you sincerely believe it to be so. You could be mistaken.

"You got gems worth a thousand gold each, you say? Well, they sound interesting; let me inspect the goods!"
...<Appraise>...
"Hmmm, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think you've been tricked. Some of these are a good size, and look good at first glance, but they have flaws that make them worth only a tenth of what they could be. I hope you didn't pay too much for these."
"Feel free to get a second opinion, but I'm sure you'll be told the same by any reputable dealer in this town.
"I'm sure you weren't to know, and...listen here.... I feel bad for you, so I'm willing to take these off you for a fair price, but it'll be a lot less than you were asking. Say five hundred for the lot, eh?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a guy in my local PFS who uses this mask. He's stacked his Bluff to +34 at 3rd level as a result.

• He's a tiefling with the beguiling liar alternate racial trait (+4 to Bluff instead of +2 to Bluff and +2 to Stealth)
• He's got an 18 Charisma.
• He's got 3 ranks in Bluff, which is a class skill for him.
• He's got the Adopted (Innocent - Aasimar) Social Trait. Innocent is from Blood of Angels, and makes it so that your target always wants to believe your lies (giving you a +5 bonus and effectively negating any penalties from any ridiculous or outlandish lies)
• He's got Skill Focus (Disguise) and Eldritch Heritage (Rakshasa) giving him Silver Tongue. Silver Tongue can be used 3 + Cha mod per day to grant a +5 untyped bonus to a Bluff check to lie as a swift action.
• He's got the Mask of Stony Demeanor, giving a +10 competence bonus to lies.

All told: 4 racial + 4 Charisma + 3 rank + 3 class skill + 5 Innocent + 5 Silver Tongue + 10 competence = +34, which cannot be penalized on the outlandishness of the lie. At level 3.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Scarab Sages

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

There's a guy in my local PFS who uses this mask. He's stacked his Bluff to +34 at 3rd level as a result.

• He's a blurgleflgblafftweaktootpffft with a side order of fwappaqidditch.

All told: 4 racial + 4 Charisma + 3 rank + 3 class skill + 5 Innocent + 5 Silver Tongue + 10 competence = +34, which cannot be penalized on the outlandishness of the lie. At level 3.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Great. So he tells outrageous lies, with a huge bonus, because he does a Puss in Boots face while doing it.

All this does is persuade the listeners, that he is actually that dumb enough to believe whatever crap he's trying to sell to them.

"Awww. Isn't it sweet, how he still believes in fairy tales, at his age!"

"Yup. I remember when my kids used to tell me the things they'd dreamed about, as if they'd actually happened. <sigh> They grow up so fast."

The Exchange

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

There's a guy in my local PFS who uses this mask. He's stacked his Bluff to +34 at 3rd level as a result.

• He's got the Adopted (Innocent - Aasimar) Social Trait. Innocent is from Blood of Angels, and makes it so that your target always wants to believe your lies (giving you a +5 bonus and effectively negating any penalties from any ridiculous or outlandish lies)

PFSRD wrote:
When you make a Bluff check to tell a lie, your target always wants to believe you, granting you the standard +5 bonus on your Bluff check. This bonus only applies if the lie you tell is either believable or unlikely.

That's far less powerful than you have been lead to believe - he does have a good bluff score! :)

He's used a lot of resources to get to that bonus, plus I guess 2PA to get the mask?


@Snorter: Except that's not how the mechanics work.

A lie using bluff is opposed by a sense motive check by the other party. Now, in the case of the shopkeep, he most likely failed the opposed sense motive check.

I would argue that as a GM, if the person trying to pass the flawed gems was working a swindle, and was asking for significantly less what the gems would be worth if unflawed, the shopkeep wouldn't bother with an appraise check. He failed his sense motive; he 100% believes that the person is telling the truth

Couple that with greed at getting gems he believes are worth twice what the person is asking... That's how grifters work - by playing a businessman's greed with a convincing lie to get 200g for a piece of glass worth less than 1\20th of that.

Giving them the chance to disbelieve the lie 'just because' is metagaming, and just as unfair as the hypothetical -20 to bluff for wearing the mask.

Scarab Sages

I can't see how he can justify combining the Innocent trait, with the mask.

Yes, mechanically they give different bonus types, but in terms of flavor text, they work in opposition to each other.

He can either bat his puppy-eyes, OR he can have a 'stone-faced demeanour'. Which is it?

This might sound like a technicality, but is akin to marching into a room, with a severed head on a spike, frothing at the mouth, spewing obscenities about what you plan to inflict on your listeners, to the tenth generation...then declaring your vow of pacifism gives +5 to Charisma-based skills, so the fact that you are known to never harm a fly makes your Intimidate attempt even more powerful.


Snorter wrote:

I can't see how he can justify combining the Innocent trait, with the mask.

Yes, mechanically they give different bonus types, but in terms of flavor text, they work in opposition to each other.

He can either bat his puppy-eyes, OR he can have a 'stone-faced demeanour'. Which is it?

Take the Vulcans from Star Trek as an example: A full Vulcan has full suppression of his emotions, and they are known for honesty (simply because lying tends to be illogical). Innocence doesn't necessarily indicate that you're pulling a Puss in Boots.


What happens if you get Stone to Flesh used on you when you have the mask one?

I'd go with adding "While non-Oreads may use this item, non-Oreads with stone faces are considered suspicious, causing all lies to be treated as at least far-fetched." which goes with the intent (It's an Oread item, most ARG items don't work or don't work as well for other races).


But that's sort of everyone else's objection to the mask as well. The obviously magical ston-faced demeanour (that anyone knowledgeable ties to a magic item that enhances lying) make it obvious that someone is trying to lie, and as such makes everyone suspicious of that person.

Ultimately, it's (IMHO) a very bad bit of flavor text that I assume is used to justify some minor penalties and a lower price for the object. The problem is that if you take the flavor text seriously, the penalty is too small. If you disregard the flavor text, the item is overpowered.


And the problem people have with that problem is that declaring that is just GM fiat to make an item a waste and is a dick move because it isn't in the rules.

Just adding it to the rules up-front in errata seems perfectly reasonable.

Scarab Sages

Xaratherus wrote:

@Snorter: Except that's not how the mechanics work.

A lie using bluff is opposed by a sense motive check by the other party. Now, in the case of the shopkeep, he most likely failed the opposed sense motive check.

Great. You convinced the merchant that you sincerely believe the gems to be worth what you say. That means you have plausible deniability, when he checks them, and the jig is up.

It means he pities you, as a foolish sap, rather than assuming you were deliberately trying to pull a fast one on him.
Still doesn't get him to pay more than he thinks they're worth.

Xaratherus wrote:
Giving them the chance to disbelieve the lie 'just because' is metagaming, and just as unfair as the hypothetical -20 to bluff for wearing the mask.

He's not auto-disbelieving the lie 'just because'.

He's getting a chance to use his own Appraise skill, to ascertain the value of the goods. A skill that he has probably maxed out every level, plus stat bonus, plus class skill bonus, plus skill focus, plus masterwork eyeglass (possibly magically enhanced for microscopic vision), plus traits....
That's what Appraise does. That's his job on the line. That's how he pays his bills, feeds his family.


The mask is pretty bad, but the race trait is the real offender in this guy's setup. His marks all want to believe he is telling the truth.

To the guards outside the boss's chamber: "Your house is on fire with your wife and kids trapped inside. They need you!"

Both guards run off - one of them isn't married, the other hasn't seen his spouse since she ran off with his brother years ago.

The liar enters the boss's chamber. "You asked for a back massage. I'm a masseuse. Lie down with your back to me and we'll begin."

One coup de grace later and the liar walks out with some sweet loot. He tells anyone he comes across that he is the boss, and the stuff in his bag is just some trash he's taking out.

Everyone in there wants to believe him.

Scarab Sages

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
The mask is pretty bad, but the race trait is the real offender in this guy's setup. His marks all want to believe he is telling the truth.

Only if the lie has the possibility of truth (see brock's post).

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:

To the guards outside the boss's chamber: "Your house is on fire with your wife and kids trapped inside. They need you!"

Both guards run off - one of them isn't married, the other hasn't seen his spouse since she ran off with his brother years ago.

First guard: "Err. Sorry, but I'm not married. You must have got me confused with someone else. Easily done. Thanks for being a good citizen."

(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn't realise you're pulling a fast one, since, you know, you look reeally sincere. Still doesn't make him shift.)

Second guard: "My wife's on fire? Hah! Good riddance to the b@~~@!"
(Again, he believes you're sincere, but so what? Doesn't force him to move, unless he has a reason to do so.)

Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
The liar enters the boss's chamber. "You asked for a back massage. I'm a masseuse. Lie down with your back to me and we'll begin."

Well, did he ask for a massage, or didn't he?

Does he have one as part of his routine?
If not, then his answer is "No, I didn't. Get out of here, before I have your legs broken."

Assuming he was expecting a massage;
"You must be new. I want The Special. And I want you be looking me right in the eye, when you do it."
(D'oh! Now what?)


Snorter wrote:

Great. You convinced the merchant that you sincerely believe the gems to be worth what you say. That means you have plausible deniability, when he checks them, and the jig is up.

It means he pities you, as a foolish sap, rather than assuming you were deliberately trying to pull a fast one on him.
Still doesn't get him to pay more than he thinks they're worth.

A couple millenia worth of swindles and grifts disagree with you. Certain types of men have long histories of selling a paste diamond for hundreds of dollars by telling convincing lies and preying on the hopes of 'finding that big break'. The same thing happens today, only the 'diamond' in this case is usually winnings from a UK lottery you didn't enter, or from a wealthy Nigerian prince...

Sure, if you walk into just any shop and do this, you're probably going to wind up with your scenario a decent percentage of the time (still not 100% of the time).

But if you're going to bother buying a mask like this and then try to pawn cheap goods, you're not going to walk into just any shop; you're going to walk into the one where the shopkeep has a reputation for being greedy and superior to his customers, and then you're going to play to that greed.

@Snorter: Your most recent reply to Thanis - sorry, that is metagaming. Your example is setting up that every person you run into is going to be the most competent individual in the world to thwart what you (as the GM) know is an attempt to lie; if you play it that way, then the fairest thing to do is to tell your players up front not to play someone based around telling lies.

Scarab Sages

Xaratherus wrote:
@Snorter: Your most recent reply to Thanis - sorry, that is metagaming. Your example is setting up that every person you run into is going to be the most competent individual in the world to thwart what you (as the GM) know is an attempt to lie; if you play it that way, then the fairest thing to do is to tell your players up front not to play someone based around telling lies.

I was using Thanis' own scenarios.

He was the one stating that guard one was unmarried, and guard two hated his wife, as if these were facts already known by the GM.
I'm assuming this is the way they are presented in a published scenario, a setting book, or already established/decided by the GM prior to the Bluff attempt being made.
That background material has to have some value, some effect on how the game plays out, or else it's simply wasted page space.

Yes, for me to just retroactively decide that 'guard one isn't married, and guard two hates his wife', in response to a Bluff attempt could be unfair.
It could also be the result of a random roll on a 'family and dependents chart' (such as might be found in Ultimate Campaign), if the GM wanted his hands to be clean of any perceived bias. Such a chart should also contain the possibility of results like 'Newlyweds: NPC really misses their spouse, and will take any excuse to drop everything to be with them.', in which case, the Bluff wouldn't need to be that convincing.


mdt wrote:

So, you mean to say, that no Paladin should ever bat an eye at someone carrying a dozen flasks of Unholy Water. Nor should a Good church be upset about someone carrying scrolls of Desecrate into their temple. Nor should a +5 Unholy Avenger cause any problems for the owner if a Good angel finds him wielding it, because, the item does exactly what it says it does and nothing more or less and there are never any RP considerations with regards to items.

The owner of a Darkskull should not be given any issues by any good or neutral clerics, and should be allowed to carry it into the main temple of any god or goddess, because there are no RP consequences for owning or using any item.

An orb of foul abbadon should be allowed to be a child's toy, and there is no RP issues if you walk around with it on the top of a staff casting spells from it in a LG aligned town. Because, there are no RP penalties stated in the item description.

Similarly, an Orb of Golden Heaven can be put on a staff, and walked around in Chelix with impunity, and used as much as you want, because there are no RP penalties for owning and using an item that an evil aligned country finds repulsive.

Arguments of the absurd. To try to prove that it is okay to be an ass. Got it.

The item in question gives a bonus to telling lies. That does not mean that the person wearing it IS going to tell a lie. And even so, the first lie could be "I don't need to take this off, because I won't lie to you." The item works as written. Period. Full stop.

Just because you seem to believe that the ability to tell a believable lie is somehow gamebreaking doesn't mean it is so. The item is not in any way overpowered.

Instead of absurd RP reasons to prove your point, why not something a little closer to the actual situation you object to. Interaction with a merchant.

Better make sure no adventurers come into my shop with anything magic. They might be boosting their charisma to make me like them more so they get a better deal. Better make sure that they didn't have an opportunity to quaff a potion or cast a spell before talking to me.

I didn't say anything about not allowing RP situations to have an effect on the game. Nor did I say that lying is something that can be done with impunity. I said that you shouldn't add penalties to an item that aren't there. So no -20 to your bluff check to lie. You get a +10. Might the target get a bonus to sense motive? Sure. But it shouldn't completely negate the item without a damned good reason. He refuses to do business with you while wearing it? That's his prerogative. Just as it is yours not to do business with him. SOMEONE will do business with you. Greed works like that. And if you get caught lying you will have to face the consequences. Whatever those may be in a roleplaying sense.

What you have suggested with your absurdity is that because you know someone is carrying unholy water that it no longer works as unholy water. That IS absurd.


Aureate wrote:


The item in question gives a bonus to telling lies. That does not mean that the person wearing it IS going to tell a lie.

Similarly, the Orb of Foul Abaddon allows you to cast evil spells, but doesn't mean that the person carrying it IS going to cast an evil spell.

Nevertheless, you'll attract lots of attention from paladins for carrying it around.

Scarab Sages

I was going to suggest 'a vial of Rohypnol'.

"Yes, officer. That does happen to be mine. What of it? Doesn't EVERYONE carry such a thing? I am offended by your insinuations that I intended to use it for illegal purposes. You shall be hearing from my lawyer.
I bid you good day, sir. I say, GOOD DAY!"

<turn on heel. Make dramatic flouncing exit>


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Aureate wrote:


The item in question gives a bonus to telling lies. That does not mean that the person wearing it IS going to tell a lie.

Similarly, the Orb of Foul Abaddon allows you to cast evil spells, but doesn't mean that the person carrying it IS going to cast an evil spell.

Nevertheless, you'll attract lots of attention from paladins for carrying it around.

Exactly. Glad we're on the same page. Once the paladins know you have the item, they still can't be sure that you are evil. They'll keep an eye on you. The orb even explains the effect that it has on you if you aren't evil. There is plenty to roleplay there. The orb still works as written, regardless of the existence of paladins that may or may not be aware of the item you are carrying.

Dark Archive

I think the mask's useless as a lying device because it is plainly visible. People wont bother with sense motive, they'll just refuse to listen to you until you take the thing off.

The +5 Feint, however, is very useful, and as has been said already I think the price is very generous for this feature alone.

Richard

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

The more I think about the price, I think it's likely that a typo crept in and it should have been 1,500, which still seems like a bargain, but is cheaper than the 2500 of a +5 to bluff item.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Still think it should be 5k.

Grand Lodge

I'd set it at 5k at minimum. Someone messed up with pricing this item. Clicked for an FAQ.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

10k is too much since that is what a full +10 item would cost.

5k seems like a good middle-ground to me.

Liberty's Edge

You know, it's funny that people seem to want NPCs to know what this item does simply because they may have heard of it. But quite frankly the majority of NPCs, especially outside of major city are generally too poor to afford magic items at all, and would have little reason to know what the Mask of Stony Demeanor looks like particularly when there are numerous magical masks that an adventurer might wear, or the character might be part of a particular group like the gray warden's or Razmir's faithful that don't show their face.

So I have a question then, if someone were to use item creation feats and make, say, a circlet of stony demeanor, or a cloak of stony demeanor, would you still have NPCs react adversely.

I still think the item is under priced, but rping against it doesn't seem like the reasonable thing to do, if you don't like the item power to price, adjust it to what you think is fair for the stat boost.

Liberty's Edge

So how about this; since bluff has 3 standard uses, and a straight stat boost is usually enhancement squared times 100:

Lie +10 = 10000/3 = 3333
Feint + 5 = 2500/3 = 833
Secret Message - 5 = -2500/3 = -833

3333 + 833 - 833 = 3333

So 3333 gold pieces, an odd number for a magic item, but by the number what an item that boosts 1/3 uses by ten and having the other two uses bonus and penalty cancelling each other out should cost.

Although you can just take the mask off to avoid the penalty, so going up to 5k gold isn't unreasonable.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, here's the thing. I never said John The Farmer would know what it was. Although he's likely to think some guy with a stone face is pretty weird, especially when he talks like a physics professor teaching a 7:30 AM class. So sure, lie your buns off to the farmer if it gets your jollies off.

However, the type of people that a PC really wants to lie to, kings, shop keepers buying/selling expensive items, inquisition leads, they'll all know about this thing, because they have researched ways of lying and beating truth zones. And they are not going to be fooled by it any more than you would be if you were talking to someone you knew had been diagnosed as a pathological liar. And yes, they could be telling the truth but you'd likely not believe them. Thus the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You stacked variables to meet your preferred conclusion.

Even then, there are things that could change the outcome, and I am not sure if I can even get you to accept that they exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have already said that there would be people it would work on. However, people who are buying or selling things that are worth thousands of GP each would bloody well recognize every trick in the book. Because if they didn't they would be out of business because of cheap flim/flam artists using a 500gp item to rip them off. The fact that you can't see that is, frankly, mind boggling.

I think after the 3rd or 4th time the GM used it to trick you out of something, you'd demand he remove the item or quit using it on you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I spoke from a position, as a Player, with a DM, doing as you described.

This was not a personal attack.

You have taken your dislike of the price, and used it as a basis for why the item is a bad item, but without actually using the price, in the reasons you give, as to why it is a bad item.

It is not all about you.

I know, and trust, my DMs. If they had done, as you described, I would tell them, that was a dick move.

Then again, I don't know what the campaign was like until these hypothetical situations. I don't know what PC I am playing in this hypothetical situation, or what the rest of the party is like.

I have yet to outright make any personal attacks, and yet, you have made plenty, and continue to do so.

Obviously, there is miscommunication here.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think it is priced the way it is because it is a trap item.

I also think it is of limited usability for most of the uses players would put it to, which makes it a trap item.

I think it is a 'trap item' even at 500gp (repeating to solve confusion).

I think that any merchant, inquisitor, or any other person a PC might want to use it on would be aware of it beyond about 5th level. I think these people would not only know about it, they would actively look for it, and either not do business with or not believe anyone wearing it, because it has no other purpose than to lie.

I have no idea why anyone would think the NPCs in the world who deal with 5000 and 10,000 and 100,000 gp items would NOT be aware of an item that DOUBLES the effectiveness of lying (assuming 10 ranks is average for a skill). I have no idea why anyone dealing with that level of cash would not be on the lookout for this item. And I do not believe any PC would not call it a 'dick move' if the NPC used it on them, and the GM ruled they couldn't refuse to do business with the guy if they're aware of the item. So why is it a 'dick move' to say the NPCs who are aware of the item don't do business with the PCs?

There, does any of that make it clearer?


mdt wrote:

I see no reason to debate with someone who's acting like a spoiled 12 yo who has had the flys taken away so he can't pull their wings off*.

Well, it's definitely clear that someone is using inflammatory insults.

As to your question: any NPC with enough ranks in spellcraft and who could use Detect Magic would not trust someone wearing it. It has CL 6, so it requires a DC 21 spellcraft check to figure it out (AFTER casting a specific spell). I would not expect most npcs the players deal with to be able to do that without preparation or trying to notice it. Certainly some of them would, but not all of them, but not all salesmen are even spellcasters, let alone have +20 bonuses to spellcraft to guarantee they can identify the mask.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The item looks like it was made by Oreads, for Oreads.

So, it works well for them, and might work for someone else, but is harder to pull off.

It's best to think about it, in this context.

The Cloak of Human Guise is a cheap item as well, but really only works well for Half-Orcs and Half-Elves.

Now, the function, and price, make more sense, with this in mind.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
137ben wrote:
mdt wrote:

I see no reason to debate with someone who's acting like a spoiled 12 yo who has had the flys taken away so he can't pull their wings off*.

Well, it's definitely clear that someone is using inflammatory insults.

As to your question: any NPC with enough ranks in spellcraft and who could use Detect Magic would not trust someone wearing it. It has CL 6, so it requires a DC 21 spellcraft check to figure it out (AFTER casting a specific spell). I would not expect most npcs the players deal with to be able to do that without preparation or trying to notice it. Certainly some of them would, but not all of them, but not all salesmen are even spellcasters, let alone have +20 bonuses to spellcraft to guarantee they can identify the mask.

So, you are saying that merchants who deal with magical items have no way of knowing what magical items exist, how they work, or how to recognize the signs of them?

Nor does inquisitors, bailiffs, kings, rich merchants, kings advisors, and other people of power who have people trying lie to them all the time and using every possible advantage they can to lie to them?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This, again, falls under a number of assumptions around this item, that are only supported by hypothetical circumstances.

This obscure racial item, is only a well known mark of evil, if the DM chooses it to be.

If all Bastard Swords were used by crazed murderers, and everyone recognized them, as a mark of a crazed murderer, then the PC with the Bastard Sword, would be seen as a crazed murderer, even if they were not.

This is what you have created as a basis for your distaste for the item.

It is a weird way to go about it, and suggests that all DMs and Players would treat this item exactly the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can someone explain to me again why the merchants even care what the PCs think an item is worth in the first place?

It seems the main example of why this item is broken is a non-starter. "You think these beans are worth 12321343212354 gold, outstanding I will take a look at them and tell you what I think."

Even if I believe you, I still want verification for my investment. I could be wrong about you, or you could be wrong about your items.

To another recurring argument here, I don't assume most people know that the mask is even being worn on sight. But even if I did, I still MIGHT buy from the person. Hell, I might buy something from a nine-fingered Rakshasa under the right circumstances.

Would the people who really want to gimp this item still want to do so if it were more expensive?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This, again, falls under a number of assumptions around this item, that are only supported by hypothetical circumstances.

This obscure racial item, is only a well known mark of evil, if the DM chooses it to be.

If all Bastard Swords were used by crazed murderers, and everyone recognized them, as a mark of a crazed murderer, then the PC with the Bastard Sword, would be seen as a crazed murderer, even if they were not.

This is what you have created as a basis for your distaste for the item.

It is a weird way to go about it, and suggests that all DMs and Players would treat this item exactly the same.

Please, tell me what assumptions I'm making that are unreasonable?

It is priced at 500gp yes?

It gives +10 to lying, and lying only, yes?

It has no other purpose than to make you a better liar, yes?

It has a very visible manifestation when it is in use, yes? Your face is either stone, or you are wearing a mask, and either way, your voice is monotone and has no inflection, yes?

People who run magic shops have to know about magic items yes?

They know what is on the market yes?

They have to know their properties and what they do and what they are worth yes?

That's why they have appraise, spellcraft and profession skills yes?

It is in their best interest not to be ripped off, yes?

It's only 500gp, it's not a valuable or rare item, yes?

It has a low caster level, yes?

You can crank them out by the dozens per month, yes?

It's designed for a race that has a face made of stone, so it doesn't look weird on them. But on anyone else, having your face be stone is very very very very noticeable yes? Something easy to remember yes?

So if you answered yes to most of these questions, it's a trap item for anyone other than an oread. It's a great item for an oread, but it's too cheap for them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes the way the item works in your hypothetical situations, under the predetermined presumptions you have laid out, is completely as you want it to be.

It makes you totally right, in whatever it is you are trying to prove right, in all the preconstructed hypothetical situations that happen to best represent whatever point you are trying to make.

In your game, with your rules, you have won.

So, I guess we are so juvenile, as to not realize, we lost your game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not my game BBT, it's how the item is described in the book.

What rule did I make up? I'm being serious now, what did I make up that is not written in the core rulebook, and the description of the item?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are not really getting what I am saying.

You still have to have this item be treated in manner in which you described, under the conditions you described, to get the result, that you are implying, is always the case.

You are, in a sense, creating rules, as to how this item must always be treated, and the conditions, that must always be present.

You still are advocating, that this item must work to do the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.

Even then, you dispute the price, even when working in the fashion you described.

This is much like advocating that a -2 Cursed Sword is too expensive, and it is the PC's fault that he uses it, and should be further punished for doing so.

It is a very weird position, and I have a hard time seeing the logic behind it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have a hard time seeing the logic of this item not being either overpowered, or utterly broken. There's no middle ground on that to me. If you don't put any logical spin on how the world treats it (just as people have to put in the game spin on how a Holy Avenger is treated in a Demon controlled land vs how Unholy Water is treated in a LG country).

A holy avenger is overpriced if there are no demons in a setting. It's underpriced if demons are overrunning the world.

But I'm done, you see no issues with the item, just remember that you're ok with it if the GM uses it on you too, especially if he uses it over and over. At 500gp, any shopkeeper that deals in magic items should have one if there's no reason not to. It's a tiny investment. Which makes ti the best item in the game if there's no RP consequences. If there are RP issues, then it's a trap item even at that price.

Not sure how you think that an either/or stance is inconsistent.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, being in the Oread section, of the Advanced Race Guide, I would advocate it being an item usable only by Oreads.

Another option, is to have it only available to Oreads at the listed price, or those with really good connections to the Oread community.

Seems to be a good way to do it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, being in the Oread section, of the Advanced Race Guide, I would advocate it being an item usable only by Oreads.

Another option, is to have it only available to Oreads at the listed price, or those with really good connections to the Oread community.

Seems to be a good way to do it.

If it was listed as Oread only, I'd be less concerned about it.

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mask of Stony Demeanor too cheap? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.