Mask of Stony Demeanor too cheap?


Rules Questions

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

What bat poop turns into (or not) is irrelevant, because familiarity with one circumstance does not automatically breed familiarity with every circumstance.

This boils down to a comparison of 'normal' versus 'abnormal'. In Golarion, a person carrying a weapon openly in most places would be considered normal; a person wearing a full face mask - well, outside of mitigating circumstances (that are probably as rare as the convention - see the Razmiran priest), I don't think it would be considered normal.

But I feel like this horse has learned its lesson, and we're not gaining anything by beating it further.


Why is wearing a mask "abnormal"? Specifically, why is it more abnormal than wearing a crown or having a gemstone fly around your head?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure Ioun stones look less "normal" than any kind of mask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here we go.

PRD Equipment wrote:


Masks obscure the face of their wearer and therefore lead people to believe the wearer is untrustworthy. The wearer suffers a -10, -20, or -40 to any bluff or diplomacy check as required to punish and/or mitigate the effects of things the GM has prejudice against.

....now that we have that settled....


Sitri wrote:

Here we go.

PRD Equipment wrote:


Masks obscure the face of their wearer and therefore lead people to believe the wearer is untrustworthy. The wearer suffers a -10, -20, or -40 to any bluff or diplomacy check as required to punish and/or mitigate the effects of things the GM has prejudice against.
....now that we have that settled....

What section is that in? I've never read that before. I just searched the PRD and didn't see anything.

EDIT: Or it was sarcasm and went straight over my poor little head.


Aureate wrote:


What section is that in? I've never read that before. I just searched the PRD and didn't see anything.

EDIT: Or it was sarcasm and went straight over my poor little head.

The latter :)


Sitri wrote:
Aureate wrote:


What section is that in? I've never read that before. I just searched the PRD and didn't see anything.

EDIT: Or it was sarcasm and went straight over my poor little head.

The latter :)

Awesome. I am apparently rather gullible. Good on you. You win my very favoritest internet.


My goal was really more to show the absurdity of what people are trying to pass for rules in the rules forum than to actually deceive.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, when you roll a natural one with an unarmed strike attack, you rupture your colon, and take 1d4 Con damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
meatrace wrote:
If a DM let me purchase/craft eyes of the eagle, then "reasoned" that a +5 to perception is just too good, and that (like an eagle) should only give me far sight not near sight, so only +5 perception on things more than 100 feet away. That dm is a jerk.

That is what they did until Pathfinder. They only gave a bonus to Spot, i.e. perceiving something at a distance by sight.

Now they allow you to hear better, taste better, have a better touch and sense of smell and to notice finer details, beside the original power.
Unifying the skills had some strange effect.

meatrace wrote:


And no, being a dick DM is a dick move.

Instead defining anything that you don't like as a dick move is so mature ...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
claymade wrote:
137ben wrote:
Also, I really don't buy the whole "restricting a powerful item to only useable by one race makes it less powerful and therefore should be discounted..."

It does make it somewhat less powerful, insofar as the restriction reduces options and cuts off synergies with other races/items. If you chose to play an Oread in order to get that mask, you've also cut yourself off from other race-specific possibilities that might or might not help you in other areas your build wants/needs.

Might you get lucky, and be able to get everything you want without contention or having to chose between things? Sure, but you're less likely to. It's a probabilistic thing.

It's the same reason that slotted items cost less than an unslotted item would. Sure, if your ideal build (by coincidence) had only one item in a particular slot that you really, really wanted, then for you, it's also effectively a discount "for nothing". But on the average, restrictions like that will tend to limit builds, which is why, for the provided items, it's treated as a discount.

Things get grayer when you introduce crafting, admittedly, and I agree that there's no way I'd allow a custom built item to take a discount for "useable only by my alignment". But when it's pre-set for the various items by the developers, without consideration to any given build, that means that those kind of restrictions will actually tend to conflict and rule out options, hence the discount over the bonuses that have no such restriction.

Items whose use is limited to a class or alignment don't cost less, they sell for less, what change is the price, not the cost.

PRD wrote:


Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

The cost of items that require skill use istead is lower:

PRD wrote:
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

And:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
James Risner wrote:
So more than likely, the price will be as if the light/esplend worked for everyone despite the fact it doesn't.

Correct.

When building an item, you calculate the cost to create it as if it were in the hands of an optimal user. Otherwise it's basically cheating. Observe:

Ezren makes a headband of vast intelligence +6. Cost to create: 18,000 gp

vs.

Ezren makes a headband of vast intelligence +6, but it only works for male humans (discount!) named Ezren (discount!) who are at least "old" age (discount) and were born in Absalom (discount!). Cost to create: ridiculously cheap, even though it works exactly like a standard headband +6.

For the OP's question:
Eagle’s splendor 2*3*1800/5 = 2160
Burning hands SL1 x CL3 x 1800/5 = 1080
Using the "multiple different abilities" guideline, we multiply the cost of the burning hands ability by 1.5 to get 1620
2160 + 1620 = 3,780

Glowing with light at will is pretty insignificant--it's not as good as being able to cast light at will (because only the orb lights, rather than being able to cast it on a coin you can throw, an ally's weapon, etc.), so I didn't use the standard SL .5 x CL 3 x 1800 for an on-command unlimited cantrip. Furthermore, the caster level of an unlimited-use light cantrip has a negligible effect (the effect on the duration is irrelevant because it's an at-will ability, and the increased resistance to a dispelling attempt is essentially irrelevant). Plus, the option to light at will is something you get for free in magic weapons, so throwing it in here at something than the formulaic cost is fair. As the mathematical price of the item so far is a non-simple number, I rounded the price up to 3,900 gp (1) to take into account the cost of the light ability, and (2) to make the final gp price nicer.

Scarab Sages

Xaratherus wrote:

And yet people do get ripped off by those scams, and education and average intelligence often has no bearing on it.

I have a member of my former gaming group who was a network administrator for a decently-sized company making $80k a year, had a bachelor's in computer sciences, and was overall a seemingly-intelligent person - and yet we poked fun at him because when we went over for game one Saturday, he had left out a bottle of male enhancement pills that were being advertised in those 'Engrish' spam e-mails.

How do you know that they didn't work?

Did you ask for a demonstration?

A lot of this is down to the perception of risk vs reward.
If a man's on $80K/year, it's not a noticable amount to invest $20 in a bottle of "LOVE HER LONG TIME", and if it turns out to be placebos, or caffeine tablets, it's small change, he can laugh off as a learning experience.
Risk: minimal
Reward: potentially EXPLOSIVE!

I wouldn't, because I'm on much less income than that, so the same expense would represent me being able/unable to pay the TV bill.
And I'd need someone to help me test them.
Risk: High
Reward: Probably sit in the bottom of a drawer till their sell-by date, so pretty low.

Players need to consider what they are actually offering the NPC, as part of their Bluff. If it isn't credible, or of any perceived value, or the risk is too great, to the NPC, then the DC should reflect that.
Most players, whose PCs are heavily invested in Bluff, seem to expect to be able to click their fingers, and convince NPCs to risk their entire family's assets, everything their father's father's father built up over generations, to chase an ephemeral whisper of a possibility of a meagre reward, like a herd of entranced mooncalves.

Scarab Sages

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just never really seen that much merchant abuse, like ever.

I have heard about it, online, but really never seen it happen in person.

Kind of doubt that it happens as much as some would like you to believe.

Tell your players you've allowed this item into the campaign.

Then get back to us.

Especially if your players are the usual type who insist social skills are only ever allowed to work when used by PCs, on NPCs. (a depressing number)

Scarab Sages

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Huh.

Different strokes, for different folks.

Most of my DMs had logical repercussions for such behavior.

Usually, it meant you got a great deal once, then it screwed you over for every other shop.

Isn't this what we've been saying throughout the thread?

The first person to wear this item may pull off a scam once, but then every merchant in the area is wise to it?
And it becomes impossible to pull off the same trick twice?
Either due to a GM Fiat "It's impossible to bluff while wearing this item", or by application of such a negative modifier that makes the attempt effectively impossible?

And, given that the PCs are not the first people on their world to have developed magical aptitude, they probably aren't the first persons to have attempted to use such an item?
So they don't even have to be given the benefit of one success.

Scarab Sages

137ben wrote:

Also, I really don't buy the whole "restricting a powerful item to only useable by one race makes it less powerful and therefore should be discounted..."

that just means anyone who uses it is getting a more powerful item than their WBL would indicate. It means everyone will seek out items restricted to their race, since those items will be better than others of the same price.
Same goes for the rule in magic item creation that alignment-restricted weapons can get discounted--people will just always make/buy items specific to their alignment, and you've just effectively increased WBL. Adding a race requirement to use an item shouldn't make it any more powerful.

This is exactly the point.

If a disadvantage isn't actually a disadvantage, then it isn't a disadvantage.

"I'll commission an item that gives +50 on all skills, attacks and saves. But it only works for people called Billy-Bob Hogwash, who are the third son of Jethro and Millie Hogwash, born on the Swallowtail Festival Day, who have a mole on their left buttcheek."
"Call it 50gp, yeah?"

- Billy-Bob Hogwash

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I just never really seen that much merchant abuse, like ever.

I have heard about it, online, but really never seen it happen in person.

Kind of doubt that it happens as much as some would like you to believe.

Tell your players you've allowed this item into the campaign.

Then get back to us.

Especially if your players are the usual type who insist social skills are only ever allowed to work when used by PCs, on NPCs. (a depressing number)

I already mentioned the Oread Inquisitor in one of my games.

Also, the Duergar Inquisitor/Monk in the Legac of Fire game has this.

The world, and campaign, remain intact.


Snorter wrote:
137ben wrote:

Also, I really don't buy the whole "restricting a powerful item to only useable by one race makes it less powerful and therefore should be discounted..."

that just means anyone who uses it is getting a more powerful item than their WBL would indicate. It means everyone will seek out items restricted to their race, since those items will be better than others of the same price.
Same goes for the rule in magic item creation that alignment-restricted weapons can get discounted--people will just always make/buy items specific to their alignment, and you've just effectively increased WBL. Adding a race requirement to use an item shouldn't make it any more powerful.

This is exactly the point.

If a disadvantage isn't actually a disadvantage, then it isn't a disadvantage.

"I'll commission an item that gives +50 on all skills, attacks and saves. But it only works for people called Billy-Bob Hogwash, who are the third son of Jethro and Millie Hogwash, born on the Swallowtail Festival Day, who have a mole on their left buttcheek."
"Call it 50gp, yeah?"

- Billy-Bob Hogwash

You'd have to be epic level to make it:)

(You need to be Epic to make an item that gives more than a +30 bonus to a save, and/or more than +5 to an attack, and/or more than +5 to a save)

Scarab Sages

True, you'd have to work up to it, by making incremental upgrades to your lesser amulet of Billy-Bobbery.


While it's nice for lying; as was mentioned, for a +5 to bluff feint ALONE, that's still too cheap.

I think 1500 or 2500 makes more sense. I think it would make sense if 500g was possibly a typo for 1500g or 2500g


Another example of this items use in a campaign:

My paladin rogue uses this item. Has worn is nearly nonstop for 2 years since bringing great shame on himself, his family and his nation, nearly breaking a 500 year alliance, seeking atonement (LE to LG shift), and training under the order of paladins to learn the proper application of law and compassion.

The mask is only removed in the court of the sovereign, his mentor has instructed him that to do otherwise is a great breach of etiquette. Vendors and acquaintances have scoffed at the stone face, but he does not care, he deals fair with others. After some initial distrust others realize he is exactly what he appears to be, a paladin and true to his word. Also a stone faced executioner of those found to be enemies of his god, his state, and the free people. And the secret is, yes, when the stakes are high and the end justifies the means, he tells lies. These lies are almost always believed, cause no one suspects Batman or Judge Dredd of lying. Of course he seeks atonement for his actions, occasionally is shunned by his god for taking a step too far, but it is the price paid to preserve the nation and serve the king.

And on top of hiding his shame, his fanatical loyalty to the crown, it hides his face in battle. He will fight one on one, toe to toe with the biggest baddest villeins in the land secure in the knowledge that when they overextend, they will not see his joy, when they wound him, they will not see his fear. And when the deceitful, the manipulative, the clever, surrender and plea for mercy, they do not see the pain and sorrow in his eyes as he cuts them down and waits for the inevitable falling.


You know... all this RP-common-sense discussion is fascinating, and all, but nobody supporting the mask in this thread has even tried to address the comparison to the one-use, 10-minute Honeytongue Elixir, which was mentioned and then ignored back at the start of the discussion.

Sovereign Court

Jarin Arenos wrote:
You know... all this RP-common-sense discussion is fascinating, and all, but nobody supporting the mask in this thread has even tried to address the comparison to the one-use, 10-minute Honeytongue Elixir, which was mentioned and then ignored back at the start of the discussion.

This times 100.

Any chance of a rules clarification from Paizo? I think the intent of the item was fairly clear -- it uses the spell Innocence rather than Glibness. So shouldn't it only apply to trying to look innocent?

Plus the price is a bit low.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Are basing your pricing on the custom magic item guidelines?

You know, there is a reason they explicitly call them out as guidelines, and not a base formula that all items follow.

It's because there are considerations to be had when pricing, and all they can provide is guidelines.

At one point, I seem to recall, there was a book published which ended up using the creation costs (as computed from the guidelines) as the prices, and priced the cost-to-create at half of that.

The relevance of this being:

I think it is a legit thing to ask whether something is perhaps an error when it deviates from the usual range by a large amount and you can't see an obvious reason for it, because it is possible for the rules as printed to be in error.


Xaratherus wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay, making the item actually hinder your ability to lie, and make NPCs react automatically negatively, is at best, a dick move by the DM.

Making the item not function, as described, is a houserule.

If I were to play an NPC shopkeep, and someone walked up to me with a mask on - even a non-magical one - to barter, depending on the NPC's starting demeanor toward the shopper, I'd be very likely to at least (politely) demand they remove the mask. If they knew the NPC, I might let it slide, but neutral or below, the first thing out of the shopkeep's mouth would probably be something like, "I don't wish to inconvenience you, good sir, but I prefer to look a customer in the face while doing business?"

::bowing head low and partially covering his face with his hand::

I apologize most generous shopkeep for my visage is and always has been frightful to behold. I prefer to live my life under this mask. The stares it receives pale in comparison to the embarrassment and discomfort the face i was born with bring me. Please allow me to keep my dignity and my mask in place.

::rolls bluff check::


You put the mask on, then lie about why you have it on, then all suspicions are gone when they believe you due to failing their check.

Dark Archive

Errata Changes the price to 8,000gp.


Shadowlords wrote:
Errata Changes the price to 8,000gp.

Link?


Here.


That makes me very happy. That mask was honestly definitely too good for the price. 8000 gp seems about right.

151 to 179 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.