|
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.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Your gear is more than a collection of +'s.
|
|
Player solution: Wear a helmet with a faceplate.
I just don't like the idea of adding any penalties not stated at the time of purchase. At a home game I could ban the item (but I don't), in PFS I don't believe I'm allowed to penalize a player for using a legal item in the way it is intended.
Alternate player solution: Accept that your face looks like a statue, that you talk in a flat, affectless monotone, and that it may skeeve people out sometimes. At which point, you can remove the mask and say, "hey, just kidding, I'm actually a person!"
If you have a Hand of Glory, there's a shriveled up hand hanging from your neck. You can't decide it's a silver, hand-shaped pendant because you think that's icky.
Giant-hide armor is made from the skin of a giant. When someone recoils in horror that you're wearing the skin of an intelligent creature, you can't tell them it's made of vegan giant naugahyde (unless you make aBluff check, in which case your stone robot voice mask will come in quite handy).
If you're wearing a Grappler's Mask, you look like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction. It may have an effect on social interactions should you be attending a fancy ball (unless it's a costume ball!).
If you want GMs to treat the item as written, you must be willing to do the same.
|
|
Except that the mask explicitly tells you how is supposed to be work, in fact they give you the exact numbers.
I am curious, do you have characters run down the list of things they own looking for reasons to penalize their social skills beyond what the numbers suggest you should, or is it only for key items that you go out of your way?
"You are a part cat outsider who is not very expressive, you are wearing one metal glove, some weird harness strapped to your back, several wands (which may cast enchantments or illusions), a headband of charisma (which improves lying ability), several floating stones over your head (one of which detects as evil), some dumbass looking bird glasses, a ring that has some illusion effect, a charm with some blood in it, a belt that increases dex (and therefore sleight of hand), a necklace made by kobolds, and some handcuffs, who knows whats in all those sacks, but I know I smell bat s%#!. Net social modifiers to you -66. It doesn't say anything about this NPC caring about this stuff in the scenario, phooey, this is a role playing game."
EDIT: To preempt what I expect to be a jab at how the tiefling might have prejudice also which isn't written into the scenario:
1 For Rakshasa it is written that they don't no matter how some GMs think people should react towards them.
possess a natural charm that actually causes others to often
grant them the deference they consider their birthright.
Unless playing a role, beastbrood always act like aristocrats,
and usually, they get treated as such.
2. Sometimes it is written into the scenario, this lets us know it is the desire of the authors.
|
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 am under a curse ... " NPC step 5' back and try toa void you.
The mask will not change you capacity to lie. But it will likely change the attitude of other people.
You successfully lie to me, and I would think that you are convinced that what you say is the truth, but that don't make me friendly.
One of the problems is that Bluff say:
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
and some people take that literally as the ability to convince people that the sun rise on the North and sets on Sud-Sud-Est if your roll is good enough.
What it do is to convince people that you have said what you think is the truth. 9 times out of 10 it has the same effect."Officer, I was helping him." and a good roll will convince the guard that you were trying to help the murdered guy.
"Guard, let my enter, I am the king." without any attempt at disguise and a high check will convince the guard that you think you are the king, not that you are the king. If you continue saying that you have been transmuted by an evil mage in your new form and so on you have a chance, but ti will require a string of lies and some good diplomacy roll to convince him to risk his neck helping you. l
|
|
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.
The guard on duty would reply "Remove you mask, masked commoners aren't allowed in the castle."
It is a mask, it is visible. If you were posing as a cleric of Nethys you could probably keep the mask up, but as a delivery boy? No. It is basic security everywhere.
|
The mask gives you, and I quote, " a +10 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to lie." The argument that using it somehow also makes it harder to lie literally undoes the item's primary function.You could use the same argument in regard to applying a —4 to a weapon that deals more damage but with which the PC is not proficient. After all, it's making it harder to perform the item's primary function, right? The mask turning your face to stone is as much a rule as weapon nonproficiency penalties.
Of course, the mask doesn't specify the exact repercussions of having a stone face. Also, applying a penalty to every situation does, as you point out, effectively contradict the written bonus. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the mask never confers the full benefit listed. However, it would be equally ludicrous to suggest that the other part of the mask's effect also never has any effect.
And if anyone wants to say "but the stone-face doesn't list its effect, therefore it never has one", tell it to the droves of players carrying chalk, twine, fishooks, and all the other scores of items that have no listed mechanical effect but can still affect the world according to common sense.
You know, several people in here forget that:
A) The game is supposed to be fun.B) PFS GMs need to follow the rules.
C) There are plenty of things that exist in the game that already have stone faces and probably monotone voices, it is NOT unique to this mask. Or are you going to tell me that gargoyles, for example, don't have stony faces and monotone voices?
Jiggy, your argument here is comparing apples to oranges.
Using a weapon you are not proficient with gives a -4 TO HIT, not a -4 to damage. You don't take a penalty to the damage done.
What some of the posters are claiming is that an item designed to give a bonus to Bluff is going to give a penalty to Bluff.
"Yeah, you have these masterwork Thieve's Tools, so you get a +4 to Disable Device, but because you are in the middle of Absolom, you are going to get a -6 to Disable Device because you are in a lawful town."
Yeah, right.
Now, what the NPC can do, on response to seeing something that makes them suspicious of the person they are talking to is make a Sense Motive check. If their NPC information includes in their background experience with someone using such a mask to lie to them in the past, then they would probably get a +2 circumstance bonus to their Sense Motive. Otherwise, IF they use Detect Magic, concentrate on it for three rounds, and make the appropriate DC Spellcraft (or is it Knowledge (Arcana)?) check, then they could also earn the circumstance bonus.
For the random commoner? Heh. Not likely. How do they know, first, that it is a mask, and not, say, a holy symbol of Razmir? That is a mask that covers the face, and muffles the wearer's voice, if common sense is followed.
I have a PC who has a Mask, non-magical, that serves as a masterwork tool for Intimidate, that he bought after it was offered as an item on a chronicle. Sometimes he even puts it on. Would the effect on his voice, of making it muffled, make it HARDER to intimidate his target?
|
|
I am curious, do you have characters run down the list of things they own looking for reasons to penalize their social skills beyond what the numbers suggest you should, or is it only for key items that you go out of your way?
I don't, but I also expect players to not cherry pick which aspects of an item they wish to apply to their character:
"Everyone make a Perception check."
"I got a 31."
"Oh, sorry, you can't make it, it's sight-based and you said you were wearing a Blind Man's Fold."
"Yeah, I just ignore that part of it. I can see normally."
When I GM, I ask everyone to introduce their characters to each other, along with a brief description of how they look. If one of the characters is wearing a Grappler's Mask, I would expect that to be part of the description because 1) it's an interesting detail and 2) a leather gimp mask is an unusual thing to be wearing in normal social situations.
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.
The guard on duty would reply "Remove you mask, masked commoners aren't allowed in the castle."
It is a mask, it is visible. If you were posing as a cleric of Nethys you could probably keep the mask up, but as a delivery boy? No. It is basic security everywhere.
How does the guard know that I am wearing a mask? The mask transform my face, it doesn't look like I am wearing a mask.
A question that no one has wanted to answer, is how is the NPC doing a DC 25 appraise check to know that I am wearing a magical mask and that it is helping me lie, or the spellcraft check to know the same?
In the Gamemastery guide, none of the city guard or military entries have appraise or spellcraft listed as skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious, do you have characters run down the list of things they own looking for reasons to penalize their social skills beyond what the numbers suggest you should, or is it only for key items that you go out of your way?
I don't, but I also expect players to not cherry pick which aspects of an item they wish to apply to their character:
"Everyone make a Perception check."
"I got a 31."
"Oh, sorry, you can't make it, it's sight-based and you said you were wearing a Blind Man's Fold."
"Yeah, I just ignore that part of it. I can see normally."When I GM, I ask everyone to introduce their characters to each other, along with a brief description of how they look. If one of the characters is wearing a Grappler's Mask, I would expect that to be part of the description because 1) it's an interesting detail and 2) a leather gimp mask is an unusual thing to be wearing in normal social situations.
The obscured vision is part of the mechanical effects of a blind man's fold. Player's can't ignore that.
It would be like a player ignoring the -5 to relay a hidden message the mask of stoney demeanor grants. It's a penalty already built into the mechanics so a player can't ignore that.
We also can't force players to speak in a monotone just because the character does. Otherwise a player whose character is wearing a blind man's fold must close their eyes at the table, a player whose character has the lame curse must limp, and a player whose character bought a belt of giant strength +6 must bench press a VW Beetle.
Are job as GM's is not to alienate players because of what they bought to make their character more effective. Our job is to make sure players have fun, and that ever game is fair and follows the rules. This means we don't get to add penalties to player character's just because we don't like their gear. If the developers of the game wanted those items to carry additional penalties they would be spelt out in the items description.
At some point people need to step back and realize that this is a fantasy game, and not real life. We can't just go around and penalize people because we think it would be strange in real life. Otherwise Elves would have negative penalties because I've never seen an elf at a dinner party in real life, and people playing gnomes would be penalized anytime they stopped standing still in my neighbor's front lawn.
"I am under a curse ... " NPC step 5' back and try to avoid you.
Why would the NPC step back and try to avoid me? With spells like "bestow curse" and creatures that curse people, shouldn't it be common knowlege that curses are not a contagious disease?
The mask will not change you capacity to lie. But it will likely change the attitude of other people.
You successfully lie to me, and I would think that you are convinced that what you say is the truth, but that don't make me friendly.
But the mask does change my capacity to lie, it adds +10 to my skill check to do so.
The mask doesn't help me make you friendly, as that is the diplomacy skill. And you are changing the way bluff works, when you add in that you are convinced that "I" think what I am saying is true. Bluff, if successfull does make you believe me.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
and some people take that literally as the ability to convince people that the sun rise on the North and sets on Sud-Sud-Est if your roll is good enough.
The skill has clear guidelines about unbelievable lies, and the direction that the sun sets would fall into that category.
What it do is to convince people that you have said what you think is the truth. 9 times out of 10 it has the same effect.
"Officer, I was helping him." and a good roll will convince the guard that you were trying to help the murdered guy.
"Guard, let my enter, I am the king." without any attempt at disguise and a high check will convince the guard that you think you are the king, not that you are the king. If you continue saying that you have been transmuted by an evil mage in your new form and so on you have a chance, but ti will require a string of lies and some good diplomacy roll to convince him to risk his neck helping you.
Again, no, bluff does not convince the NPC that you think you are telling the truth - it makes them believe the lie.
And I agree with Jeffrey Fox and Kinevon.
The game is about having fun.
In my opinion, changing the mechanics of a magic item, to reduce the benefits given out in the item's description, because you don't like the item, is not fun for the player who bought the legal item.
Also, how does doing so add to your fun? I have found that tables where people are unhappy with the GM's ruling(s) are a lot less fun to play at, for both GMs and players.
|
|
We also can't force players to speak in a monotone just because the character does. Otherwise a player whose character is wearing a blind man's fold must close their eyes at the table, a player whose character has the lame curse must limp, and a player whose character bought a belt of giant strength +6 must bench press a VW Beetle.
Are job as GM's is not to alienate players because of what they bought to make their character more effective. Our job is to make sure players have fun, and that ever game is fair and follows the rules. This means we don't get to add penalties to player character's just because we don't like their gear. If the developers of the game wanted those items to carry additional penalties they would be spelt out in the items description.
Please explain to me why a character speaking in "emotionless monotone" is the only item rule that we are allowed--nay obligated--to break for PFS?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue and its voice into an emotionless monotone. Though it allows the wearer to speak, its facial expressions and voice betray little emotion, granting a +10 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to lie and a +5 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to feint, but also imposes a –5 penalty on Bluff checks made to pass a hidden message.
Or are there other explicitly stated aspects of any items, feats, or abilities that I should be ignoring as a PFS GM? Is there a list somewhere? Is the test really whether it's fun?
GM: "And...that confirms the crit. I'm really sorry."
P1: "Crits aren't fun for me."
P2: "Yeah, me neither."
P3: "Not when it's on a PC.
P4: "At this particular point in time that rule is ruining my fun."
GM: "It's unanimous. Crits aren't fun. You're alive again!"
|
|
I don't, but I also expect players to not cherry pick which aspects of an item they wish to apply to their character:
"Everyone make a Perception check."
"I got a 31."
"Oh, sorry, you can't make it, it's sight-based and you said you were wearing a Blind Man's Fold."
"Yeah, I just ignore that part of it. I can see normally."When I GM, I ask everyone to introduce their characters to each other, along with a brief description of how they look. If one of the characters is wearing a Grappler's Mask, I would expect that to be part of the description because 1) it's an interesting detail and 2) a leather gimp mask is an unusual thing to be wearing in normal social situations.
I believe you know the difference.
This is a PFS thread. PFS games are to be run RAW. In RAW, mechanical descriptions>flavorful descriptions. If your interpretation of the flavor is running contrary to the mechanics, you either A) interpret it different, as many of us here have done, or B) accept that it works the way the mechanics describe whether you think it makes sense or not.
I gave an example earlier of how I think obscuring mist works irrationally, I just accept it because I don't have the choice. I also think it is ridiculous that if you shoot your arrow past 1 hero or 5 of them fighting back to back in a line you take the same penalty, this makes no sense to me and I had a hard time squaring this when I first started playing PFS. I accept that it doesn't have to make sense to me now in PFS. It is for the betterment of the table and the campaign if I simple follow the mechanics instead of trying to improve upon them. I have ran into enough irrational GMs to know I do not want their fluff reasoning skills to be the final word on game mechanics.
In my home games I give a list of house rules up front that I think makes more sense so everyone knows prior to character creation. If something crazy I couldn't make sense of showed up in the middle of the game and it was a deal breaker for me, I can tell the players to retrain, rebuy, whatever without consequence. In PFS I cannot do this. I cannot give out my list mechanical rules that I think should work differently prior to character creation so players know how to best spend their resources for my game. I cannot tell players they can freely swap out things they spent resources on because I do not like or understand why the mechanics work the way they are stated. I accept that the in game mechanics function as written, fluff be damned.
|
|
Please explain to me why a character speaking in "emotionless monotone" is the only item rule that we are allowed--nay obligated--to break for PFS?
Fluff for roleplay
EDIT: I also gave examples earlier of things I didn't force players to roleplay. I am 99 percent certain one of the GM guides actually suggest this. I have to head to work, but if it hasn't been posted by the time I get back and it is still an issue, I will try to find it.
GM: "And...that confirms the crit. I'm really sorry."
P1: "Crits aren't fun for me."
P2: "Yeah, me neither."
P3: "Not when it's on a PC.
P4: "At this particular point in time that rule is ruining my fun."
GM: "It's unanimous. Crits aren't fun. You're alive again!"
Quantitative mechanics
|
|
Please explain to me why a character speaking in "emotionless monotone" is the only item rule that we are allowed--nay obligated--to break for PFS?
Fluff for roleplay
EDIT: I also gave examples earlier of things I didn't force players to roleplay. I am 99 percent certain one of the GM guides actually suggest this. I have to head to work, but if it hasn't been posted by the time I get back and it is still an issue, I will try to find it.
GM: "And...that confirms the crit. I'm really sorry."
P1: "Crits aren't fun for me."
P2: "Yeah, me neither."
P3: "Not when it's on a PC.
P4: "At this particular point in time that rule is ruining my fun."
GM: "It's unanimous. Crits aren't fun. You're alive again!"
Quantitative mechanics
I honestly did not realize that anything is optional if there's no number attached to it. I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.
Does this mean that Tieflings, Aasimar and Humans are indistinguishable?
|
I'm sorry.. it seems to me that a LOT of GMs here have forgotten that we can't simply (and to me) arbitrarily decided to penalize someone using an item because they don't like it.
The mask HAS a penalty for one application of Bluff and two bonuses. I don't see any items that have similar bonuses and costs getting this harsh a treatement.
I haven't seen a GM post how a 200 gp funnel makes alchemists OP for one application of their skills/class abilities. I don't see anyone getting hammered for wearing 'sneak thief' clothing for wearing the nondescript grey Cloak of Elvenkind. (after all he CLEARLY must be trying to blend in..)
I use this item, on my rogue Akim the Crafty, when I expect trouble (IE.. when we're about to fight) because I think it fits him. I use ALL my other bluff checks without it. If he was to do a social setting, say.. a la 'Blackros' Matrimony, he'd have it tucked in his shirt 'just in case' but he'd be lying his butt off normally.. (but then he likes stroking his braided beard too much)
It's not that big a perk..and let's be honest.. it must be a slow week to argue over how much to penalize someone for using the item as designed.
|
Thomas, the way you use it seems fine to me. The problem some people have with it is that a person can go around with their head looking like a statue, and they expect people to not be weirded out by it because they have +10 to Bluff.
I don't think it's unreasonable to choose starting attitudes of my NPCs based on the PCs appearance, do you? If someone comes in and they're wearing a noble's outfit, and then the next person comes in and looks like they've been kissing a basilisk, it doesn't even really matter that the guard believes stony more. He doesn't like him.
|
|
Thomas, the way you use it seems fine to me. The problem some people have with it is that a person can go around with their head looking like a statue, and they expect people to not be weirded out by it because they have +10 to Bluff.
I don't think it's unreasonable to choose starting attitudes of my NPCs based on the PCs appearance, do you? If someone comes in and they're wearing a noble's outfit, and then the next person comes in and looks like they've been kissing a basilisk, it doesn't even really matter that the guard believes stony more. He doesn't like him.
And how is this different from a character running around with a half dozen broken/flawed ioun stones, a familiar running around behind him 'bapping' him every few minutes to give him a bonus via Enhanced Diplomacy and other spells?
I'm not disagreeing that it's silly to abuse it.. but then I have a guy who insists that he can CONSTANTLY use Dragon Style and his 50ft (or higher) move to charge about everywhere on the map with his huge greatsword.
|
|
I'm saying it's not different. Describe back to the player in question what you think he probably looks like, and give him a chance to think about what that might mean in a social situation.
It's the same reason I ask the question: "There are tons of people right now, including a half dozen guards who probably have no Spellcraft skill to speak of. Are you sure you want to cast detect magic right now?"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
and let's be honest.. it must be a slow week to argue over how much to penalize someone for using the item as designed.
Come to think of it, it's actually rather refreshing to see how many VOs and multi-star GMs are vocally on the side of "let's not penalize people just because you don't like X". Couple years ago when I joined the boards, that sentiment was pretty unpopular. Yay for community-wide growth! :D
|
|
The funny thing is.. I HAD a good reason to use it in a social setting this last game day.
But my guy was the ONLY member of the group who HADN'T encounter disciples of the Living God at that point, so I didn't say he could paint the mask up and slap a semiprecious gemstone on the forehead and play the role of 'The hand of the Living God' in that scenario.
NOW that he has met them, he might make such preparations in the future.
|
|
Does this mean that Tieflings, Aasimar and Humans are indistinguishable?Tieflings and aasimar have different creature types.
Aasimars look mostly human except for some minor physical trait that reveals their unusual heritage.
But the minor physical trait is optional, right?
Or what about the Wolfscarred face Curse:
Your face is deformed, as though you were born with a wolf's muzzle instead of an ordinary nose and jaw. Many mistake you for a werewolf, and in areas plagued by lycanthropes, you must take pains to hide your face.
Effect: You have a severe speech impediment, and any spells you cast with a verbal component have a 20% chance of failing, wasting your action but not expending the spell. You gain a natural bite attack that deals 1d4 points of damage if you are a Medium creature or 1d3 points of damage if you are Small.
The wolf muzzle is optional, right? I can just be a guy with a lisp?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Does this mean that Tieflings, Aasimar and Humans are indistinguishable?Tieflings and aasimar have different creature types.Aasimars look mostly human except for some minor physical trait that reveals their unusual heritage.But the minor physical trait is optional, right?
Or what about the Wolfscarred face Curse:
The wolf muzzle is optional, right? I can just be a guy with a lisp?Your face is deformed, as though you were born with a wolf's muzzle instead of an ordinary nose and jaw. Many mistake you for a werewolf, and in areas plagued by lycanthropes, you must take pains to hide your face.
Effect: You have a severe speech impediment, and any spells you cast with a verbal component have a 20% chance of failing, wasting your action but not expending the spell. You gain a natural bite attack that deals 1d4 points of damage if you are a Medium creature or 1d3 points of damage if you are Small.
Those are hardly accurate analogies. Aasimars must have some distinguishing physical trait, just as the mask must make you speak in monotone. But those don't call out specific penalties, so if a GM declared that my Aasimar took a -10 penalty on Diplomacy checks because she looks freakish, that would be out of line.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Come to think of it, most thugs/guards don't seem to bat an eye when a group of five people of disparate races, all wearing identical cloaks, some with enormous gaudy belts and others with intricate headbands and several with rocks orbiting their heads, so maybe the stone face ain't so bad after all.
Side note: Isn't it interesting how many pieces of "standard" gear the game assumes you have (mechanically) yet never seems to show up in the art?
|
|
Those are hardly accurate analogies. Aasimars must have some distinguishing physical trait, just as the mask must make you speak in monotone. But those don't call out specific penalties, so if a GM declared that my Aasimar took a -10 penalty on Diplomacy checks because she looks freakish, that would be out of line.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I've advocated penalties for anything other than context-specific situations. Some sample Bluff checks:
Option A:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I am shocked at this very surprising news! We fought sometimes, but I loved him like a brother. I am utterly heart-broken. Why? WHY? WHY WAS HE TAKEN FROM US SO SOON!? OH GODS, WHYYYYYYYYY!!?"
Option B:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I've disagreed with some of his policies in the past, but never to the point of violence. We must work together to track down whoever is responsible."
Option A:
"We are here on a purely diplomatic mission. I assure you we mean no trouble."
Option B:
"We are here on a purely diplomatic mission. I assure you we mean no trouble."
|
|
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.
The guard on duty would reply "Remove you mask, masked commoners aren't allowed in the castle."
It is a mask, it is visible. If you were posing as a cleric of Nethys you could probably keep the mask up, but as a delivery boy? No. It is basic security everywhere.
How does the guard know that I am wearing a mask? The mask transform my face, it doesn't look like I am wearing a mask.
Where it say "the mask disappear"?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue and its voice into an emotionless monotone. Though it allows the wearer to speak, its facial expressions and voice betray little emotion, granting a +10 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to lie and a +5 competence bonus on Bluff checks made to feint, but also imposes a –5 penalty on Bluff checks made to pass a hidden message.
At this point I must subscribe the opinion that some people want the item but don't want to recognize the drawbacks.
|
|
"I am under a curse ... " NPC step 5' back and try to avoid you.Why would the NPC step back and try to avoid me? With spells like "bestow curse" and creatures that curse people, shouldn't it be common knowlege that curses are not a contagious disease?
You are the same guy that was saying "In the Gamemastery guide, none of the city guard or military entries have appraise or spellcraft listed as skills."? Now the know how curses work?
But the mask does change my capacity to lie, it adds +10 to my skill check to do so.The mask will not change you capacity to lie. But it will likely change the attitude of other people.
You successfully lie to me, and I would think that you are convinced that what you say is the truth, but that don't make me friendly.
What I did mean is that wearing the mask don't penalize your capacity to lie because you are wearing a mask, i.e. you don't get the bonus for the mask and an unmentioned negative modifier.
But you can get a circumstantial modifier to your diplomacy skill.
The mask doesn't help me make you friendly, as that is the diplomacy skill. And you are changing the way bluff works, when you add in that you are convinced that "I" think what I am saying is true. Bluff, if successfull does make you believe me.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
and some people take that literally as the ability to convince people that the sun rise on the North and sets on Sud-Sud-Est if your roll is good enough.The skill has clear guidelines about unbelievable lies, and the direction that the sun sets would fall into that category.
Again, no, bluff does not convince the NPC that you think you are telling the truth - it makes them believe the lie.What it do is to convince people that you have said what you think is the truth. 9 times out of 10 it has the same effect.
"Officer, I was helping him." and a good roll will convince the guard that you were trying to help the murdered guy.
"Guard, let my enter, I am the king." without any attempt at disguise and a high check will convince the guard that you think you are the king, not that you are the king. If you continue saying that you have been transmuted by an evil mage in your new form and so on you have a chance, but ti will require a string of lies and some good diplomacy roll to convince him to risk his neck helping you.
QUED: "The sun rise in the North" and people should accept that as the truth because my Bluff total is 20 above their sense motive.
In RAW, mechanical descriptions>flavorful descriptions
And the decision of what is flavor and what not is based on the player convenience.
Face turned to stone, mask not disappearing, monotone voices are all RAW.
Fluff for roleplay
Please explain to me why a character speaking in "emotionless monotone" is the only item rule that we are allowed--nay obligated--to break for PFS?
Bolded the relevant part for you. so for you the item discretion is fluff?
|
Where it say "the mask disappear"?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statueTypically a statue doesn't wear a mask, so presuming that the mask blends into the face is not unreasonable. It wouldn't change the checks necessary to realise that someone was wearing a mask of that type though.
From a purely descriptive point of view, I actually like the image of someone pulling on the mask and then it flowing out over their features as their face turns stony.
|
|
I'm sorry.. it seems to me that a LOT of GMs here have forgotten that we can't simply (and to me) arbitrarily decided to penalize someone using an item because they don't like it.
The mask HAS a penalty for one application of Bluff and two bonuses. I don't see any items that have similar bonuses and costs getting this harsh a treatement.
I haven't seen a GM post how a 200 gp funnel makes alchemists OP for one application of their skills/class abilities. I don't see anyone getting hammered for wearing 'sneak thief' clothing for wearing the nondescript grey Cloak of Elvenkind. (after all he CLEARLY must be trying to blend in..)
I use this item, on my rogue Akim the Crafty, when I expect trouble (IE.. when we're about to fight) because I think it fits him. I use ALL my other bluff checks without it. If he was to do a social setting, say.. a la 'Blackros' Matrimony, he'd have it tucked in his shirt 'just in case' but he'd be lying his butt off normally.. (but then he likes stroking his braided beard too much)
It's not that big a perk..and let's be honest.. it must be a slow week to argue over how much to penalize someone for using the item as designed.
One of the reason is that the cost of the item is totally out of proportion.
A +10 to a skill cost 10.000 gp. Limiting it to 1 use of bluff can be enough for a 30% discount, not for 95% discount.And that if we assume that the +5 to feint and the - 5 to pass a hidden messages cancel each other.
The cloak of elvenkind cost 5 times this item and give a +5 to stealth.
|
|
Where it say "the mask disappear"?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statueTypically a statue doesn't wear a mask, so presuming that the mask blends into the face is not unreasonable. It wouldn't change the checks necessary to realise that someone was wearing a mask of that type though.
From a purely descriptive point of view, I actually like the image of someone pulling on the mask and then it flowing out over their features as their face turns stony.
Too convenient Brock.
It can be a nice change for the item ina home game, but ti don't work this way RAW. RAW cut both ways.If you use that interpretation, which magic item should receive this benefit for free?
|
|
Thomas, the way you use it seems fine to me. The problem some people have with it is that a person can go around with their head looking like a statue, and they expect people to not be weirded out by it because they have +10 to Bluff.
I don't think it's unreasonable to choose starting attitudes of my NPCs based on the PCs appearance, do you? If someone comes in and they're wearing a noble's outfit, and then the next person comes in and looks like they've been kissing a basilisk, it doesn't even really matter that the guard believes stony more. He doesn't like him.
And how is this different from a character running around with a half dozen broken/flawed ioun stones, a familiar running around behind him 'bapping' him every few minutes to give him a bonus via Enhanced Diplomacy and other spells?
That is exactly why when in social situations I don't have my ioun stones circling my head but they are in my belt pouch.
And I consider "social situations" not only a social gathering but even going around the market to ask for informations or buying stuff.|
|
I really try not to overthink it; players get a +10 on their bluff check. There are plenty of ways to get bonuses, and yes it's overpowered, but it's a tool to make their roleplaying work a little better. Yes it's undercosted, yes it makes you look goofy, but as GMs we're not supposed to decide "this item is undercosted so it shouldn't be allowed". Some people may be freaked out by the emotionless face and you can have fun with that though.
|
|
This really seems like a having and eating cake situation.
This item provides a ludicrous bonus to a skill at an incredibly low price. The penalty to passing secret messages is, as Diego says, not enough to justify such a discount.
So is there possibly an extra downside in the form of people being suspicious of statue man? Or is it badly priced like the late bracers of falcon's aim?
If it's just too cheap, I recommend banning it like we banned the bracers.
|
|
Where it say "the mask disappear"?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statueTypically a statue doesn't wear a mask, so presuming that the mask blends into the face is not unreasonable. It wouldn't change the checks necessary to realise that someone was wearing a mask of that type though.
From a purely descriptive point of view, I actually like the image of someone pulling on the mask and then it flowing out over their features as their face turns stony.
Too convenient Brock.
It can be a nice change for the item ina home game, but ti don't work this way RAW. RAW cut both ways.If you use that interpretation, which magic item should receive this benefit for free?
What benefit? I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge. I certainly wouldn't impose any mechanical changes based purely on the description.
|
|
Please explain to me why a character speaking in "emotionless monotone" is the only item rule that we are allowed--nay obligated--to break for PFS?
Who said that? The mask makes someone's "character" sound monotone. The "player" is not forced to talk in monotone. So please find one rule I advised people to break?
You'll also notice that the rules for bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate don't penalize or give bonuses to "characters" speaking in a monotone.
GM's shouldn't penalize characters based on the GM's sense of realism. Otherwise all Tieflings will have penalties to bluff because Golarion's society doesn't trust them.
I don't think it's unreasonable to choose starting attitudes of my NPCs based on the PCs appearance, do you? If someone comes in and they're wearing a noble's outfit, and then the next person comes in and looks like they've been kissing a basilisk, it doesn't even really matter that the guard believes stony more. He doesn't like him.
It's a slippery slope penalizing PC's for things like appearance. It's one thing when it's hard written into the scenario, but when every GM has to decide on their own it causes havoc and can easily make GM's look like jerks.
Stepping away from the Mask for a second, how would you feel if you were playing a tiefling Paladin who the GM gave a -5 to Diplomacy for because the character looks demonic/devilish? Or made every NPC start off unfriendly? Even though the scenario didn't call for it.
I'd bet you'd feel a bit cheated.
Same thing goes for the mask. When you start adding penalties because just because you think it would make sense then you start walking a thin line that could ruin someone's fun just in order to force your world view upon the player.
This is a shared world for a reason.
If it's just too cheap, I recommend banning it like we banned the bracers.
It is really cheap for little to no penalty in PFS. That's why I suggested earlier people should take it to the rules boards to see if they can get a FAQ and a look at from the developers. I doubt it'll get a PFS specific ban because while it is cheap it's not really as great as the Bracers of Falcon's Aim. Plus it take up a really useful item slot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be funny playing an oread with some of the GMs that have responded in this thread.
Oread "Excuse me, but there is a hoard of ghouls heading for this town you should prepare or leave the town"
NPC *Fails Knowlege Planes check* "What do you really want stone man. I have heard that you are all liars."
Oread "I am just trying to save you, if you look behind me you will see that the ghouls have entered the street."
NPC "I know better than to believe anything you say, stone man, just take off your mask and we can talk. Those ghouls are probably an illusion."
Oread turns and leaves.
NPC "That is right leave. I am no mans fool. What?.. oh no the ghouls are real. Why didn't anyone warn me! AHHHhhh."
|
|
This really seems like a having and eating cake situation.
This item provides a ludicrous bonus to a skill at an incredibly low price. The penalty to passing secret messages is, as Diego says, not enough to justify such a discount.
So is there possibly an extra downside in the form of people being suspicious of statue man? Or is it badly priced like the late bracers of falcon's aim?
If it's just too cheap, I recommend banning it like we banned the bracers.
Honestly, if this works as written, and there's not an "(optional)" missing from the item description, I wish there more items like this. When you embrace this kind of stuff instead of fighting it every step of the way, you can find some really fun and interesting roleplaying opportunities.
I feel the same way about people who begrudgingly choose an Oracle curse and then find any and every way they can to negate it. Be the near-sighted, bookish Oracle of Lore. Or a Deaf Oracle of the Dark Tapestry who can hear only the madness in his head. Or the Blackened Oracle of Flame, burned from your own uncontrollable fires. It's part of your character, embrace it!
But there are some players who resent anything that intrudes on their idea of who their character is and feel they have a right to ignore whatever doesn't fit that concept. Which is fine, I guess, but you could also just not buy the mask if it's such a big deal.
|
|
Presuming successful Bluff checks incorporating the +10 and that the speaker poisoned the king:
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I've advocated penalties for anything other than context-specific situations. Some sample Bluff checks:
Option A:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I am shocked at this very surprising news! We fought sometimes, but I loved him like a brother. I am utterly heart-broken. Why? WHY? WHY WAS HE TAKEN FROM US SO SOON!? OH GODS, WHYYYYYYYYY!!?"
Result: The listener believes that the speaker is shocked by the news and that they loved the king and are heartbroken. They believe the speaker to have trouble expressing their emotions. They might not want to associate with the speaker as they are a little 'odd'.
Option B:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I've disagreed with some of his policies in the past, but never to the point of violence. We must work together to track down whoever is responsible."
Result: The listener believes that the speaker would not do violence to the king. If intelligent they may suspect that the speaker is dissembling as poison is not necessarily counted as 'violence'. They may be willing to aid the speaker in tracking down the poisoner as they seem well suited to do so.
For PFS, we have to treat a successful Bluff check using this item as believed by the listener. Imposing a circumstance penalty on Diplomacy might be appropriate, but a lie doesn't become less believable just because someone has a statue-face.
Presuming successful Bluff checks incorporating the +10 and that the speaker poisoned the king:
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I've advocated penalties for anything other than context-specific situations. Some sample Bluff checks:
Option A:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I am shocked at this very surprising news! We fought sometimes, but I loved him like a brother. I am utterly heart-broken. Why? WHY? WHY WAS HE TAKEN FROM US SO SOON!? OH GODS, WHYYYYYYYYY!!?"
Result: The listener believes that the speaker is shocked by the news and that they loved the king and are heartbroken. They believe the speaker to have trouble expressing their emotions. They might not want to associate with the speaker as they are a little 'odd'.
Option B:
"The king has been poisoned!"
"I've disagreed with some of his policies in the past, but never to the point of violence. We must work together to track down whoever is responsible."
Result: The listener believes that the speaker would not do violence to the king. If intelligent they may suspect that the speaker is dissembling as poison is not necessarily counted as 'violence'. They may be willing to aid the speaker in tracking down the poisoner as they seem well suited to do so.
For PFS, we have to treat a successful Bluff check using this item as believed by the listener. Imposing a circumstance penalty on Diplomacy might be appropriate, but a lie doesn't become less believable just because someone has a statue-face.
Imagine an elcor from mass effect saying the first one.
|
|
Who said that? The mask makes someone's "character" sound monotone. The "player" is not forced to talk in monotone. So please find one rule I advised people to break?
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a player to speak in monotone when speaking in character. If that is unpalatable, maybe they should ask themselves why they feel that way. If the answer is "I don't want my guy to talk like that" they probably shouldn't have bought the mask. If the answer is "I don't like doing voices," I am not going to force them out of their comfort zone, but I will probably remind them of the item if their character starts speaking emotively.
Why? Because...
If the developers of the game wanted those items to carry additional penalties they would be spelt out in the items description.
Now I don't consider it a penalty. I consider it, at worst, a limitation. But you seem to think that such penalties should be thrown out the window if they're not fun for the player. And I'm saying that "I don't want my guy to talk like a robot" is the same as saying "I don't want my guy to take a penalty for Power Attack" because they are both unambiguously worded rules.
|
|
Who said that? The mask makes someone's "character" sound monotone. The "player" is not forced to talk in monotone. So please find one rule I advised people to break?I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a player to speak in monotone when speaking in character. If that is unpalatable, maybe they should ask themselves why they feel that way. If the answer is "I don't want my guy to talk like that" they probably shouldn't have bought the mask. If the answer is "I don't like doing voices," I am not going to force them out of their comfort zone, but I will probably remind them of the item if their character starts speaking emotively.
Why? Because...
If the developers of the game wanted those items to carry additional penalties they would be spelt out in the items description.Now I don't consider it a penalty. I consider it, at worst, a limitation. But you seem to think that such penalties should be thrown out the window if they're not fun for the player. And I'm saying that "I don't want my guy to talk like a robot" is the same as saying "I don't want my guy to take a penalty for Power Attack" because they are both unambiguously worded rules.
No, I've said repeatedly that the penalty is -5 to pass a hidden message. Talking like a "robot" is not a penalty itself without houserules.
Being monotone is not a penalty in the Pathfinder rule system no matter how much people want to make believe it is.
And again if a player doesn't want to speak in monotone, that ok for whatever reason. Because the character still does no matter what the player says. But monotone is still no a thing the character can legally be penalized for beyond the scope of the item already.
|
|
No, I've said repeatedly that the penalty is -5 to pass a hidden message. Talking like a "robot" is not a penalty itself without houserules.
Being monotone is not a penalty in the Pathfinder rule system no matter how much people want to make believe it is.
And again if a player doesn't want to speak in monotone, that ok for whatever reason. Because the character still does no matter what the player says. But monotone is still no a thing the character can legally be penalized for beyond the scope of the item already.
Circumstance bonuses and penalties are in fact the GM's decision to make based on the situation. If monotone is something that would offend, weird out, or upset an NPC, then yes there is a penalty that could be applied; this wouldn't be to Bluff, but to other social checks.
Appearance can apply too. In the same way that a character dressed in a traveler's outfit would be out of place at a Taldan ball (and subject to a Diplomacy penalty), a character whose face has literally become a statue could be in for some circumstance penalties to social skills. Not Bluff checks to lie of course, because that's what the mask magically enhances.
If in organized play, I as a GM do not have the ability to apply circumstance bonuses and penalties based on the appearance of the PC, then I submit to you that the item is GREATLY under-priced for an organized play situation, and therefore I think it should be banned.
|
|
I'll have to recheck the rules on circumstance bonuses to respond fully. I can't find them on the Prd.
I don't think they allow for the 5 or 10 point swing people are suggesting.
A gm in organized play should judge a NPC is weirded out based on their own opinions. They should base it on the NPC's characterization in the scenario.
Most of the people calling for a penalty are basing it on their own opinions. That is wrong.
|
|
I'll have to recheck the rules on circumstance bonuses to respond fully. I can't find them on the Prd.
I don't think they allow for the 5 or 10 point swing people are suggesting.
A gm in organized play should judge a NPC is weirded out based on their own opinions. They should base it on the NPC's characterization in the scenario.
Most of the people calling for a penalty are basing it on their own opinions. That is wrong.
I'm not saying 5 or 10. Would you say, in the Taldan Ball scenario, that -4 would be inappropriate?
-2 for the voice
-2 for the face
Additional modifiers may apply based on style of dress as well. A well-dressed stoneface might be able to appear quite suave despite his voice.
All we have are our own opinions. I look at the information I've been given about the NPCs, and there is usually not much. If I'm to provide an experience that is immersive, I need to be able to take things like appearance and ask myself how the NPC probably feels about it.
A seasoned diplomat (who may even have seen one of these before)? He probably won't like you. A mercenary who probably looks uglier than you with the mask on might be impressed by your appearance.
Nevertheless, I would definitely call this item too cheap, just like the bracers of falcon's aim.
|
|
What benefit? I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge. I certainly wouldn't impose any mechanical changes based purely on the description.Where it say "the mask disappear"?
When worn, this mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statueTypically a statue doesn't wear a mask, so presuming that the mask blends into the face is not unreasonable. It wouldn't change the checks necessary to realise that someone was wearing a mask of that type though.
From a purely descriptive point of view, I actually like the image of someone pulling on the mask and then it flowing out over their features as their face turns stony.
Too convenient Brock.
It can be a nice change for the item in a home game, but it don't work this way RAW. RAW cut both ways.If you use that interpretation, which magic item should receive this benefit for free?
X item disappear when you wear it is a big benefit.
A glamered armor pay 2.700 gp for the ability to appear as a piece of clothing.You say: "I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge."
So, to list the benefits:
- you don't see that the guy has a mask, you must search it by touching the guy face;
- you "wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn", great concession, when no one can see that the mask is worn;
- "If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them". Again, on what basis they will know that there is something to break or steal if they don't know the item is there?
I don't see how you can claim that those aren't benefits.