|
SOMEWHAT RELATED QUESTION, BUT NOT PART OF THE ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH MISTWALKER
Sorry for the caps, the were used to separate this post from the others.
- * -
1) What happen when you are wearing this mask and you are speaking the truth?
with a +10 to the bluff skill ti seem easier to speak a credible lie than the truth.
2) Even more important, what skill you use when are speaking the truth and want to convince someone that what you are saying is true?
Example:
you have found a dying person in a alley and have tried unsuccessfully to stabilized it.
A few second later a guard found you with your blooded hands.
What skill do you use to support your attempt at explaining the situation? I would think diplomacy, but if you are donning the mask or simply have a high bluff skill it could be easier to try a outright lie.
|
|
The item seem to assume as recognizable that you have a stony face, but it don't say it explicitly. So that is customizable by the player, but then he has a mask covering his whole face.No, actually this is a ruling made by the GM.
Expect Table Variation.
If, before the start of the scenario, the player explain to me that his mask look like a full face Razmirian pries mask I would accept that.
Not if that came out in the middle of the scenario.
|
SOMEWHAT RELATED QUESTION, BUT NOT PART OF THE ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH MISTWALKER
Sorry for the caps, the were used to separate this post from the others.
- * -
1) What happen when you are wearing this mask and you are speaking the truth?
with a +10 to the bluff skill ti seem easier to speak a credible lie than the truth.2) Even more important, what skill you use when are speaking the truth and want to convince someone that what you are saying is true?
Example:
you have found a dying person in a alley and have tried unsuccessfully to stabilized it.
A few second later a guard found you with your blooded hands.
What skill do you use to support your attempt at explaining the situation? I would think diplomacy, but if you are donning the mask or simply have a high bluff skill it could be easier to try a outright lie.
The GM would set the starting attitude of the NPC (or uses the scenario set starting attitude). And if the NPC, for whatever reason, doesn't believe you, you'd use Diplomacy to try to convince him. The more you change his attitude, the more likely he is to believe you. And if the GM sets the attitude more towards Unfriendly than Friendly, because of your "stony face and/or mask" then you might also incur a circumstance penalty to the Diplomacy check.
|
|
The item seem to assume as recognizable that you have a stony face, but it don't say it explicitly. So that is customizable by the player, but then he has a mask covering his whole face.No, actually this is a ruling made by the GM.
Expect Table Variation.
If, before the start of the scenario, the player explain to me that his mask look like a full face Razmirian pries mask I would accept that.
Not if that came out in the middle of the scenario.
I wouldn't. Because the mask is not defined as a Razmiran mask, and while clothing (even magical items) can often have their fluff description modified by the player, this item's description has a mechanical effect.
Because its description has a mechanical effect, the player doesn't get to decide what it looks like. The GM gets to decide how that mechanical effect will play out in his game.
Is it a full face mask, and the stone face thing can't be seen?
Is it a half face mask, and both the mask and the stone face can be seen?
or does the mask meld with the face as it transforms into its stony visage?
Either way, the GM has to decide what his interpretation is, and run things accordingly.
A player doesn't get to decide how the negative effects of the magic item look, therefore potentially negating those negative effects.
|
SOMEWHAT RELATED QUESTION, BUT NOT PART OF THE ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH MISTWALKER
2) Even more important, what skill you use when are speaking the truth and want to convince someone that what you are saying is true?
This has not come up for me in PFS, but generally when I GM and a character wants to convince someone else that they are telling the truth (edit: when they are *actually* telling the truth), I let them choose between Bluff and Diplomacy.
|
|
I wouldn't. Because the mask is not defined as a Razmiran mask, and while clothing (even magical items) can often have their fluff description modified by the player, this item's description has a mechanical effect.
Because its description has a mechanical effect, the player doesn't get to decide what it looks like. The GM gets to decide how that mechanical effect will play out in his game.
Is it a full face mask, and the stone face thing can't be seen?
Is it a half face mask, and both the mask and the stone face can be seen?
or does the mask meld with the face as it transforms into its stony visage?
Either way, the GM has to decide what his interpretation is, and run things accordingly.
A player doesn't get to decide how the negative effects of the magic item look, therefore potentially negating those negative effects.
Or the GM could avoid table variation by just using the numbers given. If he does this the mask doesn't have to change forms every game because what it looks like doesn't matter. That seems like the PFS thing to do to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the GM could avoid table variation by just using the numbers given. If he does this the mask doesn't have to change forms every game because what it looks like doesn't matter. That seems like the PFS thing to do to me.
I wouldn't. Because the mask is not defined as a Razmiran mask, and while clothing (even magical items) can often have their fluff description modified by the player, this item's description has a mechanical effect.
Because its description has a mechanical effect, the player doesn't get to decide what it looks like. The GM gets to decide how that mechanical effect will play out in his game.
Is it a full face mask, and the stone face thing can't be seen?
Is it a half face mask, and both the mask and the stone face can be seen?
or does the mask meld with the face as it transforms into its stony visage?
Either way, the GM has to decide what his interpretation is, and run things accordingly.
A player doesn't get to decide how the negative effects of the magic item look, therefore potentially negating those negative effects.
We aren't playing a computer game. Roleplaying, or the lack thereof, and choices can have an arbitrary effect.
In this case, the choice is to look really odd to get a bonus. Looking really odd can and could have an effect in game.
Let's stop advocating for GMs to lose what little ability they still have in PFS to make a subjective call based on the circumstances at hand.
|
|
Of course, shape changing gear (which you say is chosen by the GM at each game and not the player that bought and wears it) that adds penalty based on GM prejudices is exactly how PFS is supposed to work.
What other oddball items do you apply a circumstance penalty to that isn't called out by the item or the scenario?
Would it be cool if I start applying a circumstance penalty to people who are standing on the edge of obscuring mist looking out? I know the rules of line of sight say they don't have a penalty, but my judgement says they are going to have just as hard of time looking out as someone standing beside them looking in.
Can I apply a circumstance penalty to people shooting through more than one person before hitting their target? To me that sounds harder than just the regular cover of shooting through one person.
Any issue with me applying a circumstance penalty to paladins in social encounters because I think most of them are pricks, so my NPCs do too?
My buddy effing hates gunslingers, he will be giving them a circumstance penalty for how out of place they are.
Gods help the goofy bastard that wears a jingasa of the fortunate soldier and eyes of the eagle, no NPC will ever take them seriously again.
|
How do you feel about my subjective calls in the previous post?Let's stop advocating for GMs to lose what little ability they still have in PFS to make a subjective call based on the circumstances at hand.Here, here!
I was ignoring your facetious and hyperbolic comments. How do you feel about your subjective calls in your previous post?
|
|
I was ignoring your facetious and hyperbolic comments. How do you feel about your subjective calls in your previous post?
I would love to use the obscuring mist and arrow changes. I did use obscuring mist for a long time before I realized the rules required different. I haven't ran a home game since I found out how and why this works like it does, but I would probably keep this the way I think it makes more sense if I did start a home game again. In home games I have applied cumulative penalties for shooting through extra bodies, so they were not facetious at all.
As far as the prejudice against classes, I wouldn't do it, but if you say it is ok I do know people that would. Like I said, I have run into multiple people that apply race hate when not called for.
If a GM hit me with a penalty for the look of the mask and later set at my table, absolutely I would slap penalties on him for stupid looking things like the jingasa and eyes of the eagle.
I don't think I should be able to make these choices no matter how much I would like to.
I think that some of us have been defending a view point against arguments/attacks from the opposing extreme view a bit too long and other elements of the game have gotten entangled and the line between who said what has gotten very blurred.
I believe that most of us are seeing what is best for the game, not just for them.
Some of the first posts seem to have polarized views - one side saying that the item is broken and that they would automatically assign penalties enough to more than make up for the bonuses of the mask - with the other side saying that the GM is breaking the rules if they assign penalties that aren't in the item or scenario (suck it up or play a home game).
A lot of us have been dragged into one camp or the other, or at least there is a perception that we belong to one side or the other.
I have taken away two things from this thread:
1- Most of us agree that there are times that a social penalty would be appropriate (not all the time) and that the actions and/or words of the PC can alter those penalties.
2- Expect table variances on how the item works - from the mask disappears from sight when used, leaving the stone face fully in view - to the mask is always in sight and the parts of the face that can be seen are visibly stone (this is where Diego Rossi and I have an honest difference of opinion). Players should consult with GMs before play to know how that GM is interpreting how the mask works at their table.
|
|
I mean, let's be honest; NPCs are used to weird shaped blob-like / demonic / clawed death machine of death Eidilons walking around, Tieflings (usually with sharp fangs and teeth, tons of angels (Aasimir are the most popular race, at least in my area). Is the guy with the stoney face really going to draw attention?
The proper price for the item (based on a straight-bonus to a skill) is in the neighborhood of 20K, so it's obviously underpriced. I don't buy them for my bard because I don't want to look goofy even with no mechanical effect, but if someone tells me their bluff is +28 I'm not going to question the source. Until they reprice it properly, I believe that as GMs we have to say that if the NPC can deal with all the weirdness parties of PCs bring with them, they can certainly deal with a stoney face without having a cow.
|
|
Sitri your problem appears to be a massive amount of entitlement in that you believe you can tell other people how things should happen and that is simply not how organised play works, you will find that people are a lot more easy going if you do not antagonise them every time you type or one would assume say anything.
I have never had an issue with GM's applying circumstance penalties for things my PC is doing that would grate on the NPC's do you know why? because I realise that in the end the guy GMing the scenario is trying to make sure everyone has a good time.
If you are having troubles with the social contract which is that you trust your GM to try and ensure you all have a good time and as such you only call him up on critical mistakes (to improve his GMing), you will find your play experiences will improve significantly as the majority of the friction generated between players and GM's is caused by the players themselves.
Sometimes you will come across a truely adversarial and terrible GM who actually generates issues, but if you just walk when you find them (preferably before the briefing as honestly if they are that bad its not worth sitting through the whole session) and then just never attend tables which that person is running (informing your local VO as to why as if enough people are boycotting his tables he wont be offered the chance to run anymore).
Have you ever seen the cartoon of the guy hitting the other on the head with a cross and when the second guy breaks the cross the first cries out he is being persecuted? This is a lot what your first paragraph sounds like to me.
I agree with mistwalker that this has gotten very polarized, perhaps unnecessarily so. But it seems to me I am trying to break a cross others are attacking with.
If a GM applies an across the board penalty or a penalty as the norm rather than the exception to any item or race that isn't listed, they are doing it wrong. This isn't personal entitlement, because I give this same level of entitlement to my players. I would be doing them a disservice if I applied across the board penalties to things I reason should have more. I have listed two, but I can copy and paste my list of home rules which include more. I think there are a lot of players that wouldn't like my additional circumstantial penalties, they clearly run contrary to what the rules call for. Just like there are a lot of changes I wouldn't like that other GMs would make.
I recognize that when I GM I am just acting in proxy, and I have to follow the mechanics that are outlined for me. This also goes for tactics, perhaps I think the first round buff spell is a waste, it isn't my option, I have a clear sequence I am to follow. Now if there is some very odd reason I can justify not casting it perhaps, but I can't just say as a norm that this decision isn't very smart so I am going to do it the way that I think makes more sense.
This mask has the penalties laid out that are supposed to be the norm. Redward listed a specific rare instance earlier where he would apply a penalty and I told him I wouldn't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the hasty generalization that the stone face or mask (and whatever those things mean to different people) mean a penalty to normal people in normal situations.
Where do you play? You have stated quite definitively that the GMs are targeting me because of entitlement, but you have never played with me or my GMs. You have never played with my wife who died due to aesthetic preferences and she both hates to argue and assumes every GM she plays with knows the rules better than her. Me personally, if we are in the middle of a ruling, I typically never push more than a sentence or two if I think the GM is doing it wrong, because I know how that can grind on a game (this includes the time I watched an enemy take an AoO to coup de gras my wife because his demon blood let him know she was an aasimar despite her scion of humanity trait, and demons really want to kill aasimars.)
Here we are not in the middle of a game and I very happy to tell people that encouraging prejudice against aesthetics is either hypocritical or opening a can of worms that isn't realistic for organized play.
|
|
And for the record, since the PFS admins are here, I think everyone can agree that there is a "call" for Mike Brock and crew to reprice this item (or lower the bonus to a nice even +2) as they did the bracers of the falcon. I don't think anyone on either side of the argument of "what to do until then" disagrees with that statement.
|
|
And for the record, since the PFS admins are here, I think everyone can agree that there is a "call" for Mike Brock and crew to reprice this item (or lower the bonus to a nice even +2) as they did the bracers of the falcon. I don't think anyone on either side of the argument of "what to do until then" disagrees with that statement.
They didn't reprice the bracers, they banned them.
|
|
And for the record, since the PFS admins are here, I think everyone can agree that there is a "call" for Mike Brock and crew to reprice this item (or lower the bonus to a nice even +2) as they did the bracers of the falcon. I don't think anyone on either side of the argument of "what to do until then" disagrees with that statement.They didn't reprice the bracers, they banned them.
Yep. And I think it would be a shame to see it banned. I think it's a fun, flavorful item. But players need to be willing to accept that the things they buy don't immediately meld into their character like a wild-shaped druid and can't be reskinned (at least in PFS). They have specific descriptions, and in this specific case, a couple of notable, but rather clearly defined effects.
If you've got the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier, you're wearing a big metal cone on your head. If that doesn't fit the aesthetics of your character concept, then you've got to make the decision of whether that outweighs the mechanical benefit.
|
|
Yep. And I think it would be a shame to see it banned. I think it's a fun, flavorful item. But players need to be willing to accept that the things they buy don't immediately meld into their character like a wild-shaped druid and can't be reskinned (at least in PFS). They have specific descriptions, and in this specific case, a couple of notable, but rather clearly defined effects.
If you've got the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier, you're wearing a big metal cone on your head. If that doesn't fit the aesthetics of your character concept, then you've got to make the decision of whether that outweighs the mechanical benefit.
Would you support a GM that said a player needs to accept he looks like a jackass for wearing a jingasa and therefore starts NPCs off as unfriendly towards them?
|
|
Would you support a GM that said a player needs to accept he looks like a jackass for wearing a jingasa and therefore starts NPCs off as unfriendly towards them?
Yep. And I think it would be a shame to see it banned. I think it's a fun, flavorful item. But players need to be willing to accept that the things they buy don't immediately meld into their character like a wild-shaped druid and can't be reskinned (at least in PFS). They have specific descriptions, and in this specific case, a couple of notable, but rather clearly defined effects.
If you've got the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier, you're wearing a big metal cone on your head. If that doesn't fit the aesthetics of your character concept, then you've got to make the decision of whether that outweighs the mechanical benefit.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges to achieve a very weak analogy. A jingasa is a hat. The mask of stony demeanour makes your face look like a statue. Surely you must see a difference here?
|
Players are down right goofy also.
When I tell them they have a penalty, they tend to object sometimes.
When I don't tell them, the game moves smoothly and they never object on those same circumstances.
It's partially in players nature to react with those questions, "But why do I get such a penalty?", but it never has any longterm effect on scenario.
|
|
If you've got the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier, you're wearing a big metal cone on your head. If that doesn't fit the aesthetics of your character concept, then you've got to make the decision of whether that outweighs the mechanical benefit.
How do you enforce your flavor tax on players though. Do you audit and reject the art they use to represent their character? Do you make sure to append whatever you feel is a "necessary" bit of flavor to a player's character descriptions? There is really no way to enforce something like this without being an adversarial jerk DM. Just let players describe themselves. The idea of a flavor tax is just about the dumbest thing to have come out of the 3.X era and we need to get rid of it.
On the subject of the mask specifically it does make your face statue-like but this is Pathfinder we are talking about, a game where there are androids who are literally robots and oreads who are literally stone people and the aasimar feat that turns your skin to metal. Whatever this mask does it is not outside of the standard deviation of how those other extant character options look and should not have a penalty applied out of line with how you would penalize those other things ie not at all beyond the occasional -2 circumstance bonus. The stony demeanor in the item's name is presumably that of the oreads themselves, just magically dialed up by the mask.
|
|
If you've got the Jingasa of the fortunate soldier, you're wearing a big metal cone on your head. If that doesn't fit the aesthetics of your character concept, then you've got to make the decision of whether that outweighs the mechanical benefit.How do you enforce your flavor tax on players though. Do you audit and reject the art they use to represent their character? Do you make sure to append whatever you feel is a "necessary" bit of flavor to a player's character descriptions? There is really no way to enforce something like this without being an adversarial jerk DM. Just let players describe themselves. The idea of a flavor tax is just about the dumbest thing to have come out of the 3.X era and we need to get rid of it.
Yes, if the art does not match their character's equipment, I burn it in front of them.
Same with their miniatures. If the miniature does not have the weapon they want to use, I don't let them use it.
|
Honestly, I don't get what the problem is with this item. Sure, it might be under-priced, but a game breaker it is not.
I got one for my Inquisitor of Asmodeus, who already talks in a deadpan. I'd prefer to be able to reskin this as the iron mask that Asmodean Inquisitors wear. If this "merges" with their wearer's face, that'd be cool, so I could still wear his mask, but not a particularly big deal.
As there is no listed penalty with the item, I would not be giving a penalty to the user.
I'd not be heartbroken if this made the "banned list", and given the incredibly cheap price and very high bonus, it probably should be. A more appropriate price is probably 5000, but that is for others to determine.
|
It's the GM's job to create a world that reacts to the stimuli that the players throw at it. If your character talks like a robot, people will react. It is definitely the GM's job to adjudicate that reaction.
And here I thought the GMs job was to run modules as written. I know lets check out the OP guide!
As a Pathfinder Society Organized Play Game Master running a session at a convention or an in-store event, you have the following duties.
- • Introduce yourself.
- Encourage your players to introduce themselves (and their characters).
- It is recommended that you look over each player’s character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets, quickly checking wealth, equipment, calculations, and so on if time permits.
- Start playing the session.
- Play for no more than 5 hours. (Note: home games and online games do not necessarily have to follow this restriction, and some conventions may run longer slots.)
- Give each player an accurate Chronicle sheet for that scenario (see Filling Out a Chronicle Sheet, later in this chapter).
- At conventions, you may also be expected to quickly fill out scenario or module reporting sheets with additional tracking information—these sheets need to be turned in to your coordinator so she can report the results.
- When acting as both the Game Master and coordinator for an event, you are expected to report the results of your sessions on paizo.com/pathfindersociety in a timely fashion. Failing to do so has negative consequences for Pathfinder Society as a whole (see the sidebar on page 36).
None of that sounds like penalizing players for being a bit odd. Lets keep digging.
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and environmental conditions when those effects have been written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have not been added to the encounters. GMs are always encouraged to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters. GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocksfor those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered mechanics that may not be altered.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future. Even with unlimited time to address such concerns, however, there will always be slight table variation and Game Master fiat.
This looks like the relevant section. So, how is the enjoyment of the session enhanced by penalizing the players for doing something that a commoner might think a bit odd? Note that you are expressly prohibited from changing skill DCs (which adding in extra penalties amounts to).
If you want unimportant commoners to cringe away, well most of my characters don't seek to be loved by the masses. They are Pathfinders not celebrates. Further I don't think you really want to open up a can of worms where concepts that a GM doesn't like (despite being allowed) are penalized. You never know what some future GM will decide is 'out in left field'. I think we all know at least one person who hates gunslingers or tieflings or funny hats. Allowing those GMs to take it out on players who happen to enjoy such things does not heighten anyone's enjoyment of the game
|
|
If you want unimportant commoners to cringe away, well most of my characters don't seek to be loved by the masses. They are Pathfinders not celebrates. Further I don't think you really want to open up a can of worms where concepts that a GM doesn't like (despite being allowed) are penalized. You never know what some future GM will decide is 'out in left field'. I think we all know at least one person who hates gunslingers or tieflings or funny hats. Allowing those GMs to take it out on players who happen to enjoy such things does not heighten anyone's enjoyment of the game
Not only does it not succeed at creating fun at the tab;e but it destroys the fundamental foundation of organized play; the reason that we put of with such stringent rules and restrictions when playing PFS. Namely that the experience has to be equivalent worldwide. If DMs think they can get away with screwing over things they just don't like then it stops being possible to bring your character to new tables the world over and the great strength of organized play is netralized leaving only a pile of dumb house rules to constitute PFS.
|
|
If you want unimportant commoners to cringe away, well most of my characters don't seek to be loved by the masses. They are Pathfinders not celebrates. Further I don't think you really want to open up a can of worms where concepts that a GM doesn't like (despite being allowed) are penalized. You never know what some future GM will decide is 'out in left field'. I think we all know at least one person who hates gunslingers or tieflings or funny hats. Allowing those GMs to take it out on players who happen to enjoy such things does not heighten anyone's enjoyment of the gameNot only does it not succeed at creating fun at the tab;e but it destroys the fundamental foundation of organized play; the reason that we put of with such stringent rules and restrictions when playing PFS. Namely that the experience has to be equivalent worldwide. If DMs think they can get away with screwing over things they just don't like then it stops being possible to bring your character to new tables the world over and the great strength of organized play is netralized leaving only a pile of dumb house rules to constitute PFS.
And one of those stringent rules is that you can't reskin things. Like masks that turn your face into living stone and your voice into an emotionless monotone.
I have no problem with the Mask of Stony Demeanor. I think it's a really cool item, mostly because it makes for fun roleplaying opportunities. And no, I won't force a player to talk in a monotone voice, just as I wouldn't force them to do a Scottish accent for a Dwarf. However I will remind them that their character's face appears as a living statue and they have a monotone voice should it become relevant in a social interaction, and NPCs will react accordingly.
NPCs will also react accordingly to a giant Greatsword strapped across their back versus a dagger on their belt. Or heavy full plate armor vs. padded cloth armor.
That's all part of my job as a GM: to make the world as immersive as I can. If players don't want their character to have a stone face and robot voice they should consider not buying an item that explicitly imparts those qualities.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I think a lot of people really need to back up and cool off.
No one is "penalizing" players
No one is "Punishing" players
No one is out to get you and take away your fun.
All people are saying is that there are situations in which using this mask may create minuses on the dice. And that some NPCs who recognize the mask may assume that the person intends to use it to lie and ask that the mask be taken off before they will listen to anything the person has to say.
It is like if I saw you playing with a deck of marked cards. You could tell me till the cows came home that you weren't cheating. You could even lose games. I'm still going to assume you intend to cheat, and I won't sit down to play with you unless you switch to an unmarked deck.
No, it won't be all the time. But yes, sometimes the 500 gp item with a +10 bonus and a flaw that makes it highly recognizable will not be totally effective.
|
|
All people are saying is that there are situations in which using this mask may create minuses on the dice. And that some NPCs who recognize the mask may assume that the person intends to use it to lie and ask that the mask be taken off before they will listen to anything the person has to say.
I understand, but my point is that especially in PFS play it is not appropriate to make up DM fiat to completely nullify a legal item that a character has purchased to receive a specifically enumerated bonus. Before you say anything, using DM fiat to refuse the player a social skill check while wearing the mask is exactly what I am talking about and is not appropriate. Maybe if the NPC in question is written to be extremely paranoid of social skill enhancing magic and if they have successfully identified the mask using detect magic and the Spellcraft skill then maybe it would be appropriate to deprive the player of their bonus but that situation would probably be explicitly written into a scenario and not made up by the DM on the fly.
This is not to mention the fact that there are a myriad of ways in-universe to have your face wind up looking like a stone mask so that should not reasonably raise any suspicions of this particular item on its own.
That's all part of my job as a GM: to make the world as immersive as I can. If players don't want their character to have a stone face and robot voice they should consider not buying an item that explicitly imparts those qualities.
That's not the only job of the DM. There is a point where immersion becomes pedantic and starts detracting from the fun that we all need to be having at the table. I would argue that that point is right around the time that the DM starts nitpicking specific things in order to tear down what a player is doing and I view all this nonsense about stressing the fluff drawbacks of the mask as exactly that.
|
|
That's all part of my job as a GM: to make the world as immersive as I can. If players don't want their character to have a stone face and robot voice they should consider not buying an item that explicitly imparts those qualities.That's not the only job of the DM. There is a point where immersion becomes pedantic and starts detracting from the fun that we all need to be having at the table. I would argue that that point is right around the time that the DM starts nitpicking specific things in order to tear down what a player is doing and I view all this nonsense about stressing the fluff drawbacks of the mask as exactly that.
So you think a player should be able to ignore the item's description?
|
|
So you think a player should be able to ignore the item's description?That's all part of my job as a GM: to make the world as immersive as I can. If players don't want their character to have a stone face and robot voice they should consider not buying an item that explicitly imparts those qualities.That's not the only job of the DM. There is a point where immersion becomes pedantic and starts detracting from the fun that we all need to be having at the table. I would argue that that point is right around the time that the DM starts nitpicking specific things in order to tear down what a player is doing and I view all this nonsense about stressing the fluff drawbacks of the mask as exactly that.
To a certain degree yes for several reasons. First of all the idea of a flavor tax which is what you are advocating is really dumb as I mentioned several posts ago. Secondly saying "no your fluff is wrong you actually are like this" smacks of overly controlling and antagonistic DMing and Thirdly lets not try to pretend that PFS is a super deep and immersive campaign. Fourth, this thread has from the beginning been about rationalizing DM fiat to prevent characters from taking advantage of a legal item that they have purchased that you think is "cheese" and that kind of thing is not appropriate especially not in PFS. And Fifth, this kind of capricious, nitpicky DM fiat about flavor harms the basic social contract of PFS (as it is destict from the way that the RAW game works socially).
So yes, players get to describe their own characters without you forcing your possibly overly narrow interpretation of what some piece of printed fluff is like on them because just maybe they have their own way of incorporating fluff into their characters.
|
|
You can't reskin something in PFS if you gain a mechanical benefit. A mechanical benefit is not limited to a bonus or penalty.
If I see my Barbarian as an unarmed, screaming maniac clad only in a loincloth riding a pig, I cannot describe him as such if he is actually wearing a Mithral breastplate and wielding a cestus and riding a dog. Why? Because some enemies target NPCs based on the type of armor they're wearing. Some social encounters give penalties to characters in armor. Some spells have different effects if a character is wearing metal armor or wielding a metal weapon. Some races react differently to a dog vs. a pig.
I can't call my gnome a halfling. I can't call my longsword a katana. I can't say my human character is 750lbs and 8ft tall. I can't say my giant-hide armor is made of vegan faux-giant naugahyde. All because, as you said, we need to endeavor to create an equivalent experience at every table.
It seems that you and I have a different idea of what constitutes penalty or punishment. I'm not looking to exact vengeance for a character concept, build, or item I don't like. I'm just trying to provide NPCs who are something more than mindless automatons.
And if you think "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.." can be interpreted as anything other than "the wearer speaks in an emotionless monotone and has the face of a statue" then I don't think we're going to find common ground.
|
|
You can't reskin something in PFS if you gain a mechanical benefit. A mechanical benefit is not limited to a bonus or penalty.
Well then that is where we differ, within the context of the game mechanics has the specific meaning of the numbers and plusses and minuses that underlay what we describe at the table. If someone reimagines how their mask of stony demeanor deadens their expressions the mechanically derived benefit is still +10 Bluff and the mechanically derived penalty is still a situational -5.
When you talk about making encounters harder for characters using the mask, it is not mechanically derived. It is you as the DM making s%~& up and rationalizing it based on your reading of a sentence of fluff. In PFS the DM making up things that change the scenario is forbidden as well I would like to remind you.
|
|
You can't reskin something in PFS if you gain a mechanical benefit. A mechanical benefit is not limited to a bonus or penalty.Well then that is where we differ, within the context of the game mechanics has the specific meaning of the numbers and plusses and minuses that underlay what we describe at the table. If someone reimagines how their mask of stony demeanor deadens their expressions the mechanically derived benefit is still +10 Bluff and the mechanically derived penalty is still a situational -5.
When you talk about making encounters harder for characters using the mask, it is not mechanically derived. It is you as the DM making s&@@ up and rationalizing it based on your reading of a sentence of fluff. In PFS the DM making up things that change the scenario is forbidden as well I would like to remind you.
So would you think it's okay in PFS to call your dog, say, a pig, as long as you're not changing any of the pluses and minuses from the dog stat block?
|
|
So would you think it's okay in PFS to call your dog, say, a pig, as long as you're not changing any of the pluses and minuses from the dog stat block?You can't reskin something in PFS if you gain a mechanical benefit. A mechanical benefit is not limited to a bonus or penalty.Well then that is where we differ, within the context of the game mechanics has the specific meaning of the numbers and plusses and minuses that underlay what we describe at the table. If someone reimagines how their mask of stony demeanor deadens their expressions the mechanically derived benefit is still +10 Bluff and the mechanically derived penalty is still a situational -5.
When you talk about making encounters harder for characters using the mask, it is not mechanically derived. It is you as the DM making s&@@ up and rationalizing it based on your reading of a sentence of fluff. In PFS the DM making up things that change the scenario is forbidden as well I would like to remind you.
Nice try, lets not put words in my mouth. That is a very different situation and I suspect you know it. There is a dog defined in the rules as a player-controllable animal and there is a pig (or boar in some contexts) described in the rules as a player-controllable animal and they are mechanically different. What the reskin rule prevents you from doing is turning one into the other regardless of stats.
That is completely different from what is going on here. the reskin rule says that you cannot reskin an animal companion or item to be something for which there are no rules. You can't have your club be a frying pan. You can't have your dog be a pig; etc. What it does not say is that you can never describe anything differently from what the fluff in the book is, within reason. See the difference? Banning the first is a completely reasonable thing to do when the PFS experience has to be homogenized to be the same everywhere. Banning the second is pedantic, nitpicky and often capriciously used to correct perceived imbalances by DM fiat as demonstrated in this thread.
|
|
That is completely different from what is going on here. the reskin rule says that you cannot reskin an animal companion or item to be something for which there are no rules. You can't have your club be a frying pan. You can't have your dog be a pig; etc. What it does not say is that you can never describe anything differently from what the fluff in the book is, within reason
Who defines what is within reason? What about any of the other examples I provided? Is it reasonable to ignore the description of a breastplate? Of a weapon? Could I say that the breastplate is flesh-colored with fake chest hair so it looks like I'm not wearing armor? That has been offered as a 'reasonable' interpretation of the masks's description.
I would just ask the player to actually ROLEPLAY whatever he needs to bluff about in an emotionless voice.
|
|
So would you think it's okay in PFS to call your dog, say, a pig, as long as you're not changing any of the pluses and minuses from the dog stat block?You can't reskin something in PFS if you gain a mechanical benefit. A mechanical benefit is not limited to a bonus or penalty.Well then that is where we differ, within the context of the game mechanics has the specific meaning of the numbers and plusses and minuses that underlay what we describe at the table. If someone reimagines how their mask of stony demeanor deadens their expressions the mechanically derived benefit is still +10 Bluff and the mechanically derived penalty is still a situational -5.
When you talk about making encounters harder for characters using the mask, it is not mechanically derived. It is you as the DM making s&@@ up and rationalizing it based on your reading of a sentence of fluff. In PFS the DM making up things that change the scenario is forbidden as well I would like to remind you.
Nice try, lets not put words in my mouth. That is a very different situation and I suspect you know it. There is a dog defined in the rules as a player-controllable animal and there is a pig (or boar in some contexts) described in the rules as a player-controllable animal and they are mechanically different. What the reskin rule prevents you from doing is turning one into the other regardless of stats.
That is completely different from what is going on here. the reskin rule says that you cannot reskin an animal companion or item to be something for which there are no rules. You can't have your club be a frying pan. You can't have your dog be a pig; etc. What it does not say is that you can never describe anything differently from what the fluff in the book is, within reason. See the difference? Banning the first is a completely reasonable thing to do when the PFS experience has to be homogenized to be the same everywhere. Banning the...
I see two examples of reskinning here. One is milder than the other, but both are reskinning.
When a player makes use of an item like this, it would be a great idea to discuss it with the GM before the game starts to get an idea of how things will be interpreted on both mechanical and roleplaying fronts. It is not invalid for a GM to interpret an item's appearance or result differently than the player might, and the player as a rule should defer to the GM's judgement. If the player feels that the GM is behaving in an unfair manner, then it should be taken up the ladder to a Venture Officer or to Mike Brock.
|
|
For reasons given above, you would still be giving someone a Perception check to notice the mask. Since a person's entire face probably doesn't cover as 'minor details only', it would at best be a Disguise check with a +2 bonus from the kit.
Another thing to keep in mind: Disguise checks are made in secret, so be careful walking into that courtroom Mr. Kissinger.
|
|
Another thing to keep in mind: Disguise checks are made in secret, so be careful walking into that courtroom Mr. Kissinger.
"Sir, why are you wearing such thickly caked on makeup?"
"I apologize, your honor. I have broken out in a skin rash, and did not want my horrifying appearance to distract the court. I did my best to cover it up for your pleasure." Now I have to bluff! Oh wait, I'm wearing an item that makes me good at that ;)
Or don't even make it look like a normal face? Look like some kind of powdered up noble from the time period - white powdered up face with red rosy cheeks.
In the long run though, this is a silly discussion. How many times have you sat down at a table and had a major part of the adventure decided by one bluff check? Or even seen an NPC with significant investment in sense motive? The item may be undercosted, I don't know how those things are decided, but it's not overpowered, and doesn't need circumstance penalties piled on it just because the GM doesn't like the item.
|
|
I don't care about the bonus, to be honest. If a player wants to use this to beef up their Bluff skill for their dashing swashbuckling character, that's fine. They should be aware, however, that while he may look and sound like Wesley in the Princess Bride in their head, as far as everyone else is concerned, he talks like Ben Stein and has an Easter Island head.
Which, again, is fine. But if the fair lady he's talking to happens to not be an agalmatophiliac, his seduction attempt may not go as planned.