|
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."
To which the judge may answer:
"I sympathize with your problem, but unfortunately the rules apply to us all equally. Please remove your mask before you give testimony, so that I don't have to order the Bailiff to remove it for you."
|
|
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."
To which the judge may answer:
"I sympathize with your problem, but unfortunately the rules apply to us all equally. Please remove your mask before you give testimony, so that I don't have to order the Bailiff to remove it for you."
Well, and here we get back into the argument about whether it's a visible mask, or if, like it says in the item description, it actually turns your face to stone. I envision it kind of like the Big Head mask from the Mask comics, where it basically eats your head replacing it with a statue head (Easter Island head. That actually sounds like a great skull and Shackles character, Redward). It could equally go.
"Yes, I see that. Looks like a terrible case of greyscale. Are you sure you are fit to perform today?"
"Of course, your Honor. I would be remiss if I put my own health above my duty to the law."
|
|
Yes, and it is indeed a matter of GM interpretation whether the mask disappears. I would personally rule that it does not, and that barring successful Disguise checks, it is obvious to everyone that you are wearing a mask that emanates transmutation magic. Incidentally, if there were security concerns in a building, I would have my wizards specifically checking for illusion and transmutation, as those are the most commonly used for disguise.
This just takes us back to 'check with your GM'. Even though I think this mask is underpriced and overpowered, I'm not seeking to punish the player. I merely try to make the world one that reacts in a realistic fashion to the guy with the stone face and the monotone voice.
So, to get off the most recent topic here, and this is a serious question, if the "mask transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue" in PFS play OR OTHERWISE can a sufficiently p-o'd PC/NPC sunder the wearer's face? If it is stone, and stone can be broken, can that be a viable response or threat to the person with a face of stone?
*I do understand that there's no PVP in PFS, and that PFS NPCs rarely get stat-blocks, let alone the morale to sunder or coup de grace, but that shouldn't negate the inquiry.
You could sunder the mask I suppose, but I don't really know why anyone would.
NPC - Take off your mask, I can see right through it.
PC - NoNPC - I'm warning you; take off your mask.
PC - Make me!
*roll a sense motive
*roll initiative
Would sundering the mask break the PC's face/cause damage to the face provided the damage bypasses hardness?
*I'm only asking out of curiosity; it's not my intent to hunt after PCs who wear this item.
|
|
Ahh this old gem. In the spirit of subjective reasoning rooted entirely outside of written game mechanics, I have decided to give some thought to the skeleton key.
For a mere 85 gold a first level adventurer can have a +10 on his disable devise check for anything that requires a key. For such a piddly sum, not even 1/5 the price of a mask of stoney demeanor, PCs are going to get a +10 to one of the most common uses of skill. Well NPCs are surely going to know about this item, it isn't even magical! In response to this, some NPCs would of course build locks that are specifically designed to thwart the skeleton key. Of course they would. With such a cheap item that anyone could get, everyone must know about it and no locksmith worth his salt is going to make a lock with tumblers that would be tricked by this key. Of course I will couch my arguments in the tone that only some locksmiths in some situations will be wary of this fact, this way it doesn't seem I am trying to write a penalty into an item that doesn't exist in the items text. Of course no scenario ever written has ever given any indication that any locksmiths think or care about such a thing either, but to suggest that I as a GM can't decide which locksmiths would care about this item is to strip away the last bit freedom I have as a GM and completely reduce this game to video game status. Can't you see that I am trying to undo the benefit of an item a PC paid for because I am trying to make things fun for everyone?
|
|
Ahh this old gem. In the spirit of subjective reasoning rooted entirely outside of written game mechanics, I have decided to give some thought to the skeleton key.
For a mere 85 gold a first level adventurer can have a +10 on his disable devise check for anything that requires a key. For such a piddly sum, not even 1/5 the price of a mask of stoney demeanor, PCs are going to get a +10 to one of the most common uses of skill. Well NPCs are surely going to know about this item, it isn't even magical! In response to this, some NPCs would of course build locks that are specifically designed to thwart the skeleton key. Of course they would. With such a cheap item that anyone could get, everyone must know about it and no locksmith worth his salt is going to make a lock with tumblers that would be tricked by this key. Of course I will couch my arguments in the tone that only some locksmiths in some situations will be wary of this fact, this way it doesn't seem I am trying to write a penalty into an item that doesn't exist in the items text. Of course no scenario ever written has ever given any indication that any locksmiths think or care about such a thing either, but to suggest that I as a GM can't decide which locksmiths would care about this item is to strip away the last bit freedom I have as a GM and completely reduce this game to video game status. Can't you see that I am trying to undo the benefit of an item a PC paid for because I am trying to make things fun for everyone?
So, is it your opinion that a character can ignore the description of the Mask of Stony Demeanor and re-skin it however they like?
So yes, locksmiths already build locks that defeat it, between 55% and 100% of the time.
Now, if the skeleton key also, say, turned your nose into a key, a merchant might be concerned with you poking around the back room. But it doesn't do that, so GMs don't have to worry about it.
|
|
It is my opinion that the numbers given should be used, not the numbers created by different subjective interpretations which lead to different GMs skinning PC items differently.
So in response to the disable device, you reference the opposing numerical values provided in order to overcome the benefit provided by the item. This required no fiat, no external rationalization, and no addition or subtraction of highly subjective numeric values. Now if there were only some numerical values that the scenarios provided that worked in opposition to the numerical bonus from the mask, then we could all use the item in the same way at every table.....
|
|
I don't think those items are analogous. The mask gives a +10 bonus to a skill, while the key gives no such bonus; it merely allows you to substitute its bonus for your own, and doesn't even allow taking 10. It also doesn't work on anything that doesn't have a keyhole, while the mask as written works with any Bluff check to tell a falsehood.
However, you knew all that. Please bring a more honest argument to the table.
|
|
I don't think those items are analogous. The mask gives a +10 bonus to a skill, while the key gives no such bonus; it merely allows you to substitute its bonus for your own, and doesn't even allow taking 10. It also doesn't work on anything that doesn't have a keyhole, while the mask as written works with any Bluff check to tell a falsehood.
However, you knew all that. Please bring a more honest argument to the table.
A more honest argument?
Both items give a bonus to a common use of a skill check. In both cases people have advocated for NPCs to use outside knowledge and prejudice not suggested on the item, not suggested on a statblock, and not suggested in the text of a scenario (my example case was of course just satire.)
Are the items exactly alike? No, but in every way it matters to make my point they are. There are some ways in which the mask is better/more efficient, and there are some ways that claim would go to the key. No two unique items are identical, if they were, they wouldn't be unique.
I ask you bring a more honest argument to the table. Say that you are making a case for special pleading because you do not like the mechanics of this item as written, and therefor you are trying to come up with an excuse to change them. If your argument was honest and you merely were trying to create a more realistic immersion-building world by slapping unwritten penalties on items that give bonuses which NPCs wouldn't want, you would be on board with anti-skeleton key adjustment. Rational people in the real world would, and did, take steps to make this item not work, and they didn't even need detect magic or spell craft to do it.
|
Both items give a bonus to a common use of a skill check.
This is incorrect.
The mask grants 'a bonus to a common use of a skill check'.
The key replaces your usual Disable Device skill bonus with a flat +10.
The items would only be comparable if
a) the key granted a bonus to your usual Disable Device skill bonus to open locks
OR
b) the mask replaced your usual Bluff skill bonus with a flat +10 to tell lies.
Granting a bonus and replacing are different things. For a start, the key will become irrelevant a lot faster than the mask will.
Carry on.
|
|
As long as your disable device check falls between -(any number you might end up at) and +9, it gives a bonus. Arguing that it doesn't is needlessly pedantic. Furthermore, there is nothing to say you can't buy 6 different keys and make 6 different checks for the price of the mask.
But that isn't the point. If these things matter to you, then it is clearly the mechanics and not the flavor driving the prejudice against this item. The current claim is that the flavor induces penalties. Some earlier in this thread have even claimed that the mask changes form based on the GM at the table so that they can apply that flavor penalty.
|
Only thing that this mask will bring is problems in interpretation judging from 267 comments so far with zero conclusion. I am in the same basket as others who believe that you cannot refluff the mask. The text clearly states how it looks and what it does.
@Flite, that's probably good idea, but there is difference between Bluff and Disable Device in trained/untrained, so it makes sense that Bluff bonus from mask is stackable bonus.
Adam
|
|
As long as your disable device check falls between -(any number you might end up at) and +9, it gives a bonus. Arguing that it doesn't is needlessly pedantic. Furthermore, there is nothing to say you can't buy 6 different keys and make 6 different checks for the price of the mask.
But that isn't the point. If these things matter to you, then it is clearly the mechanics and not the flavor driving the prejudice against this item. The current claim is that the flavor induces penalties. Some earlier in this thread have even claimed that the mask changes form based on the GM at the table so that they can apply that flavor penalty.
Ignoring the fact that the items do different things, and are really only similar insofar as both affect skill checks:
Since when is flavour a penalty? We're playing a roleplaying game. If I'm having NPCs react to someone's clothing, armour, weapons, or actions, it's not as a penalty. It's because I'm trying to give everyone a good roleplaying experience.
If someone has come to the table expecting to get only the benefits of an item while ignoring any downsides or strange looks from NPCs, then they need to reassess with the GM.
|
|
I think the flavour of both the key and the mask could result in some tricky responses from certain people.
For instance, if you're trying to rouse a frenzy in a crowd by lying about the hideous things their Duke gets up to with their firstborn children, you may find that speaking like a cyberman is going to hinder your impassioned verbiage. ("Won't. Somebody. Please. Think. Of. The. Children.")
Similarly, if you get searched at the gate by the City Watch and they find 6 skeleton keys in your pockets, you may expect some difficult questions, or at the very least your description getting circulated, just in case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those that are assigning penalties to someone wearing the mask, I have a few questions:
Do you apply the same penalty to someone wearing a helmet?
What the wearer of the mask is wearing a helmet?
Do you apply the same penalty to someone wearing a plague mask?
A medusa mask?
A mask of the skull?
A howling helm?
A helm of fearsome mien?
A grappler's mask?
A shozoku of the night wind (Jade Regent #50, page 61 - ninja/assassin bodysuit)
If not, why not?
Most campaign setting books that discuss countries/cities also have an area that talks about how that population reacts to adventurers. Are you taking that into account in your decisions?
How about the fact that adventurers tend to be odd folks, often dripping with weapons and other dangerous items. Why would the mask be any different?
|
|
As long as your disable device check falls between -(any number you might end up at) and +9, it gives a bonus. Arguing that it doesn't is needlessly pedantic. Furthermore, there is nothing to say you can't buy 6 different keys and make 6 different checks for the price of the mask.
But that isn't the point. If these things matter to you, then it is clearly the mechanics and not the flavor driving the prejudice against this item. The current claim is that the flavor induces penalties. Some earlier in this thread have even claimed that the mask changes form based on the GM at the table so that they can apply that flavor penalty.
Ignoring the fact that the items do different things, and are really only similar insofar as both affect skill checks:
Since when is flavour a penalty? We're playing a roleplaying game. If I'm having NPCs react to someone's clothing, armour, weapons, or actions, it's not as a penalty. It's because I'm trying to give everyone a good roleplaying experience.
If someone has come to the table expecting to get only the benefits of an item while ignoring any downsides or strange looks from NPCs, then they need to reassess with the GM.
Your red herring is very telling. The more you push on with irrelevant mechanical knit picking, the more it belies your argument and reveals your true motivations to punish an item that you don't like the mechanics of.
I am willing to accept the downside of all items purchased for PFS, the downsides as written in the books.
I ask that you directly speak to the point. Is your true motivation to change the mechanics listed for an item because you do not like the mechanics listed? If you maintain this is not the case. What penalty do you assign to all the masks listed in Mistwalker's post above me. For that matter, you seem to be willing to spend the time to argue your point in this thread; please list 20 items that will incur a social penalty from you for their appearance which is not referenced anywhere in any text and the penalty that would be imposed. With the wealth of crazy looking gear, I can't imagine it would be hard for someone who truly holds your stated position to come up with such a list. If you will make this list I will leave this thread, and never question your motivations again.
|
|
For those that are assigning penalties to someone wearing the mask, I have a few questions:
Do you apply the same penalty to someone wearing a helmet?
What the wearer of the mask is wearing a helmet?Do you apply the same penalty to someone wearing a plague mask?
A medusa mask?
A mask of the skull?
A howling helm?
A helm of fearsome mien?
A grappler's mask?
A shozoku of the night wind (Jade Regent #50, page 61 - ninja/assassin bodysuit)If not, why not?
Most campaign setting books that discuss countries/cities also have an area that talks about how that population reacts to adventurers. Are you taking that into account in your decisions?
How about the fact that adventurers tend to be odd folks, often dripping with weapons and other dangerous items. Why would the mask be any different?
We may be getting to the root of the problem here:
I think many of the people who are concerned with the reactions of myself and others are looking at it from a strict numbers perspective:
I (and I'm only speaking for myself, but I suspect many of the other "punish-y, penalize-y" GMs here are on the same page) am looking at it from an RP perspective:
I'm not trying to play "gotcha" with a player. I'm trying to create a world that lives and breathes and reacts appropriately. That might include a penalty. It might include a bonus. It might be part of what I use to set a DC. It very well might have no effect.
So let's look at some real PFS examples:
Note that these issues can be avoided if the characters in question remove these items when entering into social situations. Is that unfairly penalizing the players? Some might say so. I would argue that it is a GM roleplaying the natural tendency for someone wearing a mask to be perceived as untrustworthy and/or threatening.
Sometimes, the scenario calls out when penalties or bonuses should explicitly be applied (such as in that first Season 4 scenario). Similarly, sometimes a scenario calls out when there should be penalties for lighting conditions. Other times, it just says the room is unlit and expects the GM to fill in the blanks.
GMs don't have the luxury of scanning the text for numbers and calling it a day.
So I've answered your question, for the items you listed, I, as a GM, may assign an unfavorable penalty or higher DC for certain social skill checks in certain social settings. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that, because it really is completely situational.
I now ask that you answer my question (and I ask the same of Sitri): is it your opinion that a character can ignore the description of the Mask of Stony Demeanor and re-skin it however they like?
EDIT:
I'd also like to point out that none of these would be a surprise to my players. I would warn them ahead of time at the beginning of the session, and likely again if they're on their way to what is supposed to be a social encounter. Same as I would give a warning if they were about to commit an alignment infraction.
This is also why when I ask players to describe their characters, I expect them to include these types of details so we can take care of things up front.
|
|
I now ask that you answer my question (and I ask the same of Sitri): is it your opinion that a character can ignore the description of the Mask of Stony Demeanor and re-skin it however they like?
I would say they can ignore the description in any instance that appearance is not specifically written to be of importance. Anything else, and I think all characters will have massive penalties to all social situations. I can't read through a single character I have ever made without seeing something that would look odd or out of place when trying to be friendly, believable, etc...But in instances like you mentioned above where appearance is called out, PCs generally change out a lot of gear, not just a the mask (or they use a hat of disguise, many garments sleeves, etc).
Do I think players can reskin it? No, just as I don't think GMs can reskin it. It is clear that different people have different ideas about what this thing really looks like. I think the worse thing that could happen is to say that it changes form depending on who is GMing the table. I think the best thing to do is treat the mechanics of it as it is written and not add or subtract anything to those mechanics. If this is done, no reskinning is needed, because the skin does not matter.
Stuff/replied to the question posed and
I now ask that you answer my question (and I ask the same of Sitri): is it your opinion that a character can ignore the description of the Mask of Stony Demeanor and re-skin it however they like?
Thank you for taking the time to answer the question.
As long as the GM is assigning situational modifiers (both positive and negative) based on the PCs appearance and actions for everything, then I don't have a problem with a small situational penalty for the mask.
It is the perception that a fair number of GMs and VOs are assigning a penalty strictly to this mask, and not to other masks or gear that struck me as wrong.
As to the question of re-skinning, I think that there is a fair bit of different interpretations on exactly what the mask looks like and how it interacts with the wearer's face.
I had a long discussion with Diego? at the beginning of this thread on exactly this question - and I acknowledge that there will be table variation by GM on how the mask interacts with the wearer's face.
I can roll with different interpretations on how the mask interacts, but, again, the issue that I have had was the perception that if you wear this mask, some GMs will assign you penalties (from some of the comments, because they feel that it is overpowered and underpriced).
Redward, if a PC were wearing the mask, but used presdigitation to give their face a flesh like color, and had an emblem associated with monks on them, would you be assigning a penalty, or one that was as high without the two modifications mentioned above?
|
|
Appearances are always important.
Sitri, I do not ever seek to punish a player. As for your challenge, I feel no need to justify myself with a giant list of items that also may have situational modifiers, especially in the face of insults. I don't really care whether you post in this thread or not, and I will not abandon my claim that appearances are a matter of table variation.
|
|
Perhaps we play with different groups of extremely different people, Sitri, but usually my players are along for the merriment and laughter when I say something like "Well it looks like the guard is about to fall for your line about being a simple serving boy here to deliver the wine, but then he remembers you're wearing a tiger mask and carrying a longbow". Or if a player plays a character in a country where they know there will be discrimination, they enjoy the immersion of having that affect what happens and being able to react to their discrimination in their own way.
Even the biggest power gamers in the region like to see the consequences of each choice they make. Usually it will be a positive consequence, and they revel in that, but when it should be a negative consequence, they want to feel that too, since each choice for them can be a gamble with different pay-offs.
|
For those that are assigning penalties to someone wearing the mask, I have a few questions:
Do you apply the same penalty to someone ....
I absolutely apply appropriate modifiers for all sorts of things in all sorts of circumstances.
I've even basically flat out forbidden some things in some appropriate circumstances. Wouldn't allow a wolf in the opera, wouldn't allow spiked armour at a wedding reception.
And absolutely I'd apply appropriate modifiers to somebody with a face of stone and a robotic voice.
|
|
Perhaps we play with different groups of extremely different people, Sitri, but usually my players are along for the merriment and laughter when I say something like "Well it looks like the guard is about to fall for your line about being a simple serving boy here to deliver the wine, but then he remembers you're wearing a tiger mask and carrying a longbow". Or if a player plays a character in a country where they know there will be discrimination, they enjoy the immersion of having that affect what happens and being able to react to their discrimination in their own way.
Even the biggest power gamers in the region like to see the consequences of each choice they make. Usually it will be a positive consequence, and they revel in that, but when it should be a negative consequence, they want to feel that too, since each choice for them can be a gamble with different pay-offs.
I admit that there has been a huge uptick in my area of GM vs Player mentality that I don't care for. Killing PCs has become a celebrated sport among some, and complaining about PC successes, seeking to damage wealth, and suspicious failures have been on the rise. This is not for all our GMs, but enough that it bothers me.
Someone earlier cited my attitude towards the GMs as the cause for targeting, I will preempt any future accusations of this by saying that I see it across all tables where the only common factors are the GMs in question.
There were some people that came outright in this thread and said they sought to cripple the mask because they didn't like the bonus it gave to PCs. There are more people here that I believe have that same motivation but are using peripheral arguments to reach the same end. I will admit that my experience with my group here could be shading my perspective on the latter group.
Of course there should be consequences and cost for things involved, and there are certainly GMs that I trust more than others. With GMs I trust, anything that happens good or bad I accept is for the best. But when I see someone advocating GM fiat to outright gimp and item, ability, class, whatever, I have no trust that they are concerned with the fun of the players.
EDIT: I also couldn't fault any GM no matter how much trust I had in them for saying someone didn't believe a tiger faced archer was really a serving boy. I think those fall into the impossible lie category. Yes I realize that it does contradict my earlier statement that appearances shouldn't matter unless called out, but I will concede that there are extreme examples. My position in this argument is against special pleading.
For those that are assigning penalties to someone wearing the mask, I have a few questions:
Do you apply the same penalty to someone ....
I absolutely apply appropriate modifiers for all sorts of things in all sorts of circumstances.
I've even basically flat out forbidden some things in some appropriate circumstances. Wouldn't allow a wolf in the opera, wouldn't allow spiked armour at a wedding reception.
And absolutely I'd apply appropriate modifiers to somebody with a face of stone and a robotic voice.
Glad to hear that you do, as do Redward and Mark Seifter (and I do believe that Adam's "Appearances are always important" supports that approach as well).
I have no issues with GM applying situational modifiers, but like Sitri, I was getting the impression that some were advocating nerfing the item just because they did not like the item.
|
|
I don't like the item. I think it's vastly underpriced and should be removed from Organized Play with expedience. However, that doesn't mean I'll cheat to discourage its use. I'll instead point out how such a large bonus should be priced at least in the 10,000 gp range, and that a high Bluff can break many social encounters.
At the same time, I will note that the item is not an automatic win, as appearances are important. My use of situational bonuses and penalties and my dislike of the mask are two separate factors, and they do not interact.
|
|
I do like the item, for the same reason I like Oracles and their curses. Played honestly, they inject a ton of flavor into a character.
When players try to ignore or circumvent them, they're really cheating themselves and their fellow players of a fun and memorable experience. I love it when I sit down with my Oracle and find that there's only one other character who speaks Abyssal, "you may need to do some interpreting if things get hairy..."
A local player had a character who wore the Mask of Stony Demeanor. He modeled him after Dr. Killinger from the Venture Bros., spoke in a monotone German accent. It was great fun. I felt very bad when I killed him with an alien fungus monster.
--
I'm not going to justify antagonistic GMs or players. I think it's one of the worst problems in RPGs. I will say, however, that when players try to downplay or ignore anything that could be seen as a limitation of the their character, it can seem like they're only interested in "winning Pathfinder" rather than trying to tell a collective story with friends. And that can grate on a GM, especially when they're trying to make sure everyone feels challenged and one person is stomping everything into the ground before everyone else can act (or auto-succeeding every social check, or knowledge check, etc.).
So, halfway into the scenario, when your character makes a 43 on a Bluff check and the GM does a quick audit and finds that you've got this item that has this specific description that you've been ignoring the entire time, it kind of looks like you've stacked an archetype that gives you the ability to eat your cake on top of one that lets you have it.*
What I'm saying is, embracing your flaws is a great way to get anti-power-gamer GMs off your back. And it's a great way to make an interesting character that everyone else will remember.
*IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
|
|
My use of situational bonuses and penalties and my dislike of the mask are two separate factors, and they do not interact.
For what its worth, I've played with Adam a lot and he really does do a very good job of not letting his personal opinions influence his duty as a PFS GM.
As far as I know, nobody locally has complained that he significantly over does situational modifiers.
|
|
I do like the item, for the same reason I like Oracles and their curses. Played honestly, they inject a ton of flavor into a character.
When players try to ignore or circumvent them, they're really cheating themselves and their fellow players of a fun and memorable experience. I love it when I sit down with my Oracle and find that there's only one other character who speaks Abyssal, "you may need to do some interpreting if things get hairy..."
A local player had a character who wore the Mask of Stony Demeanor. He modeled him after Dr. Killinger from the Venture Bros., spoke in a monotone German accent. It was great fun. I felt very bad when I killed him with an alien fungus monster.
--
I'm not going to justify antagonistic GMs or players. I think it's one of the worst problems in RPGs. I will say, however, that when players try to downplay or ignore anything that could be seen as a limitation of the their character, it can seem like they're only interested in "winning Pathfinder" rather than trying to tell a collective story with friends. And that can grate on a GM, especially when they're trying to make sure everyone feels challenged and one person is stomping everything into the ground before everyone else can act (or auto-succeeding every social check, or knowledge check, etc.).
So, halfway into the scenario, when your character makes a 43 on a Bluff check and the GM does a quick audit and finds that you've got this item that has this specific description that you've been ignoring the entire time, it kind of looks like you've stacked an archetype that gives you the ability to eat your cake on top of one that lets you have it.*
What I'm saying is, embracing your flaws is a great way to get anti-power-gamer GMs off your back. And it's a great way to make an interesting character that everyone else will remember.
*IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
I see what you are getting at, and in all honesty I think I would enjoy sitting at your table and I can appreciate players playing up flaws. But I can't see what really calls this items flavor out for special attention more than any other.
I understand your position about GMs wanting to paint a real world, but is it really any different in flavor terms than any other? If I were to adopt that stance, I would do the same thing when I audited a player's character and saw he was wearing eyes of the eagle. "Now let me get this strait Elton John, you just strolled into a bar in the roughest area of town and tried to intimidate local hooligans dressed like that? Give me a break."
In truth, these sound like things that would make for good GMing in a home game. I may have mentioned that earlier, but I accept that you lose some level of immersion in PFS because of the desire and need for a standardized game experience.
Side point not relevant to your post but relevant to some text upstream: The +10 to lie, while I do agree looks undercosted, is nowhere near as game-breaking as some would let on. My first PFS character, who is now level 12, was a tiefling sorcerer with the Beguiling Liar and Without a Past. I haven't put a rank in bluff since level 5 because I haven't failed a bluff check since then. There is a point when this item becomes obsolete also. Of course I am not trying to tell people I am a halfing; I make my lies reasonable.
|
|
In truth, these sound like things that would make for good GMing in a home game. I may have mentioned that earlier, but I accept that you lose some level of immersion in PFS because of the desire and need for a standardized game experience.
This is really what bothers me about what most of the people in this thread are saying. Lets not try to pretend that PFS is some kind of super-immersive experience. There is a lot of the basic underpinnings of a real campaign that you give up in order to participate in organized play.
What it boils down to is that in a real campaign I can also reskin my character options to my heart's content which is not allowed in PFS. Therefore it is not fair to flavor tax a player in most of the ways that redward outlined above within the context of PFS. In a real campaign I agree that redward's ideas represent great DMing but if the DM is going to make extraneous mechanical concerns based of fluff then they also have to be willing to work with a player to reskin things when necessary. The loss of that immersion is the price you pay for getting to play a standardized campaign with people from literally all over the world.
|
|
Why would the mask be any different?Because they think the mask is too powerful but rather than being honest with their players (and themselves) they are seeking to change the rules though fiat.
I thought we'd moved beyond that. I have no grudge against the item. I don't see how I'm going to convince you of that, though, so I'm not going to bother trying.
I will submit that any argument that holds that the GM must adhere to the strict RAW of the item while allowing the player to ignore the RAW description of the item is internally inconsistent.
You wear the mask, you get +10 to bluff. You also have a statue face and monotone voice. I will not require you to roleplay it, but NPCs will react appropriately to your in-world presentation. If a player has a problem with that, I welcome them to invite a VO to weigh in.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I admit that there has been a huge uptick in my area of GM vs Player mentality that I don't care for.
yeah, that's a problem. Bring your VO in on it and tell them your concern.
suspicious failures
I haven't run a lot of season 5 yet, but the one I did run, there was at least one case of GM fiat failure written into the scenario. (In the form of "the DC to bluff is 30, and if you make your bluff, the NPCs receive the following clue that tells them that you are lying, and they attack." Of course if you don't lie to them, they still attack you.)
So if you are seeing an uptick in GM fiat failures, that might be the scenario, not the GM.
|
You wear the mask, you get +10 to bluff. You also have a statue face and monotone voice. I will not require you to roleplay it, but NPCs will react appropriately to your in-world presentation. If a player has a problem with that, I welcome them to invite a VO to weigh in.
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.
Do you as a GM have a problem following the OP guide? I rather hope not. Changing diplomacy DCs is expressly forbidden and while the guide gives allowances for rewarding players it makes no clause for punishing them.
|
|
You wear the mask, you get +10 to bluff. You also have a statue face and monotone voice. I will not require you to roleplay it, but NPCs will react appropriately to your in-world presentation. If a player has a problem with that, I welcome them to invite a VO to weigh in.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.Do you as a GM have a problem following the OP guide? I rather hope not. Changing diplomacy DCs is expressly forbidden and while the guide gives allowances for rewarding players it makes no clause for punishing them.
I don't believe redward is suggesting that the DCs of encounters should be tinkered with.
It's important to note that DCs cannot be altered, but circumstance modifiers to a skill check are permitted, if the GM believes them to be appropriate - whether positive or negative. (Though circumstance modifiers should be no larger than +/- 2, or perhaps +/- 4 in extreme conditions.)
And for the use of bluff, the believability of the bluff is also a factor. It is possible that some bluffs may be less believable coming from a monotone mask.
Of course, other bluffs may in fact be more believable in that situation.
A player wearing the mask may want to try and use bluffs that would be enhanced by the mask's physical effects, and avoid bluffs that the mask may hinder.
|
|
I don't believe redward is suggesting that the DCs of encounters should be tinkered with.
It's important to note that DCs cannot be altered, but circumstance modifiers to a skill check are permitted, if the GM believes them to be appropriate - whether positive or negative. (Though circumstance modifiers should be no larger than +/- 2, or perhaps +/- 4 in extreme conditions.)
Can you cite a source permuting circumstance modifiers and tell me exactly how changing a DC by two is different from applying a two point modifier to the roll while your at it?
GL, HF
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe redward is suggesting that the DCs of encounters should be tinkered with.
It's important to note that DCs cannot be altered, but circumstance modifiers to a skill check are permitted, if the GM believes them to be appropriate - whether positive or negative. (Though circumstance modifiers should be no larger than +/- 2, or perhaps +/- 4 in extreme conditions.)
Can you cite a source permuting circumstance modifiers and tell me exactly how changing a DC by two is different from applying a two point modifier to the roll while your at it?
GL, HF
Page 402-403 of the Pathfinder Core, the 'GM Fiat' section.
As an example, nowhere in the rules does it state that if the player gets any kind of bonus to a social skill check if they roleplay that check well. It's not in the rules. But GM Fiat allows the GM to grant a small bonus to the check due to good roleplaying, and I think that sort of fillip is something that people tend to enjoy.
|
|
You wear the mask, you get +10 to bluff. You also have a statue face and monotone voice. I will not require you to roleplay it, but NPCs will react appropriately to your in-world presentation. If a player has a problem with that, I welcome them to invite a VO to weigh in.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.Do you as a GM have a problem following the OP guide? I rather hope not. Changing diplomacy DCs is expressly forbidden and while the guide gives allowances for rewarding players it makes no clause for punishing them.
Would you, as a player, have your character speak in monotone, and describe his face as that of a living statue? When you hand me your printout or electronic version of the source containing the item, it's going to describe the item as such.
A Bluff doesn't usually have a DC. It's an opposed roll vs. the target's Sense Motive. However, as Pete pointed out:
Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Examples of Circumstance bonuses and penalties:
Any PC from Irrisen who makes her origins known, suffers a –10 penalty on any of the checks below.
If any PCs <redacted>, the party receives a +2 circumstance bonus on Diplomacy rolls to negotiate...
If the PCs choose not to participate <redacted>, the party suffers a –5 penalty on any future Diplomacy checks.
if any PC offers <redacted>, the party gains a +5 circumstance bonus on their Diplomacy check to influence his attitude
For every 5 gp <redacted>, they receive a +1 circumstance bonus on one of these checks
the PCs receive a +5 circumstance bonus on their Stealth checks due to the poor lighting inside the courtyard
|
|
Can you cite a source permuting circumstance modifiers and tell me exactly how changing a DC by two is different from applying a two point modifier to the roll while your at it?
GL, HF
Page 402-403 of the Pathfinder Core, the 'GM Fiat' section.
As an example, nowhere in the rules does it state that if the player gets any kind of bonus to a social skill check if they roleplay that check well. It's not in the rules. But GM Fiat allows the GM to grant a small bonus to the check due to good roleplaying, and I think that sort of fillip is something that people tend to enjoy.
The point when the powers that be tell me that I am not allowed to apply circumstance modifiers (negative and positive) for things not explicitly mentioned in a scenario is the point where I will face the choice of consciously cheating and only playing with GMs who cheat or quitting PFS.
Fortunately, paizo is far too intelligent to ever say such a thing.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Finally found it.
GMs are always encouraged to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the reactions of NPCs or the outcome of ingame encounters.
There you go. Carte Blanche*. The masks flavor can be used to adjudicate outcomes.
*okay, not really carte blanche, but certainly ample justification for imposing a -2 penalty, or for giving NPC spellcraft checks, or other stuff.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
A deeper reading of the rest of that paragraph is:
You cannot change the DC.
If there is a skill modifier or similar mechanic, you cannot change or remove it.
If there is no skill modifier or similar mechanic, but there is flavor that has a skill modifier or mechanic, you can add it.
So, if the adventure said "Lissa is very paranoid, after her abusive husband repeatedly used a mask of stony demeanor, and recognizes the item on sight. Anyone wearing a mask suffers a -2 to bluff and diplomacy." You can't say "well, she recognizes the mask, so she just doesn't believe anything you say and slams the door in your face!"
On the other hand, if it just says "Lissa is extremely paranoid" and gives her a knowledge Arcane of +10, then it is probably reasonable to give her a knowledge check, and if she succeeds for her to insist you take of the mask before discussing business.
|
|
...for her to insist you take of the mask before discussing business.
Asking people to remove masks before discussing business is a good piece of general life advice in my experience. I used to work as a Bank Manager and also in the Security industry, discussing business transactions with masked people was usually not advisable.
|
|
Finally found it.
GMs are always encouraged to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the reactions of NPCs or the outcome of ingame encounters.There you go. Carte Blanche*. The masks flavor can be used to adjudicate outcomes.
*okay, not really carte blanche, but certainly ample justification for imposing a -2 penalty, or for giving NPC spellcraft checks, or other stuff.
What kind of screwed up world has a penalty as a reward?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Matthew, if good roleplay or appropriate flavor can get you a reward, then bad roleplay or inappropiate flavor is rewarded with what it deserves.
Or are you saying I can go up to the Grand Duchess, spit in her tea, call her a troll, wipe my nose with her dress, and then roll my +15 diplomacy skill with no modifiers?