Mask of Lies: Practicality [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

eggynack

2013-11-02, 12:08 PM

The mask's ability to aid in bluffing seems more practical than mind affecting. I mean, if someone's wearing a mask, it's going to be significantly harder to tell if they're lying or not. I figure that the mask of lies is like a magical version of that. Even if the target knows you are better at bluffing, how does that help him? It's not like everything you say is going to be a lie, and knowing that some of the things a person says might be lies isn't adding much extra information.

Also, how is it obviously a mask of lies? It's not like the mask has "LIES" written on the forehead. It could just be a mask of being awesome, or a mask of no magical value whatsoever. Maybe you're just a guy in a mask. I don't think that we can assume that everyone's going to use analyze dweomer on all of your items as a prerequisite to conversation.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 12:24 PM

Well, the mask itself has a very distinctive appearance:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mic_gallery/86406.jpg

So I would say it is recognizable, at least to anyone who knows what a mask of lies is to begin with. But again, you can use disguises (magical or mundane) to hide the fact that you're wearing one. And the city guard, prissy bureaucrat or nonplussed commoner are unlikely to know it on sight.

Slipperychicken

2013-11-02, 12:32 PM

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mic_gallery/86406.jpg

So I would say it is recognizable, at least to anyone who knows what a mask of lies is to begin with. But again, you can use disguises (magical or mundane) to hide the fact that you're wearing one. And the city guard, prissy bureaucrat or nonplussed commoner are unlikely to know it on sight.

That is one of the sketchiest goddamn masks I have ever seen. I know I wouldn't trust someone wearing that thing. Hell, I wouldn't want to turn my back to that person, especially if he's/she's also armed. It would be like someone walking up to you on the street wearing a gimpsuit and an assault rifle -the only reasonable course of action is to briskly walk out of sight and probably call 911 too (or the setting's equivalent).

So yeah, if someone could see that mask, you had better take a penalty to social skills against that person.

eggynack

2013-11-02, 12:32 PM

Well, the mask itself has a very distinctive appearance.
It is a very distinctive mask, but that doesn't mean that people will be able to identify it. It's not like people who are wearing this mask hang out on every street corner, and I somehow doubt that people with a mask of lies would be forthcoming with that fact. You'd pretty much have to be researching magic items, or happen to find one of these in a magic mart. According to the MIC, page 217, identifying an item takes a DC 30 knowledge arcana check, and I don't know if that's all that unreasonable, even with a really unique mask. Anyways, you're correct that the disguise function eliminates the problem pretty much completely, so life is good.

Slipperychicken

2013-11-02, 12:37 PM

It is a very distinctive mask, but that doesn't mean that people will be able to identify it.

People will, however, be able to identify the fact that you look like a serial killer wearing that thing. That should impose something like a -5 on social skill rolls with strangers who can see it, and also lead to you being questioned and/or searched by any nearby cops.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 01:02 PM

It is a very distinctive mask, but that doesn't mean that people will be able to identify it.

I actually said all this, if you had taken the time to read my post...

People will, however, be able to identify the fact that you look like a serial killer wearing that thing. That should impose something like a -5 on social skill rolls with strangers who can see it, and also lead to you being questioned and/or searched by any nearby cops.

Agreed - unless a mask like that is commonplace where you are (like the Razmiran masks in Razmir) then it's just going to look sketchy.

But again, you can disguise the mask by both mundane and magical means (e.g. pulling your hood forward, or using the mask's disguise self power.)

eggynack

2013-11-02, 01:09 PM

I actually said all this, if you had taken the time to read my post...

Yeah, I suppose so. I think I just missed that bit, cause it was out of the way of the main point by a little. I was mostly elaborating on just how rare it would be for someone to know what such a mask would look like, cause there's rules about that very thing. I could imagine some sort of bonus to the check though, cause that mask is shady as hell.

Scumbaggery

2013-11-02, 01:17 PM

I'm playing a sorc/rogue that uses a Mask of Lies. It makes for a great 'Gray Fox' mask when doing illicit activities

Chester

2013-11-02, 01:58 PM

I suppose, too, that a Dread Necromancer with a Ghostly Visage familiar could do some nifty tricks . . .

Or just get the DM to agree that in this world, masks are just common parts of clothing . . .

Also there's the idea that perhaps the Mask of Lies doesn't have to look like a sketchy serial killer face. :smallamused:

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:03 PM

Also there's the idea that perhaps the Mask of Lies doesn't have to look like a sketchy serial killer face. :smallamused:

Nope, that picture is actually the physical description :smalltongue: MIC:

"This black, featureless mask has cross-shaped slits where the wearers eyes and mouth should be."

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:04 PM

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:05 PM

The DM has discretion to apply circumstance penalties per the DMG, though -5 is a bit much I think.

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:07 PM

The DM has discretion to apply circumstance penalties per the DMG, though -5 is a bit much I think.

How is that any more RAW than a -2 to social skills because you haven't bathed in the past week? (Assuming the cultural setting does bath.)

Benthesquid

2013-11-02, 02:09 PM

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:11 PM

Circumstance Modifiers to skill checks, when judged appropriate by the DM, are RAW.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm

See above. Also that's still a net gain of +3 for wearing the mask.

Benthesquid

2013-11-02, 02:17 PM

See above. Also that's still a net gain of +3 for wearing the mask.

It's... equally as RAW, but makes less sense fluffwise because standards of personal cleanliness are unlikely to be the same in a pseudo-medieval setting as in our world?

I mean, if my character had been wandering the wilderness (without the advantage of prestidigitation, or other methods of grooming) and then walked directly into a noble's court, I wouldn't find it unreasonable for GM to impose a circumstance penalty. If I started chatting up a dirt farmer, that would be another matter.

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:19 PM

It's... equally as RAW, but makes less sense fluffwise because standards of personal cleanliness are unlikely to be the same in a pseudo-medieval setting as in our world?

But the mask would be a DM intentionally undermining the purpose of a magical item. So actually, the bathing thing is more reasonable. But yeah, they are equally RAW.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:21 PM

How is that any more RAW than a -2 to social skills because you haven't bathed in the past week? (Assuming the cultural setting does bath.)

Exactly, that is within their discretion. It's a rule, and it's written.

But the mask would be a DM intentionally undermining the purpose of a magical item.

Well, there aren't rules for trying to Gather Information or use Diplomacy while covered in blood and guts either but that doesn't mean there should be no penalty. They can't spell everything out in the rulebooks, so some rules are left broad for the DM.

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:22 PM

Exactly, that is within their discretion. It's a rule, and it's written.

Yeah, but the bathing thing doesn't make the DM come off as so much of a jerk.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:25 PM

Yeah, but the bathing thing doesn't make the DM come off as so much of a jerk.

It would only be a jerk move imo if there were no way around it. A disguise, such as the one the mask itself gives you, would easily negate the penalty.

Look at it this way - suppose you're trying to bluff a dragon, or the guildmaster of the Mage's College. Walking up to them wearing this would be as good as wearing a sign on your forehead that says "LIAR." There is no penalty in the item description, but assigning one would be reasonable.

So if that penalty makes sense, why wouldn't (a lesser) one for just the mask's general creepiness make sense too?

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:27 PM

It would only be a jerk move imo if there were no way around it. A disguise, such as the one the mask itself gives you, would easily negate the penalty.

But its only 3 times / day. Potentially enough, but not necessarily. I'm sorry but when the DM makes a magical item that grants me a bonus to bluff checks also grant a penalty to them, then they are being a jerk.

Well, there aren't rules for trying to Gather Information or use Diplomacy while covered in blood and guts either but that doesn't mean there should be no penalty. They can't spell everything out in the rulebooks, so some rules are left broad for the DM.

And that would be a relevant comparison if I had paid a portion of my WBL to get myself covered in blood and gits.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:31 PM

But its only 3 times / day. Potentially enough, but not necessarily. I'm sorry but when the DM makes a magical item that grants me a bonus to bluff checks also grant a penalty to them, then they are being a jerk.

Well then I guess in that case you would have to vote with your feet. I for one think it's reasonable. We all have our lines that we draw for ourselves.

And that would be a relevant comparison if I had paid a portion of my WBL to get myself covered in blood and gits.

How about a Robe of Bones then, or grafting an extra limb onto yourself, or some other squicky item? Those cost WBL and don't affect your Cha, but should people treat you no differently if you're wearing them? Would that make sense?

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:36 PM

Well then I guess in that case you would have to vote with your feet.

Yes, that is the only option. If a DM doesn't let me reflavour mask of lies as a facial piercing and insist on giving me a penalty for it, then he's a jerk, you're free to disagree.

How about a Robe of Bones then, or grafting an extra limb onto yourself, or some other squicky item? Those cost WBL and don't affect your Cha, but should people treat you no differently if you're wearing them? Would that make sense?

What about a weapon strapped to my back? Or the knowledge that I possess the arcane power to tear the castle wall out and turn it into bone?

We could spend ages making a list of everything, my argument is abilities as a general rule should not affect social skills, and its not exactly hard to swallow given how abstracted they are.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:43 PM

Yes, that is the only option. If a DM doesn't let me reflavour mask of lies as a facial piercing and insist on giving me a penalty for it, then he's a jerk, you're free to disagree.

I do, I think you're overreacting. But anyway.

What about a weapon strapped to my back? Or the knowledge that I possess the arcane power to tear the castle wall out and turn it into bone?

We could spend ages making a list of everything, my argument is abilities as a general rule should not affect social skills, and its not exactly hard to swallow given how abstracted they are.

A weapon strapped to your back, while certainly more threatening than not having one, is commonplace enough in D&D that I doubt it would faze people much in a social situation unless you wore it into the duke's charity ball or the pacifist deity's church or something.

The arcane power thing wouldn't matter unless you told them about it, which would likely require an intimidate check or a demonstration.

Lightlawbliss

2013-11-02, 02:47 PM

What about a weapon strapped to my back? Or the knowledge that I possess the arcane power to tear the castle wall out and turn it into bone?

We could spend ages making a list of everything, my argument is abilities as a general rule should not affect social skills, and its not exactly hard to swallow given how abstracted they are.

A weapon on your back (besides actually being an uncommon occurrence in that time irl) would be far more normal then you seem to think. Cultural norms in modern times are not a good comparison to dnd norms. Also, walking down the road with a sign on you back of "I'm a wizard" isn't likely going to have much effect in a culture where wizards are rather common, and where wizard duels could be as common as a joust, if not more so.

however, I don't think a DM is being a jerk for saying something like "this person doesn't seem to trust people in masks (or hiding their face or similar) so you take -x to dealings with him while obviously doing the before stated." I would call that role playing (crime against humanity, I know)

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:50 PM

I do, I think you're overreacting. But anyway.

Its not the minus -2 to Cha checks, that's not much. Its the attitude of the DM that would lead to it. First they have to refuse to allow me to have the mask of lies be a less conspicuous shape, like a facial piercing. Then they have to actively decide to give me a penalty to charisma based skills, because of an item I bought that boosts my bluff check. To me it comes off as awfully petty and arbitrary, which I do think is a problem in a DM.

however, I don't think a DM is being a jerk for saying something like "this person doesn't seem to trust people in masks (or hiding their face or similar) so you take -x to dealings with him while obviously doing the before stated." I would call that role playing (crime against humanity, I know)

That would be fine, not a crime against humanity as you erroneously assume I percieve it to be. Provided the DM makes this position clear and allows me to change the mask of lies to the facial piercing of lies.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 02:50 PM

I would call that role playing (crime against humanity, I know)

But the rules don't say you can roleplay!

Its not the minus -2 to Cha checks, that's not much. Its the attitude of the DM that would lead to it. First they have to refuse to allow me to have the mask of lies be a less conspicuous shape, like a facial piercing. Then they have to actively decide to give me a penalty to charisma based skills, because of an item I bought that boosts my bluff check. To me it comes off as awfully petty and arbitrary, which I do think is a problem in a DM.

Are there any other masks in the game you can change into a facial piercing? I don't think that's a reasonable request; if you're going to use magic items, especially socially manipulative ones, your targets should have a chance to recognize them.

Boci

2013-11-02, 02:58 PM

[Are there any other masks in the game you can change into a facial piercing? I don't think that's a reasonable request; if you're going to use magic items, especially socially manipulative ones, your targets should have a chance to recognize them.

Sure, I'm fine with that, (but how do you recognize a magical item on sight?) I'm not saying it should be an invisible facial piercing, it could be a metal bone through the nose.

eggynack

2013-11-02, 03:10 PM

I don't think a straight penalty to all charisma checks makes sense. Maybe to certain charisma based skills, but not all of them. For example, you'd probably get a bonus to intimidation checks, and a commensurate penalty to diplomacy checks. Hitting bluff checks doesn't make all that much sense, unless you think that it's somehow easier to know when someone's lying because they're really shady. The two major factors that go into circumstance bonuses for bluff checks are how believable the lie itself is, and how much the target would want to take the actions that would be contingent on that lie. There doesn't seem to be any room for how much you generally trust the person, because that wouldn't tell you whether or not any particular thing is a lie.

Gather information might have a penalty, but I don't think that handle animal or UMD deserve such a penalty, especially in the latter case. Perform might get a bonus, cause you shady masks could make you seem interesting, and you'd probably get a bonus on disguise checks as well, unless you're well known in your mask wearing state, in which case penalty powers would activate. I think that's all of them.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 03:19 PM

Sure, I'm fine with that, (but how do you recognize a magical item on sight?) I'm not saying it should be an invisible facial piercing, it could be a metal bone through the nose.

Wondrous items have specific appearances though. A Hand of Glory is always a hand dangling around your neck. an Ioun Stone is always a specific-colored tiny bead that orbits your pate. A Robe of Eyes is always covered in eye-like patterns. And so on.

If your DM is willing to give you another item that works like a Mask of Lies but looks totally different, that is up to them as that is a custom item. The Mask of Lies however has a RAW appearance.

I don't think a straight penalty to all charisma checks makes sense. Maybe to certain charisma based skills, but not all of them.

And I'm fine with this, just like being covered in blood would likely help your Intimidate but not your Diplomacy. (What it does to Bluff would depend on the specific lie being told.)

Boci

2013-11-02, 03:24 PM

Wondrous items have specific appearances though. A Hand of Glory is always a hand dangling around your neck. an Ioun Stone is always a specific-colored tiny bead that orbits your pate. A Robe of Eyes is always covered in eye-like patterns. And so on.

Which is great, until the DM starts introducing mechanics based off those items, especially when the effects run contrary to the item's intended effect. Besdies, customizing the appearance of magical items is a really fun part of the game for me, and I would not like to be told I cannot because "dem da rules".

And I'm fine with this

If that was the DM's ruling I'd except it. I'd find it needlessly nitpicky (the DM is setting a very high standard for how immersive their interpretations are), but it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to quite the game, contrary to what you seem to think.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 03:58 PM

The point is for you to play smart though. If you walk up to the guards plain as day and cast Charm Person in full view of everybody then someone will likely call you out on it. Even if they don't recognize the specific spell, they would have seen you suspiciously wiggling your fingers and chanting something if you took no precautions at all.

Magic items are a great boon, but they're not meant to be a crutch either. I don't think it's too much to ask that the person wearing the creepy mask take a few extra steps to hide it for maximum effectiveness. It might not (and indeed, probably shouldn't) negate the item's bonus entirely but I'd be more disappointed if nobody reacted to an item that looked like that one at all.

If that was the DM's ruling I'd except it. I'd find it needlessly nitpicky (the DM is setting a very high standard for how immersive their interpretations are), but it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to quite the game, contrary to what you seem to think.

Then we agree, something this minor isn't worth quitting over, especially when it makes sense in most settings.

Boci

2013-11-02, 04:00 PM

The point is for you to play smart though.

But this cuts both ways. If we are playing it smart, why was mask of lies created to look like that in the first place? Especially since you can have a magical item re-purposed for another slot.

Lightlawbliss

2013-11-02, 04:03 PM

hey guys, this is a debate of house rules at this point by two people with very similar views. Might I recommend we return to the topic the OP gave.

eggynack

2013-11-02, 04:05 PM

hey guys, this is a debate of house rules at this point by two people with very similar views. Might I recommend we return to the topic the OP gave.
Wasn't the original topic basically, "What kinda circumstance bonuses would apply on the basis of you wearing a weird mask?" I mean, it wasn't exactly that, but it's in the right ballpark. Also, the base question of the thread seems to have been asked and answered already.

Boci

2013-11-02, 04:09 PM

hey guys, this is a debate of house rules at this point by two people with very similar views. Might I recommend we return to the topic the OP gave.

What more is there to say though? No, Mask of Lies isn't practical. How unpractical is it? Depends on the DM, -2 to diplomacy and maybe gather information, with a bonus to intimidate seems to be the most reasonable. How do I get around this? Disguise self or other illusions, or ask your Dm is you can have the nose ring of lies instead.

What more is there to say?

Edit: And swordsaged

Psyren

2013-11-02, 04:11 PM

But this cuts both ways. If we are playing it smart, why was mask of lies created to look like that in the first place?

You can make that argument about all kinds of wondrous items. Necromancers generally have to hide what they do from people - so why do almost all of their items follow a skeleton motif? Why do spider-themed items always have web designs? Why is an evil Robe of the Archmagi always black? Can you paint an ioun stone a different color, and why has no one done so? Etc.

I like the Wheel of Time explanation - their wondrous items (ter'angreal) do have to follow specific designs to work, even when the relationship is not always apparent. For example, when Elayne was copying the ring that takes a sleeper to the world of dreams, she instinctively knew that the ring wouldn't work if she didn't twist it so that it only had one edge.

Boci

2013-11-02, 04:16 PM

You can make that argument about all kinds of wondrous items. Necromancers generally have to hide what they do from people - so why do almost all of their items follow a skeleton motif? Why do spider-themed items always have web designs? Why is an evil Robe of the Archmagi always black? Can you paint an ioun stone a different color, and why has no one done so? Etc.

I like the Wheel of Time explanation - their wondrous items (ter'angreal) do have to follow specific designs to work, even when the relationship is not always apparent. For example, when Elayne was copying the ring that takes a sleeper to the world of dreams, she instinctively knew that the ring wouldn't work if she didn't twist it so that it only had one edge.

I don't like this explanation, it seems more appropriate in WoD than D&D (the power of belief renders the truth irrelevant, it works because people think it works).

Additionally it limits the amount of creativity both players and the DM have over their character and NPCs. A necromancer who dresses in red and whose ring of dead raising is a gold band set with a sapphire lightning bolt pattern is a fun concept IMO, and should not be brushed aside based on the established tradition of lazily, obvious aesthetics.

It just seems like a convoluted way of protecting your original premise.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 04:19 PM

Boci

2013-11-02, 04:23 PM

eggynack

2013-11-02, 04:30 PM

I'm not saying that kind of reflavoring should be impossible - but it should definitely be rare because the benefits to the system of being able to recognize item A on sight outweigh a minor loss of mutability in the fluff. You shouldn't have to wonder whether every single odd mask, facial piercing, headband etc. is making someone a better liar or hiding their alignment or whatever.
I think you underestimate how rare it would be for someone to recognize an item on sight. I mean, it's possible, but the vast majority of folks, including the vast majority of adventurers and important NPC's, are going to be completely incapable of identifying the mask as a mask of lies. That's really the point I was trying to make earlier, when you get down to it. Also, with the sheer item density of this game, you basically already do have to wonder whether every odd mask, piercing, headband, or other thing is going to turn out magical. Identifying what an item is only requires that you know what that item is. Identifying that an item isn't magical requires knowing about every single item in the game, within the category of that item. If knowing that a mask of lies is a mask of lies is rare, knowing that a mask of being a mask is just an ordinary mask has got to be downright impossible.

Boci

2013-11-02, 04:32 PM

I think you underestimate how rare it would be for someone to recognize an item on sight. I mean, it's possible, but the vast majority of folks, including the vast majority of adventurers and important NPC's, are going to be completely incapable of identifying the mask as a mask of lies. That's really the point I was trying to make earlier, when you get down to it. Also, with the sheer item density of this game, you basically already do have to wonder whether every odd mask, piercing, headband, or other thing is going to turn out magical. Identifying what an item is only requires that you know what that item is. Identifying that an item isn't magical requires knowing about every single item in the game, within the category of that item. If knowing that a mask of lies is a mask of lies is rare, knowing that a mask of being a mask is just an ordinary mask has got to be downright impossible.

Unless you play pathfinder. Bit vague though: You can use spellcraft to identify the properties of a magical item. "Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object."

eggynack

2013-11-02, 04:43 PM

Unless you play pathfinder. Bit vague though: You can use spellcraft to identify the properties of a magical item. "Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object."
Not really. Identifying an item through a combination of spellcraft and detect magic is already possible in 3.5, as per the MIC, on page 217. It also doesn't look like PF has the item identification function of knowledge (arcana), so if anything 3.5 has more ways for schlubs to know what your mask is. While the skill rules of PF mean that non-casters might have the skill ranks necessary, the requirement of having detect magic up is a severe limitation for that plan. It's definitely possible for someone you're interacting with to know you're wearing a mask of lies, in either game, but there's a really low chance of it unless you're dealing with a wizard or possibly a different caster of some kind.

Chester

2013-11-02, 05:22 PM

Hi! OP here. Remember me? :smallbiggrin:

I appreciate the discussion (let's keep it nice :smallcool: ) Good point about all the Necromancer things being all Necromancy in appearance, as the Mask of Lies does look creepy, shady, untrustworthy, etc. I mean, look at Dr. Doom, Destro, Cobra Commander, etc. . . . villains look like villains, and if I'm a Dread Necromancer wearing a sketchy looking mask, it's an odd thing to have to bluff my way through!

What have I made of this discussion? It's all at the discretion of the the DM, players, group, etc. The Mask does come equipped with a built-in disguise effect, and I suppose it all depends on how you role play with it.

Anyway, yeah, it's quite a conundrum, that Mask of Lies. :smallamused:

Acatalepsy

2013-11-02, 05:38 PM

But this cuts both ways. If we are playing it smart, why was mask of lies created to look like that in the first place? Especially since you can have a magical item re-purposed for another slot.

Uh, it seems like the creator of the Mask of Lies thought of that. Because you can use it to cast "disguise self", which entirely removes the problem. Bonus: if someone sees through your disguise, they don't know who you are, because you're wearing a mask.

XionUnborn01

2013-11-02, 06:13 PM

Yeah, I'm still confused why the appearance would be an issue because it has an at-will disguise self feature.

Now as a player I wouldn't always have that functioning because that just seems boring to me but if I were to be actually going into a situation that could require bluffing? Yeah, probably disguised.

On the topic of changing the appearance. I really don't understand how it could be such a big deal for you to not be able to change the appearance. I mean honestly, if your DM isn't willing to say that your Robe of Eyes is a Sash of Eyes, or your Mask of Lies is a Nosering of Lies and it's that big of an issue with you, I think you're just being immature. I'm not trying to offend anyone or anything like that, but is it that big of a deal? The book says it's a mask so your DM wants it to be a mask. You can't customize every aspect of the game that you want to, sometimes you just can't do what you want and you have to deal with it.

Boci

2013-11-02, 06:17 PM

Uh, it seems like the creator of the Mask of Lies thought of that. Because you can use it to cast "disguise self", which entirely removes the problem. Bonus: if someone sees through your disguise, they don't know who you are, because you're wearing a mask.

Yes, a serial killer mask. Why is that integral to the design? Plus see below about disguise self.

Yeah, I'm still confused why the appearance would be an issue because it has an at-will disguise self feature.

Not at will, 3 times per day at caster level 5, swift action activation.

On the topic of changing the appearance. I really don't understand how it could be such a big deal for you to not be able to change the appearance. I mean honestly, if your DM isn't willing to say that your Robe of Eyes is a Sash of Eyes, or your Mask of Lies is a Nosering of Lies and it's that big of an issue with you, I think you're just being immature. I'm not trying to offend anyone or anything like that, but is it that big of a deal? The book says it's a mask so your DM wants it to be a mask. You can't customize every aspect of the game that you want to, sometimes you just can't do what you want and you have to deal with it.

Two reasons:

1. If its not a big deal, but the player would enjoy it, why not let them?

2. It hurts the believability of the setting. If you are going to have people respond realistically to the mask of lies, then the wizard with 20+ intelligence that crafted it should have realized this as well.

XionUnborn01

2013-11-02, 07:46 PM

My copy of CA has Mask of Lies with at-will disguise self. Was it errata'd or reprinted somewhere?

Also, I think it's already been covered that not everyone should be able to recognize a mask on sight. This is a setting where there are many different types of masks/helms/goggles and the like that cover people's faces.

Responding realistically could easily mean completely ignoring the fact that they're wearing a mask. It costs 17k gp, this isn't something that the average person should probably know about, it should be an uncommon item for most people that you would encounter.

Otodetu

2013-11-02, 08:08 PM

I will add to this discussion that the assumption that all "mask of lies" look like the supplied image, and even have the same name when identified, strikes me as dumb, to say it bluntly.

While it is entertaining to make fun at the hilarity of the item used as stated, I have to say that any sane player or dm will (or should) both rename the item and remember that "Mask of lies" is just magic weaved into any face slot item.

It just so happens that the creator of "the mask of lies" really liked ugly masks and obvious names.

Slipperychicken

2013-11-02, 08:20 PM

Isn't technically any penalty from wearing a magical item a house rule (unless the rules actually say so)? So wouldn't it be just as RAW to describe the mask as a face piercing or something? Yeah you should be able to wear a mask over that, but then you should be able to wear 10 rings and multiple necklaces.

It isn't strictly RAW that people will likely be creeped out by the mask, but I think it's a fine area for the GM to apply his judgement. If a group of people routinely deals with and accepts people who wear that kind of stuff, I could see the penalty being reduced or eliminated. If you're dealing with "ordinary" folks, they might think it's a cult thing, or an attempt to cover up a severe burn or other deformity, but it's very likely to be unsettling to many people.

It's similar to Hand of the Mage, which is a literal severed elven hand hanging from the wearer's neck.

Psyren

2013-11-02, 08:45 PM

I think you should, because items that make you good at deceiving should not be easily recognizable.

The onus is on you to make them not so easily visible. Don't like it? Don't use a crutch then.

Uh, it seems like the creator of the Mask of Lies thought of that. Because you can use it to cast "disguise self", which entirely removes the problem. Bonus: if someone sees through your disguise, they don't know who you are, because you're wearing a mask.

Exactly, the fact that the mask has this built in means they knew it would be a problem.

Yes, a serial killer mask. Why is that integral to the design?

You may as well ask why fireball needs bat guano or suggestion needs honey. Maybe it just does. Magic is funny like that.

Mnemnosyne

2013-11-03, 03:02 AM

eggynack

2013-11-03, 03:10 AM

Exactly, the fact that the mask has this built in means they knew it would be a problem.
That's absolutely not necessarily true. It makes perfect thematic sense for a mask, especially one that grants undetectable alignment and a bluff bonus, to give you disguise self as well. You can't really use the fact that disguise self would solve this problem as evidence of the existence of said problem. Anyway, it makes very little sense for an item to have an across the board statistical effect like you're proposing. If an item has an across the board statistical effect, then that statistical effect should be listed within the item itself, because that's what items are. Sure, if you're talking to some guy who had a masked fellow kill his family, circumstance penalties out the wazoo. There should never be something universal though.

fluke1993

2013-11-03, 03:16 AM

I don't see what the problem is here, not only does the magic of the mask give you a bonus to bluff but the mask itself gives you a bonus to intimidate :smalltongue:

nedz

2013-11-03, 05:27 AM

I think it depends upon circumstance.

Wearing the mask, unglamoured, with ordinary clothing whist shopping would probably give you the -2 circumstance bonus.
Wearing the mask, unglamoured, with full plate (where the mask just looks like a visor), not so much.
Of course the Disguise Self thing would negate this, but the shop may have an AMF or the shopkeeper may have Arcane Sight up or ..., circumstances.

Boci

2013-11-03, 06:55 AM

The onus is on you to make them not so easily visible.

And that's bad item design. Why didn't that occur to the 20+ intelligence wizard who made the item? Oh yeah, realism doesn't seem to matter when it goes against what you are arguing for.

Don't like it? Don't use a crutch then.

I don't understand what you mean.

You may as well ask why fireball needs bat guano or suggestion needs honey. Maybe it just does. Magic is funny like that.

Except:

1. What the actual material component is does not affect the game mechanics

2. The only justification you have produced for magic items being so easily recognizable has not been from D&D, but a fantasy series published after D&D. Its in the rules that certain body slots have an affinity for certain bonuses, but there are usually multiple choices available even without re-skinning how a magical item looks. (+see above, monocle of lies totally possible by RAW)

Magic may be funny, but the people who use it are still human beings, so you should be able to expect a certain level of rationale from them.

My copy of CA has Mask of Lies with at-will disguise self. Was it errata'd or reprinted somewhere?

I was looking at the MiC one, I think CA supercedes that. I still think its stupid to have the mask of lies look like a serial killer mask, but if it grants at will disguise then it is a lot less of a problem.

Responding realistically could easily mean completely ignoring the fact that they're wearing a mask.

That I would accept as well. Different cultures + availability of magic items making people not react to them the way our society would. Or just part of the abstraction of social skills.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 10:02 AM

Except the design is definitely not integral to the functionality of the device, because as per MiC page 233, you can add different items functionalities to other items. Since the powers of a mask of lies can be added to any other face slot item, the shape and appearance of the mask is absolutely not integral to its functionality; by the rules, the only thing that matters is that the item still occupies the face slot.

Of course you can, but that's a custom magic item. If you use a randomized treasure table and come across a vanilla Mask of Lies it will look like that by RAW. The DM is under no obligation to let you craft anything you want that just happens to have MoL powers.

I think it depends upon circumstance.

Wearing the mask, unglamoured, with ordinary clothing whist shopping would probably give you the -2 circumstance bonus.
Wearing the mask, unglamoured, with full plate (where the mask just looks like a visor), not so much.
Of course the Disguise Self thing would negate this, but the shop may have an AMF or the shopkeeper may have Arcane Sight up or ..., circumstances.

Exactly. The wearer should make an effort for the mask to not stick out like a sore thumb - just like any other magical mask ever.

And that's bad item design.

Maybe so. Sucks, doesn't it?

I was looking at the MiC one, I think CA supercedes that.

No, MIC definitely trumps CA where items are concerned.

Boci

2013-11-03, 10:07 AM

Of course you can, but that's a custom magic item. If you use a randomized treasure table and come across a vanilla Mask of Lies it will look like that by RAW. The DM is under no obligation to let you craft anything you want that just happens to have MoL powers.

Maybe so. Sucks, doesn't it?

And here is where the DM heads back into jerk territory, as they completely ignore the realism angle, despite the fact that their ruling was based on it to begin with.

Also, the DM is under no obligation to give a social skill penalty to the wearer of the mask of lies. So it becomes suspicious when they start selectively applying realism.

No, MIC definitely trumps CA where items are concerned.

Oh yeah, its spell compendium that cam before the Completes.

Worira

2013-11-03, 12:49 PM

Yeah, what a jerk, giving you magic items based on how they're printed in the rulebook.

Boci

2013-11-03, 12:52 PM

Yeah, what a jerk, giving you magic items based on how they're printed in the rulebook.

Now, deciding to give you a penalty to social skills, based on an optional (just clarifying that I know its not variant) rule from another book, because of a magical item that is meant to make you better at bluffing, and then refusing to consider that the makers of the magical item would have considered that. So yes, its a petty arbitrary nerf.

I repeat: its double standards to apply realism to the appearance of a magical item, but then not consider that the makers could have thought of that as well.

Slipperychicken

2013-11-03, 12:54 PM

I repeat: its double standards to apply realism to the appearance of a magical item, but then not consider that the makers could have thought of that as well.

I think that's what the disguise function is for; an inbuilt means of bypassing the masks' sketchiness.

Boci

2013-11-03, 12:55 PM

I think that's what the disguise function is for; an inbuilt means of bypassing the masks' sketchiness.

Yes, but its not as will, and that still doesn't explain why the mask looks serial killery. They should just make the mask non-serial killery, which is cheaper and not pierced by true seeing.

Alternatively the DM could not apply a penalty to social skills to an item whose secondary function is to make you better at social interaction, and if they need a justification it can be chalked up to the abstraction of social skills to a dice roll.

Or the DM could impose a petty, arbitrary nerft on the player because they bought a magical item to improve their ability to deceive. Maybe the player is fine with it, but if they aren't then the DM should consider, just what if this interpretation adding (the answer is not much at best).

Slipperychicken

2013-11-03, 12:58 PM

Yes, but its not as will, and that still doesn't explain why the mask looks serial killery. They should just make the mask non-serial killery, which is cheaper and not pierced by true seeing.

I don't know. You might as well ask people why gas masks IRL are made to look so obvious. Maybe it's necessary for the magic to work? Maybe that's the form which is cheapest to enchant in that way?

Boci

2013-11-03, 01:01 PM

I don't know. You might as well ask people why gas masks IRL are made to look so obvious.

Inapropriate comparison, gas masks were not designed for social interaction.

Maybe it's necessary for the magic to work?

Nope, rules disagree.

Maybe that's the form which is cheapest to enchant in that way?

Possibly, but weird and doesn't make any sense. Its sounds more like orks from 40k (red goes faster).

Psyren

2013-11-03, 01:59 PM

I repeat: its double standards to apply realism to the appearance of a magical item, but then not consider that the makers could have thought of that as well.

You may as well ask why make it a mask at all. Anybody wearing a mask is going to be more suspicious than not, so it would have made a lot more sense for them to make it something unobtrusive like a ring or amulet.

So yeah, if you want to rely on magical item crutches to make your lying easier, put some effort into your look by disguising the fact that you're wearing a mask.

Slipperychicken

2013-11-03, 02:02 PM

Possibly, but weird and doesn't make any sense. Its sounds more like orks from 40k (red goes faster).

To be fair, 40K Orks and their psychic fields (the reason why 'da red wunz go fasta, and why their ramshackle equipment functions at all) are basically magic.

Boci

2013-11-03, 02:05 PM

You may as well ask why make it a mask at all. Anybody wearing a mask is going to be more suspicious than not, so it would have made a lot more sense for them to make it something unobtrusive like a ring or amulet.

An excellent point. Of course a ring or amulet is a separate slot, but a monocle is still a face slot item.

So yeah, if you want to rely on magical item crutches to make your lying easier, put some effort into your look by disguising the fact that you're wearing a mask.

But why design an item that way?

To be fair, 40K Orks and their psychic fields (the reason why 'da red wunz go fasta, and why their ramshackle equipment functions at all) are basically magic.

Of course, but the way their magic manifest doesn't strike me as that appropriate for D&D. Its appropriate for Warhammer 40k, but not a D&D setting as a general rule.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-03, 02:11 PM

Sure, it gives you a penalty, but the magic is powerful enough that it pushes past that into the positives.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 02:14 PM

An excellent point. Of course a ring or amulet is a separate slot, but a monocle is still a face slot item.

A monocle would actually go in the goggles/eyewear slot, not the head slot.

But why design an item that way?

Well, it's thematic. Masks mean the person has something to hide, so they would be associated with lying. Not saying that all +Bluff items should be masks of course, but many magic items are designed by theme like that.

Boci

2013-11-03, 02:17 PM

A monocle would actually go in the goggles/eyewear slot, not the head slot.

My mistake (Nope, not my mistake). There's still none mask forms it can take. Like the facial piercing I mentioned earlier.

Edit: Also from the MiC, Monocle of Perusal occupies the face slot. So does Artificer's Monocle.

Well, it's thematic. Masks mean the person has something to hide, so they would be associated with lying. Not saying that all +Bluff items should be masks of course, but many magic items are designed by theme like that.

That's an OOC justification. What's the IC justification? Or are you actually arguing that in a world were magic items are made by super genius "something which has connotations with falsehood" is going to become the default model for how a magical item to help you lie looks?

I'm not saying a mask of lies as the book described wouldn't work, just that it should be the exception, not the rule, and should have a story attached to explain is dodgy appearance.

geekintheground

2013-11-03, 03:30 PM

why not use your bluff bonus to convince people it isnt a mask of lies?

NPC: is that a mask of lies?
player: ... n-no.
NPC: oh alrighty then, carry on.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 03:58 PM

That's an OOC justification. What's the IC justification? Or are you actually arguing that in a world were magic items are made by super genius "something which has connotations with falsehood" is going to become the default model for how a magical item to help you lie looks?

For one, you're forgetting that wizards aren't the only characters that can make magic items, so your assumption that whoever made this thing was a genius isn't necessarily true :smalltongue:

For two, this goes right back to the question of why necromantic items are always black and covered in bones etc. The IC justification may simply be "it has to look like this" (yes, you can make custom items just like you can make custom spells, but those typically represent individual research rather than commonly found or mass-produced WI) or "this is the form pleasing to the god of deception" or "this is just convention."

I do understand your disconnect just like I can understand wanting the DM to modify the item to avoid any issues, but similarly I can understand a DM not wanting to deviate from what is in print and wanting the player to roleplay a bit to get around it.

Boci

2013-11-03, 04:09 PM

For one, you're forgetting that wizards aren't the only characters that can make magic items, so your assumption that whoever made this thing was a genius isn't necessarily true :smalltongue:

Sure, but wizards are the casters who get the choice of craft wondrous item, so they would be responsible for the most. Plus average intelligence seems to be more than enough to realize mask of lies looks stupid and is county intuitive.

For two, this goes right back to the question of why necromantic items are always black and covered in bones etc. The IC justification may simply be "it has to look like this" (yes, you can make custom items just like you can make custom spells, but those typically represent individual research rather than commonly found or mass-produced WI) or "this is the form pleasing to the god of deception" or "this is just convention."

But both of those hurt the setting. The god of deception mentioned above isn't being very effective, and I do expect a DM to explain how an inefficient/stupid way of doing things came to be a convention when there is obviously a better way of doing things. The skull motive of necromancery is silly, but at least they aren't counter intuitive to the function of the magical item.

If the DM wants to have warhammer 40k ork style "it works because everyone thinks it should" that's another matter. But then I want to see some considerations of such an approach, not hear it brought up as a justification for the lazy aesthetics of art from WotC and then forgotten until the next cliche visuals.

I do understand your disconnect just like I can understand wanting the DM to modify the item to avoid any issues, but similarly I can understand a DM not wanting to deviate from what is in print and wanting the player to roleplay a bit to get around it.

I would just rather roleplay around believable issues with no easy way out, like when do we draw the line on what is acceptable forthe greater good and other issues of moral greyness, or do we stand by a friend even when they are being irrational if they feel strongly about it, or roleplay a coversation assuring/persuading the guards to let us into the city with our weapons and highly destructive magical items, not one that arises because wizard artists (or the people who instruct them) are lazy when it comes to aesthetics, especially when they have easy solutions, that add more to the game (customizable appearance of magic items).

If "rolaplay around the fact that mask of lies looks really dodgy" is a notable bit of roleplaying, I may find the game lacking.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 04:48 PM

Sure, but wizards are the casters who get the choice of craft wondrous item, so they would be responsible for the most. Plus average intelligence seems to be more than enough to realize mask of lies looks stupid and is county intuitive.

Not sure what you mean. Any spellcaster can take CWI, and even nonspellcasters like Warlocks. So Intelligence isn't a requirement at all.

In fact, in Faerun, Clerics do most of the item crafting, not wizards.

But both of those hurt the setting. The god of deception mentioned above isn't being very effective, and I do expect a DM to explain how an inefficient/stupid way of doing things came to be a convention when there is obviously a better way of doing things.

Your objections may be better directed to the writers of the MIC than to your DM.

"rolaplay around the fact that mask of lies looks really dodgy" is a notable bit of roleplaying, I may find the game lacking.

And that's indeed your prerogative. You don't have to like it, nobody's saying you do.

Boci

2013-11-03, 05:06 PM

Not sure what you mean. Any spellcaster can take CWI, and even nonspellcasters like Warlocks. So Intelligence isn't a requirement at all.

In fact, in Faerun, Clerics do most of the item crafting, not wizards.[/QUOTE]

I meant wizards are the only caster who get a bonus feat that includes crafting. They are also more associated with crafting due to scrolls. I'm pretty sure even Faerun in places slips up.

But its irrelevant, since average intelligence is more than enough for the task.

Your objections may be better directed to the writers of the MIC than to your DM.

Not true and you know that.

And that's indeed your prerogative. You don't have to like it, nobody's saying you do.

I'm aware, I'm just explaining why I feel so strongly about such a minor issue. You don't have to agree with me.

Lightlawbliss

2013-11-03, 05:24 PM

Boci, you seem to be forgetting the Artificer in your logical fallacy based arguments.

Boci

2013-11-03, 05:33 PM

Boci, you seem to be forgetting the Artificer in your logical fallacy based arguments.

1. Artificer is non-core and setting specific.

2. Artificer infusions work off intelligence.

3. As I noted, its irrelevant to the larger point, because average intelligence is sufficient.

4. "logical fallacy based arguments" has as much weight as simply declaring me wrong. State what logical fallacies I'm using, how I'm using them, or don't mention them at all.

Crazysaneman

2013-11-03, 07:06 PM

One of my PC's had acquired one of these in a campaign long past. The way he got around the "you look evil" aspect of it was to craft a backpiece to it and act like it was fused to his face as a punishment (ala Man in the Iron Mask)

Psyren

2013-11-03, 07:28 PM

I meant wizards are the only caster who get a bonus feat that includes crafting.

This is irrelevant; the feat itself has no Int requirement.

But its irrelevant, since average intelligence is more than enough for the task.

You'd be surprised at the kinds of details even highly intelligent minds can overlook. In fact, it could be just as likely that the guy making an item to help with social interaction was himself not very well versed on the subtleties of social interaction, such as wearing masks when trying to get people to trust you :smalltongue:

Not true and you know that.

What's not true? That WotC made the MIC?

I'm aware, I'm just explaining why I feel so strongly about such a minor issue. You don't have to agree with me.

It should be pretty clear by now that I don't :smalltongue:

Boci

2013-11-03, 07:32 PM

This is irrelevant; the feat itself has no Int requirement.

The points also irrelevant as I said, average intelligence is enough.

You'd be surprised at the kinds of details even highly intelligent minds can overlook. In fact, it could be just as likely that the guy making an item to help with social interaction was himself not very well versed on the subtleties of social interaction, such as wearing masks when trying to get people to trust you :smalltongue:

That explains the existence of a single mask of lies (which I said was fine), but does explain how that became the default model.

What's not true? That WotC made the MIC?

That I should talk to them instead of my DM. Why am I having to explain this?

It should be pretty clear by now that I don't :smalltongue:

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand why. You said you can understand where I'm coming from, but I'm afraid I cannot understand why you hold your opinion.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 08:51 PM

Boci

2013-11-03, 09:05 PM

Ultimately Boci, there's probably not an answer that will satisfy you. The masks look that way because they look that way - any deeper justification would have to be sought from the MIC designers. It might be immersion-breaking for you, but as you said yourself, the issue is minor; if you do feel strongly enough to walk out of the game over it or label the DM a jerk, so be it. But there's not likely to be anything else anyone on a gaming forum can say to change your mind on it so we can probably just let the matter rest there. (At least, I intend to.)

Sure, you don't have to justify why you feel X or Y, but I think I have done my best to explain my position. Or I can get about your is:

The books says it looks like a serial killer mask
Magic is weird
It's a roleplaying challenge

I haven't got a sense of why either of those are important to you. You don't have to justify yourself to me, I'm just saying.

Also, what is your obsession with me walking away from the game over this? You brought it up out of the blue, I clarified it wasn't a deal breaker, and now you're bringing it up again.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 09:25 PM

Also, what is your obsession with me walking away from the game over this? You brought it up out of the blue, I clarified it wasn't a deal breaker, and now you're bringing it up again.

Uh, you said numerous times the DM who didn't give you a custom item would be a jerk and that voting with your feet "was the only option." There's no "obsession" on my part.

Boci

2013-11-03, 09:28 PM

Uh, you said numerous times the DM who didn't give you a custom item would be a jerk and that voting with your feet "was the only option." There's no "obsession" on my part.

I don't recall ever saying voting with my feet was my only option. What posts are you referring to?

Squirrel_Dude

2013-11-03, 09:35 PM

Well, the mask itself has a very distinctive appearance:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mic_gallery/86406.jpgTangential, I know, but what is going on with the fingers on that woman's left hand? It looks as if the fingers above her knuckles are suffering from necrosis, and that she has witch-fingernail-syndrome.

Boci

2013-11-03, 09:37 PM

Tangential, I know, but what is going on with the fingers on that woman's left hand? It looks as if the fingers above her knuckles are suffering from necrosis, and that she has witch-fingernail-syndrome.

Yes because the current line of discussion is so vital (/sarcasm)

You're right, and on her right hand, she has a twin finger ring. Which is perhaps less weird than necrosis and witch-finger-sydrome, but still weird.

Psyren

2013-11-03, 09:41 PM

I don't recall ever saying voting with my feet was my only option. What posts are you referring to?

From page 1 of this lovely discussion:

Well then I guess in that case you would have to vote with your feet.

Yes, that is the only option. If a DM doesn't let me reflavour mask of lies as a facial piercing and insist on giving me a penalty for it, then he's a jerk, you're free to disagree.

Boci

2013-11-03, 09:44 PM

From page 1 of this lovely discussion:

Oops, forgot the sarcasm tag. I later stated it not to be true and you quoted that part*. \Also, hate to be a stickler, but you said numerous times (or is that a failing of the English language?. That's once. And I was still responding to you, so you did bring it up out of the blue.

"If that was the DM's ruling I'd except it. I'd find it needlessly nitpicky (the DM is setting a very high standard for how immersive their interpretations are), but it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to quite the game, contrary to what you seem to think." You quoted this in reply 36, and your reply shows you understood what I was saying.

avr

2013-11-03, 09:52 PM

Eh, maybe she's just finished applying hair dye and that's why the fingers are discoloured.

Fingernails that long would be a pain for archery. Though maybe the arrows sticking up over her shoulder are another part of a disguise.

Necroticplague

2013-11-03, 09:59 PM

Really, it seems the response to someone questioning the mask would, ironically, be through bluffing.

Smuck:Why are you wearing a mask while talking to me? that's rather suspicious of you....
*Casts detect magic*
*sees its a magic item*
You:It's a mask of mind blank. It prevents my thoughts from being read and manipulated by outside forces. Why would I wear it unless I was talking to a magic user like yourself?
*roll bluff*

Psyren

2013-11-03, 10:02 PM

Oops, forgot the sarcasm tag. I later stated it not to be true and you quoted that part*. \Also, hate to be a stickler, but you said numerous times (or is that a failing of the English language?. That's once. And I was still responding to you, so you did bring it up out of the blue.

The "numerous" was referring to the "jerk" part, not the quitting part.

Anyway, like I said previously, this is getting neither of us anywhere and there won't be a reason for the mask's design that will satisfy you so we should just go our separate ways.

Boci

2013-11-03, 10:02 PM

The "numerous" was referring to the "jerk" part, not the quitting part.

Well that clarifies one small part of my inquiry.

Anyway, like I said previously, this is getting neither of us anywhere and there won't be a reason for the mask's design that will satisfy you so we should just go our separate ways.

As I said previously, I don't get the impression you've even tried though. I could be wrong. And when you accuse someone of saying something, and they point out that in reality the situation was otherwise, isn't it polite to acknowledge that?