On the duration of hats of disguise and rings of invisibility


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

seebs wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

It's not even really about keeping up with rules changes. I've been caught off guard by changes before. But when I find out, my response is usually more along the lines of "Huh. I didn't know they changed that." Not, "This can't possibly be how this works now because it worked differently 25 years ago."

*shrug*

To each their own, I suppose.

I have a hard time thinking that was a sincere attempt at portraying the other side's point of view, because it's pretty dismissive and not at all accurate.

A more accurate statement of my point of view would be:

"I am pretty sure this was different in the past, and I have no evidence that anyone consciously intended to change it, I just think that recent rulings were made by people with different intuitions about the rules."

But you don't seem to be particularly upset that the Ring is being treated differently here. You just seem to want to figure out when and why the change happened. That's fair. I don't think it's particularly relevant to how the Ring functions now (without a FAQ stating that they're reverting back from the 3.5 use of the Ring), but there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to track that down. So you actually seem to me to fit into that first category I described. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point in all of this.

There are a few posters who seem truly bothered by this, though. Like somehow having a 3 minute duration on this Ring completely ruins the game. It's virtually worthless, etc. One person actually called this intent "retarded" and said you'd have to be "stupid" to come up with this sort of thing.

It just seems a little strange to me is all.


Master of Shadows wrote:
This post by me in another thread is very relevant to the discussion here regarding the Hat of Disguise.

Disguise Self is an illusion. As I said in the other thread, once the magic goes away, so does the disguise. Duration of the magical effect is still relevant and a necessary question.

The latest intent we have is the 3.5 FAQ that said these items use the durations of the relevant spells. Unless there's new evidence of intent specifically with regard to PF, that appears to be how the items still function.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The succubus has used her shape altering ability to assume an identity of a noblewoman called Lady Lucy Lastic. When she first used this ability to change to this form, it was a 'generic' human female, whatever that means.

Another creature with the same shape changing ability sees Lucy, doesn't know she's really a succubus, and attempts to assume her form.

Does it work or not? Does it work because the spell somehow knows that Lucy is not a specific individual? How?

Does it fail because you can't look and someone and say 'I want to look like that'?

Surely it means that you can't change to a particular face, no matter where that face came from. Given that, Lady Lucy's face, as random as it started, is now a specific face, and as such cannot be assumed using this ability because this ability cannot be used to assume a specific face.

So Lady Lucy is a one time only disguise.

Stands to reason the second succubus probably couldn't adopt the specific disguise. A "person" (from the perspective of the succubus) is being emulated.

The first succubus is simply recrafting the same disguise. I don't see a problem here.

Were the shoe on the other foot, I imagine this would be one of those times you'd tell people that they need to engage their thinky bits to figure out the most sensible solution.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The succubus has used her shape altering ability to assume an identity of a noblewoman called Lady Lucy Lastic. When she first used this ability to change to this form, it was a 'generic' human female, whatever that means.

Another creature with the same shape changing ability sees Lucy, doesn't know she's really a succubus, and attempts to assume her form.

Does it work or not? Does it work because the spell somehow knows that Lucy is not a specific individual? How?

Does it fail because you can't look and someone and say 'I want to look like that'?

Surely it means that you can't change to a particular face, no matter where that face came from. Given that, Lady Lucy's face, as random as it started, is now a specific face, and as such cannot be assumed using this ability because this ability cannot be used to assume a specific face.

So Lady Lucy is a one time only disguise.

Stands to reason the second succubus probably couldn't adopt the specific disguise. A "person" (from the perspective of the succubus) is being emulated.

The first succubus is simply recrafting the same disguise. I don't see a problem here.

The problem is that this face is now a specific face, and so cannot be assumed with this ability.

Quote:
Were the shoe on the other foot, I imagine this would be one of those times you'd tell people that they need to engage their thinky bits to figure out the most sensible solution.

Exactly! And the answer that your thinky bits provide is simply that the authors are wrong! They messed up!

Succubi can assume the same disguise more that once, silver dragons can assume the forms of medium creatures irrespective of their size as a dragon, and rings of invisibility are switched on and off like a lightswitch by an act of will.

Any rules which seem to indicate otherwise are in error.

Shadow Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
This post by me in another thread is very relevant to the discussion here regarding the Hat of Disguise.

Disguise Self is an illusion. As I said in the other thread, once the magic goes away, so does the disguise. Duration of the magical effect is still relevant and a necessary question.

The latest intent we have is the 3.5 FAQ that said these items use the durations of the relevant spells. Unless there's new evidence of intent specifically with regard to PF, that appears to be how the items still function.

I maintain that you're reading of the rules is entirely inaccurate on a fundamental level. This is despite of the fact that nearly everyone (myself included) plays it differently. Just because we play it differently doesn't mean we read it accurately (or that it was written accurately either).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:
I maintain that you're reading of the rules is entirely inaccurate on a fundamental level. This is despite of the fact that nearly everyone (myself included) plays it differently. Just because we play it differently doesn't mean we read it accurately (or that it was written accurately either).

If we go by your reading of the rules though, I could take 20 putting on a disguise, then pull off my wig/whatever else is part of the disguise, and still have the same disguise check afterward.

When the spell ends, the disguise is removed. Its the same as changing disguises, and therefore would require a new check. No, it isn't specified anywhere that you have to make a new check if the disguise is changed, because it is common sense. The writers assume common sense, which sometimes causes problems. I think everybody agrees on that.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are correct.

According to the disguise skill as written, the only thing that breaks a disguise is a successful perception check. there is no rule allowing you to remove your disguise. Once its on, you're stuck, I hope you enjoy your new face because unless somebody notices, its yours for the rest of your life.

Emphasis Added:

I wrote:
This is despite of the fact that nearly everyone (myself included) plays it differently.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The succubus has used her shape altering ability to assume an identity of a noblewoman called Lady Lucy Lastic. When she first used this ability to change to this form, it was a 'generic' human female, whatever that means.

Another creature with the same shape changing ability sees Lucy, doesn't know she's really a succubus, and attempts to assume her form.

Does it work or not? Does it work because the spell somehow knows that Lucy is not a specific individual? How?

Does it fail because you can't look and someone and say 'I want to look like that'?

Surely it means that you can't change to a particular face, no matter where that face came from. Given that, Lady Lucy's face, as random as it started, is now a specific face, and as such cannot be assumed using this ability because this ability cannot be used to assume a specific face.

So Lady Lucy is a one time only disguise.

Stands to reason the second succubus probably couldn't adopt the specific disguise. A "person" (from the perspective of the succubus) is being emulated.

The first succubus is simply recrafting the same disguise. I don't see a problem here.

The problem is that this face is now a specific face, and so cannot be assumed with this ability.

Quote:
Were the shoe on the other foot, I imagine this would be one of those times you'd tell people that they need to engage their thinky bits to figure out the most sensible solution.

Exactly! And the answer that your thinky bits provide is simply that the authors are wrong! They messed up!

Succubi can assume the same disguise more that once, silver dragons can assume the forms of medium creatures irrespective of their size as a dragon, and rings of invisibility are switched on and off like a lightswitch by an act of will.

Any rules which seem to indicate otherwise are in error.

Uh, I'm fully comfortable allowing Succubi to assume the same disguise more than once, even using the rules in their present state. That's been my point this entire time. Adopting a face as a disguise isn't, for the person who's been taking that disguise, attempting to adopt the guise of a specific individual.

The only one of these complaints that has merit is the Silver Dragon shape change.

And how does the Ring of Invisibility have anything to do with either of these other two things?


Master of Shadows wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
This post by me in another thread is very relevant to the discussion here regarding the Hat of Disguise.

Disguise Self is an illusion. As I said in the other thread, once the magic goes away, so does the disguise. Duration of the magical effect is still relevant and a necessary question.

The latest intent we have is the 3.5 FAQ that said these items use the durations of the relevant spells. Unless there's new evidence of intent specifically with regard to PF, that appears to be how the items still function.

I maintain that you're reading of the rules is entirely inaccurate on a fundamental level. This is despite of the fact that nearly everyone (myself included) plays it differently. Just because we play it differently doesn't mean we read it accurately (or that it was written accurately either).

You can maintain that my reading is inaccurate all you want. Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

And I maintain that your reading of the rules is entirely inaccurate on a fundamental level because the way you read it doesn't make sense. The spell is an illusion. Your reading requires that the illusion lasts 10 minutes per level, yet creates a permanent effect.


Master of Shadows wrote:

You are correct.

According to the disguise skill as written, the only thing that breaks a disguise is a successful perception check. there is no rule allowing you to remove your disguise. Once its on, you're stuck, I hope you enjoy your new face because unless somebody notices, its yours for the rest of your life.

Emphasis Added:

I wrote:
This is despite of the fact that nearly everyone (myself included) plays it differently.

There's no real need to carry on the discussion in two threads, but the reason everybody plays it differently is because that is the correct way to play it.

Magic wrote:
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.

You are trying to use a glamer spell to create a permanent effect, which is specifically prohibited.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

No. Infinite means "without end". What I wrote means "uncountably large, but still finite". A googleplex is, for example, uncountably large but finite - feel free to start counting to it (hint: you can't ever get there). You are factually incorrect.

Good luck in court tomorrow, presupposing you're pursuing the most morally correct course! (I don't know, as I have no details of the case! But I hope you are and, given that, that it works out well!)

No, if something is finite, it is by definition countable. That you would not be able to reach the number by counting within your lifetime does not mean something is not countable. ("Googolplex", by the way. Not a big deal, just thought you might like to know.) Of course, to be fair, that something is countable does not necessarily mean it is finite (integers are countable, yet infinite).

Infinite does in fact mean impossible to calculate (i.e., cannot be counted). So no, I am not incorrect. Regardless, that this wasn't the intended meaning of your statement doesn't mean that it isn't a possible meaning of your statement, which is ultimately my...

Not to be picky here, but the set of all integers is countable and infinite. The set of real numbers is uncountable and infinite. Infinite does not mean countable - they are two different things. Countable is only relevant when dealing with sets. Foundations of Math FTW!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigh. Okay, fine. We're still on this. I will put it another way.

Again.

You're doing it right.

That's following the intent of the rules.

It's what you do, it's what I do, it's what almost everyone does.

The entire point of all of this is that literalism can cause problems when the literal meaning is different from the intent.

I have proven definitively on two accounts (one by virtue of how it was changed after the fact, and another by virtue of it simply not functioning at all), and - to several others' ways of thinking effectively on a third (that you dismiss) - that not all the working parts are intended to do exactly what is written on the page.

The "intent" is not definitively the same as the wording or the rules text.

This is what the "no duh" clause is for.

"You are to come into work every day." (Left unsaid: "Except for when we're not open.") <"No duh.">

Thing is that in the above wording there are a huge number of implied cultural understandings that the words themselves lack entirely. Understandings that supply meaning beyond the words. This is known as the "setting" in game system terms.

The problem with that is that the rules are supposed to be "setting neutral" - i.e. they are supposed to function perfectly well and similarly regardless of the setting you choose to use.

Unfortunately, as-written, they do not: in fact it hinges upon cultural understandings and guesswork that we presume when we read, that is, in no way, part of the actual linguistic structure (and is actually voided by the linguistic structure).

Everyone here "knows" what a succubus is.

We "know" how the rules are supposed to work.

We have decade(s) of experience telling us these things - experience that comes from both in-game setting-specific stuff, as well as other sources of myth and legend.

This creates a body of out-of-game knowledge that we draw upon to make our conclusion.

Thus, it seems like a "no duh".

But as-written, the ability doesn't function for a great number of worlds that we would create, most notably Golarion, without very specific and weird rules being supplied that are not part of the text and the ability.

The common understanding and use, then, is a deviation from RAW.

This common understanding and use - the intended understanding and use - is not what is written, it's what common sense tells us the words are supposed to mean, instead of what they actually mean.
(This is, by the way, exactly how devils become so awful: they use things that, under any reasonable appearance, would mean what most people would think; under scrutiny, however, do not mean that in the slightest. They press for the exacting meaning that nobody in their right mind would have taken, but that technically puts them in violation of whatever contract. Hence, evil.)

Obviously, we, unlike devils, don't push the literal to the point of the non-functional.

"No duh."

But the rules - this, of course, being a rules forum, thus what we're looking at - tell us something different, given that they, at least, are supposed to be setting neutral (i.e. without presumptions).

What you do, what I do, and what everyone does is just (often subconsciously) supply the "extra" or "intended" meaning to those rules.

That's what the Devs refer to as "Common Sense" and is the way the rules are supposed to be interpreted.

I have stated on several occasions that this is the correct way of handling things.

My stance has just included the fact that, since that's what we're doing, it behooves us to be aware of what we're doing, and acknowledge that. (I believe that it behooves us, so that we have a broader base of understanding, allowing us to understand what we're doing, and thus do it more purposefully and in a broader suite of situations - like with the Silver Dragon.)

Having this understanding allows us to come to others who lack that cultural basis and mindset with a more open and understanding mind.

When someone posts on the forums (and it will happen, or something similar enough to it), "Wait: is the Silver Dragon ability supposed to stop working once they hit Young Adult?" our response will be, "I see why you might think that, and by RAW, yes, but the intent is <insert thing here> and <here's why>" instead of "What are you, stupid?" (which is also a marked tendency on these forums - and, to be fair, the internet in general).

This all relates back to the argument of "What did the developers intend?"

In general? Probably different things for different developers.

Some saw it and went "Option A." while others "Option B." and others still "Option C." Some probably just didn't see it, or didn't put too much thought into it when they did, because they thought it was "obvious".

Depending on the item, power, or effect, the various options are closer to each other or further away - either way, each time a judgement call was made, possibly by more than one entity, but possibly not.

In this way, mistakes in wording occur, some more egregious than others.

The kind of average of the intent depends on what we're talking about.

Silver Dragons should be able to use their ability throughout their life - and probably use it to be humans and other small creatures.

Hags should probably be allowed to imitate a person's wife (if you want to go closer to older versions - not if you don't care).

Succubi should be able to take the same disguise over and over, and it should look normal within the bounds for humans (or other humanoids).

All of this falls under "No duh." but does so exclusively to those steeped in the ideas already.

Others just see the rules and get a confused, glazed, or otherwise uncertain look on their face, shrug, and go on playing the game in a way different from how we interpret things.

Others have other reactions still.

Hence: you, fretgod99, apply things that are not part of the rules in your attempt to interpret the rules. This is not RAW. This is intended. Congratulations, you're doing it right!

But you're saying what you're doing incorrectly, because the assumptions are so deeply grounded in you that it's hard to conceive that anyone might not have them.

I've been around enough historians to know exactly how well that works out when people not steeped in a given culture try to figure out what the leftovers mean.

You end up with a lot of "HOLY CRAP! They made that guy show up every day, whether they were open or not! How terrible!" and "WHOA! That means they were open every day! Such dedication!" and "You guys are idiots! Clearly, they spent the days they weren't open celebrating, and thus obviously had a strong communal relation with each other!" or "Actually, I think it only meant for him to show up when they were open!"
(Note: history is made of these kinds of presumptions. See our many, many conflicting history books for examples.)

So yes, apply common sense in your reading, by all means.

But be aware that you're doing so and going beyond the RAW.

All of this relates to the rings, durations, and other things by the same thought process: there are some things that are "obvious" that really, really aren't.

Wording indicates one thing.

Function, use, and social expectations indicate something entirely different.


SoonerTed wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

No. Infinite means "without end". What I wrote means "uncountably large, but still finite". A googleplex is, for example, uncountably large but finite - feel free to start counting to it (hint: you can't ever get there). You are factually incorrect.

Good luck in court tomorrow, presupposing you're pursuing the most morally correct course! (I don't know, as I have no details of the case! But I hope you are and, given that, that it works out well!)

No, if something is finite, it is by definition countable. That you would not be able to reach the number by counting within your lifetime does not mean something is not countable. ("Googolplex", by the way. Not a big deal, just thought you might like to know.) Of course, to be fair, that something is countable does not necessarily mean it is finite (integers are countable, yet infinite).

Infinite does in fact mean impossible to calculate (i.e., cannot be counted). So no, I am not incorrect. Regardless, that this wasn't the intended meaning of your statement doesn't mean that it isn't a possible meaning of your statement, which is ultimately my...

Not to be picky here, but the set of all integers is countable and infinite. The set of real numbers is uncountable and infinite. Infinite does not mean countable - they are two different things. Countable is only relevant when dealing with sets. Foundations of Math FTW!

I specifically mentioned that integers are countable and infinite (bolded above). I recognize that real numbers are uncountable and infinite. We discussed these things at great length when I was earning my math degree.

That something (set) is infinite does not necessarily answer whether that thing is countable. That a set is finite does answer whether the set is countable - it is. I am not aware of any finite set that is not countable. I did neglect to edit the following line a bit after adding the Integers parenthetical, though, which is likely the source of confusion here.

But really, it was a set up to demonstrate the larger point that I'm pretty sure he glossed over at that point, anyway. Sad day. :(


See, this is the thing you're not getting, though. I am reaching my conclusion based upon RAW. That you refuse to agree honestly is of no consequence to me.

Your belief that RAW prohibits a Succubus from selecting the same disguise again later is not well-founded. That is my point. The Hag bit was already changed. Great. The Dragon bit still needs to be changed. Great. You're simply misreading the Succubus bit (and really, it's an issue with the Polymorph class of effects).

You claim that RAW prohibits it, because of the "specific individual" language. But you never support it other than to provide one possible interpretation that necessitates a conflict. Since this one interpretation exists, you claim that this interpretation is and must be RAW. You claimed I don't see a problem because I don't want to see it. You dismissed my response that you're simply seeing a problem because you want to see one. But it seems pretty accurate here.

Another valid interpretation exists. I have demonstrated that. Rather than recognizing that the interpretation exists, you are claiming that this interpretation somehow requires that we understand things outside of the rules for it to make sense. This isn't true.

The point you missed in the employee example is that all the definitions of the word "day" are valid. But only one definition of the word actually makes sense within the context of the larger statement. What you are doing with the Succubus example is forcing a technically correct (in a vacuum) definition of the word "day" into a context that doesn't support it.

That the definition you are using for specific individual exists does not mean it is the only valid definition. And, more importantly, it does not mean that it is the most contextually relevant. You have decided upon one understanding of a relevant phrase and are refusing to recognize other, more contextually relevant definitions.

Your position requires that we ignore context clues. No set of rules in the history of humanity that has ever been drafted necessitates the ignoring of context clues. That you apply common sense to the reading of the rules does not necessarily mean you are extending beyond the rules as written. Virtually every word in the English language has multiple meanings depending on context. We're allowed to analyze context to determine which definition is actually relevant. That we're doing this does not mean we're stepping beyond the scope of the rules on the page.

The answer is obtainable simply be reading the words on the page. And the answer is workable, right in line with what we know the developers want. Thus, it is the Rules as Written.

Otherwise, we're stuck believing that the Bonus Feats section from the Fighter Class Entry is meant to allow you to retrain bonus feats gained from other classes. If you completely and totally ignore context, then yes you can reach that conclusion. Unfortunately, some people really strenuously argued for that interpretation, despite the fact that it made no contextual sense. So a FAQ was issued telling us what we already know: context matters and is relevant to RAW. But that context matters does not necessarily mean we're extending our interpretation beyond the letters on the page in all instances.

RAI and RAW are generally not in conflict. Sometimes, sure. But it's actually pretty rare. And typically when people think RAI and RAW are in conflict, it has less to do with an actual conflict and more to do with failing to properly define the words being used.

And ultimately, none of this has anything to do with the Ring of Invisibility or any other of these magical items in question. I'm still not sure why it was brought up in the first place. If, even if we're talking about making this work "as they're supposed to" and not as RAW dictates, which is the line of thinking you're heading down with this, we know what the intent of the Ring of Invisibility is, anyway - 3 minute duration with a command activation. Unless and until there's actually some errata or a FAQ that says otherwise, there is no reason to think these behave differently than in 3.5. That you'd like the items more if they functioned differently is irrelevant. That the items functioned differently in 2ed is irrelevant. Until there's a reason to believe that the developers actually intended these items to function not like they did in 3.5, but like they did prior to that, what does it matter? RAI and RAW on the Ring of Invisibility - at this point (absent further clarification), they function the same way.

So ultimately, I'm fine dropping the Succubus discussion. It's completely irrelevant to the thread. I am quite aware of how to read rules on a page. We're not even having the same discussion, anyway, which is why you apparently think I don't understand how interpretation works or when it's even going on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
"I want to change my appearance to that of Captain Shuffles McTrufflestein so I can bluff my way into the guardhouse barracks more easily."

It really pisses me off when people try to disguise themselves as me.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
The only one of these complaints that has merit is the Silver Dragon shape change.

One example is all that's required. You admit that you know that the RAW means that silver dragons of a certain age cannot change into medium creatures, but you ignore that and let them do so anyway because you believe the intent is that they can. The devs made a mistake, and you are correcting it. Good for you. This is the correct response: applying your reason to the problem and reaching a solution in line with your confident belief in the intent.

Quote:
And how does the Ring of Invisibility have anything to do with either of these other two things?

The shapechange thing was originally brought up as an example of something we all know works by RAW differently than the way it should work RAI.

Just like rings of invisibility.

Flat out refusing to apply your reason to instead slavishly follow misapplied RAW is not the way forward.


I'd posit another question. What is the duration of cantrips?
If "At will activation" is the standard does that mean guidance is permanent outside of combat? How about light?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just to take a stab at the succubus thing:

From what I can see there is an assumption of implied intent regarding the usage "specific".

The rules prohibit using the ability to mimic the appearance of a specific individual, but they do not, in any way, prohibit the use of a specific disguise.

If we accept that (and the argument that a specific disguise is a specific individual is rather specious, since it's a bit like saying Pepsi put into a ChemlaCola (which I really hope doesn't actually exist) can is now Coke), then there is nothing preventing our succubus from adopting a persona with a specific disguise, whenever they wish. The problem is that said disguise may not be used to attempt to duplicate the appearance of a particular person. You can't put the Pepsi in a Coke can. But the ChemlaCola option is always there.

I am absolutely certain we all agree on this as the meaning of the ability, regardless of how it is written.

The reasonableness test: would a non-gamer who wasn't trying to read the rules as a legal text believe that a succubus is incapable of assuming a particular form more than once?

Pretty sure the answer is no.

I think we're all very much in agreement on the dragon problem, but I believe it can be argued that the alter self spell, which is referenced by the polymorph spell, which is itself referenced by the silver dragon's change shape ability (yes, it's the spell, it's in italics), amounts to a more specific rule regarding size than the general rules for change shape.

Where we're still falling down is the good old ring of invisibility. I'm well aware of the sheer amount of baggage I retain from BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E. I find things all the time that make me go "oh, is THAT how that works, now?"

One general rule of thumb that seems to work quite well for me, though, is that if there are two possible interpretations of a rules combination, the least permissive option is probably the intent, barring specific designer commentary to the contrary.

Do what you wish in your home games (I know I will), but I believe that the ring of invisibility should probably have a duration. I also think that the price bump from the calculated price is enough to warrant the infinite duration version.

Remember, also, that the base assumption of the game is that you are adventuring. 3 rounds is most of a combat. 10 minutes is enough to get you into the palace. When you start stretching item utility beyond short-term advantage (a dinner party at the palace, rather than bluffing your way part the guards, for example), you are stepping beyond the game's expectations, and I do not think it unreasonable to enforce durations on magic. If you're using your hat of disguise at a dinner party, it stops being an adventuring aid and starts being a lifestyle choice, and allowing magic power beyond it's adventuring applications could derail the game.


Undone wrote:

I'd posit another question. What is the duration of cantrips?

If "At will activation" is the standard does that mean guidance is permanent outside of combat? How about light?

Are there guidance or light items that would qualify?

If we're making up new items, then it's easy to make nonsensical items:
.

I was actually looking earlier for a CL1, round/level item, but didn't find any.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:


Pretty sure the answer is no.

I think we're all very much in agreement on the dragon problem, but I believe it can be argued that the alter self spell, which is referenced by the polymorph spell, which is itself referenced by the silver dragon's change shape ability (yes, it's the spell, it's in italics), amounts to a more specific rule regarding size than the general rules for change shape.

Where we're still falling down is the good old ring of invisibility. I'm well aware of the sheer amount of baggage I retain from BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E. I find things all the time that make me go "oh, is THAT how that works, now?"
One general rule of thumb that seems to work quite well for me, though, is that if there are two possible interpretations of a rules combination, the least permissive option is probably the intent, barring specific designer commentary to the contrary.

Do what you wish in your home games (I know I will), but I believe that the ring of invisibility should probably have a duration. I also think that the price bump from the calculated price is enough to warrant the infinite duration version.

Remember, also, that the base assumption of the game is that you are adventuring. 3 rounds is most of a combat. 10 minutes is enough to get you into the palace. When you start stretching item utility beyond short-term advantage (a dinner party at the palace, rather than bluffing your way part the guards, for example), you are stepping beyond the game's expectations, and I do not think it unreasonable to enforce durations on magic. If you're using your hat of disguise at a dinner party, it stops being an adventuring aid and starts being a lifestyle choice, and allowing magic power beyond it's adventuring applications could derail the game.

Least permissive shoots down your Silver Dragon approach though.

And really? Your adventures don't include dinner parties? I'm sorry.


thejeff wrote:
Undone wrote:

I'd posit another question. What is the duration of cantrips?

If "At will activation" is the standard does that mean guidance is permanent outside of combat? How about light?

Are there guidance or light items that would qualify?

If we're making up new items, then it's easy to make nonsensical items:
.

I was actually looking earlier for a CL1, round/level item, but didn't find any.

I think ever burning items are light.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Undone wrote:
I think ever burning items are light.

Everburning Torch: This otherwise normal torch has a continual flame spell cast on it. This causes it to shed light like an ordinary torch, but it does not emit heat or deal fire damage if used as a weapon.

It uses the Continual Flame spell, not the Light cantrip.


Chemlak wrote:

The reasonableness test: would a non-gamer who wasn't trying to read the rules as a legal text believe that a succubus is incapable of assuming a particular form more than once?

Pretty sure the answer is no.

Depending on what you mean by "legal text", I have recently proved you wrong.

(Showing a non-gamer friend of mine the alter self spell and asking what he thought about it, he thought - sans prompting - it would generate really weird results if you actually followed this to its conclusion. He was a chemist, though, and, as every chemist I've ever met is a little odd in the way they think - most of which have told me such themselves - you'll want to take that with a grain of salt. :D)

Reference polymorph and change shape: the change shape ability uses a polymorph school spell to tell you what it imitates, but also has it's own traits beyond the spell it imitates (i.e. limitless duration and size limit). If you state that, instead of the normal Change Shape traits, you go with the polymorph spell traits, than they suddenly have a duration limit as well, which means that they can use it for... a few minutes, at most. To do otherwise, you're literally just picking and choosing which rules you want to follow, which, you know, doesn't follow the rules.

This is also clearly not the intent.

Much like the succubus (or change shape or alter self or polymorph or any of those other spells).

Hence, we go with the clear (to us) intent.

There are people without that missing context that we naturally (and usually unconsciously) supply to interpret the rules beyond the words.

Chemlak wrote:

From what I can see there is an assumption of implied intent regarding the usage "specific".

The rules prohibit using the ability to mimic the appearance of a specific individual, but they do not, in any way, prohibit the use of a specific disguise.

If we accept that (and the argument that a specific disguise is a specific individual is rather specious, since it's a bit like saying Pepsi put into a ChemlaCola (which I really hope doesn't actually exist) can is now Coke), then there is nothing preventing our succubus from adopting a persona with a specific disguise, whenever they wish. The problem is that said disguise may not be used to attempt to duplicate the appearance of a particular person. You can't put the Pepsi in a Coke can. But the ChemlaCola option is always there.

I am absolutely certain we all agree on this as the meaning of the ability, regardless of how it is written.

This is basically correct. The implied intent and suggestive (but not denotative) use is the sticking point.

fretgod99 wrote:
But really, it was a set up to demonstrate the larger point that I'm pretty sure he glossed over at that point, anyway. Sad day. :(

The fact that you knew what I meant, but bothered to argue with me about the specific wording is really all the proof we need to explain that intent is not always the same thing as words chosen.

Thus, I didn't think it was worthwhile to continue, as the fact that you so nicely proved exactly what I meant was that part of the conversation. :)


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The only one of these complaints that has merit is the Silver Dragon shape change.

One example is all that's required. You admit that you know that the RAW means that silver dragons of a certain age cannot change into medium creatures, but you ignore that and let them do so anyway because you believe the intent is that they can. The devs made a mistake, and you are correcting it. Good for you. This is the correct response: applying your reason to the problem and reaching a solution in line with your confident belief in the intent.

Quote:
And how does the Ring of Invisibility have anything to do with either of these other two things?

The shapechange thing was originally brought up as an example of something we all know works by RAW differently than the way it should work RAI.

Just like rings of invisibility.

Flat out refusing to apply your reason to instead slavishly follow misapplied RAW is not the way forward.

This might make sense if the latest indication of RAI was different thatn RAW. This is precisely how things worked in 3.5 by intent so ... still not sure how it's relevant.

And i've never said you're not allowed to deviate from RAW/RAI for your home games to play it like days of old. So ... still not sure how it's relevant.


Tacticslion wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

The reasonableness test: would a non-gamer who wasn't trying to read the rules as a legal text believe that a succubus is incapable of assuming a particular form more than once?

Pretty sure the answer is no.

Depending on what you mean by "legal text", I have recently proved you wrong.

(Showing a non-gamer friend of mine the alter self spell and asking what he thought about it, he thought - sans prompting - it would generate really weird results if you actually followed this to its conclusion.

If you want to analyze it like a legal text, I proved you wrong. I'm an attorney, so I'm pretty familiar with reading things like legal texts.

But it's not like we attorneys agree on everything, either. ;)

*shrug*


Quote:
The fact that you knew what I meant, but bothered to argue with me about the specific wording is really all the proof we need to explain that intent is not always the same thing as words chosen.

Not really. The point was that words can have multiple applicable definitions. So simply insisting upon one definition that causes a conflict at the exclusion of more relevant ones that don't cause conflict is an error. But the error is the reader's, not the drafter's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Quote:
The fact that you knew what I meant, but bothered to argue with me about the specific wording is really all the proof we need to explain that intent is not always the same thing as words chosen.
Not really. The point was that words can have multiple applicable definitions. So simply insisting upon one definition that causes a conflict at the exclusion of more relevant ones that don't cause conflict is an error. But the error is the reader's, not the drafter's.

No. You proved my words incorrect.

In so doing, and telling me what I actually meant to say, you proved my point correct.

I had an intent. You read that. You understood it.

My words were, by definition, incorrect.

You still knew what I meant through elements that did not appear in the text.

Hence: my point. You distilled meaning - true meaning - from words that opposed said meaning.

Otherwise, you would never have understood what I said.

fretgod99 wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

The reasonableness test: would a non-gamer who wasn't trying to read the rules as a legal text believe that a succubus is incapable of assuming a particular form more than once?

Pretty sure the answer is no.

Depending on what you mean by "legal text", I have recently proved you wrong.

(Showing a non-gamer friend of mine the alter self spell and asking what he thought about it, he thought - sans prompting - it would generate really weird results if you actually followed this to its conclusion.

If you want to analyze it like a legal text, I proved you wrong. I'm an attorney, so I'm pretty familiar with reading things like legal texts.

But it's not like we attorneys agree on everything, either. ;)

*shrug*

He specified "not legal text".

Hence, "depending on what you mean by legal text" - I don't know what he means. In this case, his context doesn't make it clear.

In my case, the sum of information I'd given him was, "Hey, in a game I play, there's a spell. I'm debating something about it with some people online. What do you think of it?"

My friend read the spell, thought that it must have some very peculiar results due to the wording - "So, what, they don't look like anything or anybody? Must look really weird.", and shrugged and went on his way.

The only thing you proved was that you're very good at running intellectual circles to avoid an admission - a skill set that every lawyer needs for sure! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was all much more exciting when you were talking about me.


Tacticslion wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Quote:
The fact that you knew what I meant, but bothered to argue with me about the specific wording is really all the proof we need to explain that intent is not always the same thing as words chosen.
Not really. The point was that words can have multiple applicable definitions. So simply insisting upon one definition that causes a conflict at the exclusion of more relevant ones that don't cause conflict is an error. But the error is the reader's, not the drafter's.

No. You proved my words incorrect.

In so doing, and telling me what I actually meant to say, you proved my point correct.

I had an intent. You read that. You understood it.

My words were, by definition, incorrect.

You still knew what I meant through elements that did not appear in the text.

Hence: my point. You distilled meaning - true meaning - from words that opposed said meaning.

Otherwise, you would never have understood what I said.

No, your words weren't actually incorrect; you were using a figure of speech, the meaning of which is known to anybody familiar with the language. What I did was force a very literal interpretation into a situation when the context counseled otherwise. Two acceptable definitions of a phrase - one allows for seamless interpretation, the other leads to confusion.

As for the legal text bit, yeah I failed my linguistics check. Read "was" instead of "wasn't". Frickin' tiny phone type. *shakes fist*


It happens! :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Chemlak wrote:


Pretty sure the answer is no.

I think we're all very much in agreement on the dragon problem, but I believe it can be argued that the alter self spell, which is referenced by the polymorph spell, which is itself referenced by the silver dragon's change shape ability (yes, it's the spell, it's in italics), amounts to a more specific rule regarding size than the general rules for change shape.

Where we're still falling down is the good old ring of invisibility. I'm well aware of the sheer amount of baggage I retain from BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E. I find things all the time that make me go "oh, is THAT how that works, now?"
One general rule of thumb that seems to work quite well for me, though, is that if there are two possible interpretations of a rules combination, the least permissive option is probably the intent, barring specific designer commentary to the contrary.

Do what you wish in your home games (I know I will), but I believe that the ring of invisibility should probably have a duration. I also think that the price bump from the calculated price is enough to warrant the infinite duration version.

Remember, also, that the base assumption of the game is that you are adventuring. 3 rounds is most of a combat. 10 minutes is enough to get you into the palace. When you start stretching item utility beyond short-term advantage (a dinner party at the palace, rather than bluffing your way part the guards, for example), you are stepping beyond the game's expectations, and I do not think it unreasonable to enforce durations on magic. If you're using your hat of disguise at a dinner party, it stops being an adventuring aid and starts being a lifestyle choice, and allowing magic power beyond it's adventuring applications could derail the game.

Least permissive shoots down your Silver Dragon approach though.

Only if you assume that the general change shape ability overrides the specifics of the spell alter self

Quote:
And really? Your adventures don't include dinner parties? I'm sorry.

Pretty sure I didn't say that. My dungeons don't. My wilderness treks don't. And when there is a dinner party to attend, I don't see the need to grant a cheap magic item more power than it should reasonably have. If someone wants to wear a disguise to a dinner party, they should be thinking about a mundane disguise, or longer-lasting magic, and not that their hat of disguise will solve all of their problems.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other argument for a hat of disguise having a duration is that a hat providing a +10 competence bonus to Disguise, continuous, would cost up at 10,000 gp. Can anyone attempt to explain why the hat (which is arguably better than just the disguise skill, since you can alter height and apparent weight quite significantly with it) costs so much less?


Chemlak wrote:
Only if you assume that the general change shape ability overrides the specifics of the spell alter self

By that logic, however, you would have to abandon the rules of polymorph for the rules of alter self, as the same process is being applied.

Polymorph is a 5th level spell? No worries, I'm imitating a 2nd level spell, so I'll expend the lower slot instead!

Clearly, that's not what it means.

On the same note, if you allow polymorph traits to override Change Shape, then! as previously mentioned, you suddenly only have a few minutes of alternate form at most. This, too, is clearly not the intent.

Incidentally, however, at a much earlier time, when first going through this with another gamer who was less well-versed in stories/lore, they were rather insistent that it only lasted those few minutes. GM made a temporary ruling in favor of the shorter duration - explaining it as this dragon just wasn't practiced - until we later had time to look up the Change Shape ability. So: intent not clear to anyone not versed in the lore.

Though that gamer had run 3.5 games, and even run a silver dragon using the old alternate form rules, given that it had been years since that game and a knowledge check had informed us of "a change shape ability - it functions exactly like the spell polymorph" (or something very similar to that). We were playing Pathfinder for one of the first times, and Kingmaker.

After that we chatted about it for a while, I made my arguments, but the GM (temporarily, for safety) sided with the weaker interpretation and came up with a story reason that worked whether temporary or not.

Just to let you guys know how it played out in an actual game with actual people trying to figure out the actual rules.

(It never occurred to us that the Change Shape might not allow the dragon to look human... because we'd played the old game, and weren't fully aware of all of the Change Shape rules.)

Chemlak wrote:
The other argument for a hat of disguise having a duration is that a hat providing a +10 competence bonus to Disguise, continuous, would cost up at 10,000 gp. Can anyone attempt to explain why the hat (which is arguably better than just the disguise skill, since you can alter height and apparent weight quite significantly with it) costs so much less?

The hat is definitely a command word item. It's sad, but that's the 1.8k price tag.

1.8k x 1 (CL) x 1 (SL)

That is really harsh.

"Fish waffles!" Every nine minutes it is! (By RAW, except for the specificity of "Fish waffles".)

Beyond that, a +10 bonus to disguise isn't worth the cost you'd pay.
(Unless alter self functions like it says and not like we play it.)

EDIT: twice, for argument building


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Only if you assume that the general change shape ability overrides the specifics of the spell alter self

By that logic, however, you would have to abandon the rules of polymorph for the rules of alter self, as the same process is being applied.

Polymorph is a 5th level spell? No worries, I'm imitating a 2nd level spell, so I'll expend the lower slot instead!

Not in the slightest. Polymorph functions as alter self when used to assume a humanoid form (abandoning italics for spell names due to iPad).

They could have said that the silver dragon's ability functions like alter self and beast shape II for humanoids and animals respectively, and it would be exactly the same ability, just with more words.

Since polymorph is already restricted like alter self, if a humanoid form is chosen, the change shape ability is restricted in exactly the same way (with "restricted" meaning "only small and medium humanoids" in this case).

The question is entirely whether the specific restrictions of the polymorph-school spell being used as a base for change shape override the size restriction of change shape.

Argue however you (generic you) wish. I'm definitely going to allow dragons to change shape into humans.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The only one of these complaints that has merit is the Silver Dragon shape change.
One example is all that's required. You admit that you know that the RAW means that silver dragons of a certain age cannot change into medium creatures, but you ignore that and let them do so anyway because you believe the intent is that they can. The devs made a mistake, and you are correcting it. Good for you. This is the correct response: applying your reason to the problem and reaching a solution in line with your confident belief in the intent.

And at least one recently published AP has a silver dragon of a certain age doing exactly this.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

I'd posit another question. What is the duration of cantrips?

If "At will activation" is the standard does that mean guidance is permanent outside of combat? How about light?

To reiterate a point I made earlier, and people chose to ignore.

If you want to break non-combat gameplay into rounds in order to exactly track duration, I won't stop you. The end result is going to be spells typically ruled to only last one or two encounters will wind up lasting considerably longer.


Chemlak wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Only if you assume that the general change shape ability overrides the specifics of the spell alter self

By that logic, however, you would have to abandon the rules of polymorph for the rules of alter self, as the same process is being applied.

Polymorph is a 5th level spell? No worries, I'm imitating a 2nd level spell, so I'll expend the lower slot instead!

Not in the slightest. Polymorph functions as alter self when used to assume a humanoid form (abandoning italics for spell names due to iPad).

I totally understand. It's a pain, I know! (Sometimes I get uppity and do it anyway. Autocorrect is truly* the worst necessary evil today.)

And, to be clear, my suggestion has always been: let the hag trick the husband, let succubus adopt a specific image/persona repeatedly, and let the silver dragon be human.

It's not RAW, but we have a ton of in-universe examples to display it as RAI.

* No, not really. My use of 'truly' is both hyperbolic and figurative. C'mon, it SOUNDS dramatic!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, I never once thought you were arguing for the restrictions, TL! This has always been a RAW discussion, and if anyone is "guilty" of saying "rules text be damned" it's me (though I love parsing rules).

My current adventuring party has 3 hats of disguise. They use them liberally. I never cared about duration. I have a gold dragon great wyrm who is the Councilor for the kingdom being ruled by one of my players. Nobody outside the ruling council knows she's a dragon. I want cool over rules, any day of the week.

But it's good for us to have these discussions, because they inform the designers and developers of spots where rules text might need tightening up to properly convey the intent, and also help guide GMs regarding game balance.

Scarab Sages

Yeah, I'd never allow someone to use disguise self to turn into the same person over and over again. And I don't allow rings of invisibility to be perma-active either. You get the duration and have to reactivate it as a standard action. Or the dragon size changing either.

If you want those capabilities to be available in your game, there are always better ways to go about it than to allow a spell to do more than it should.

You want a succubus to be a continual presence somewhere, taking on the same visual appearance multiple times? Give the succubus a magical item to assist, or put more focus on the disguise skill in the feat choices.

You want dragons in general to be able to turn into medium sized creatures? Give them a unique ability.

You want continual invisibility from a ring? Price a constant effect greater invisibility ring.

If you want to override the rules in your game, feel free. But I don't see the need to change existing abilities, and by extension the options that the pc's have, to make that happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magicdealer wrote:

Yeah, I'd never allow someone to use disguise self to turn into the same person over and over again. And I don't allow rings of invisibility to be perma-active either. You get the duration and have to reactivate it as a standard action. Or the dragon size changing either.

If you want those capabilities to be available in your game, there are always better ways to go about it than to allow a spell to do more than it should.

You want a succubus to be a continual presence somewhere, taking on the same visual appearance multiple times? Give the succubus a magical item to assist, or put more focus on the disguise skill in the feat choices.

You want dragons in general to be able to turn into medium sized creatures? Give them a unique ability.

You want continual invisibility from a ring? Price a constant effect greater invisibility ring.

If you want to override the rules in your game, feel free. But I don't see the need to change existing abilities, and by extension the options that the pc's have, to make that happen.

Except they did give (some) dragons a unique ability specifically to let them turn into medium humanoids. And then they made it not work.

Why would you need a greater invisibility ring not to have continual invisibility? I don't think anyone has protested the invisibility breaking on attack, just needing a command word every 3 minutes.
As for price: by the rules, I believe it would be 24,000 gold. It's not really that much better than the strict interpretation of the current version, just less annoying.


Chemlak wrote:
The other argument for a hat of disguise having a duration is that a hat providing a +10 competence bonus to Disguise, continuous, would cost up at 10,000 gp. Can anyone attempt to explain why the hat (which is arguably better than just the disguise skill, since you can alter height and apparent weight quite significantly with it) costs so much less?

It's penetrated by true seeing and a lot of other spells and effects. I've mostly seen GMs let you use disguise to disguise someone else, but the hat won't let you do that. Just sticking with the usual interpretation of "gives you the ability to keep disguise self up all the time", it turns out that's just plain not very valuable. The pricing guidelines are, after all, just guidelines; there's a reason that some skills are valued more than others.

Shadow Lodge

I had this truly awesome argument (see below) all typed up and ready to post. Then I went and reread the skill description for Disguise and realized since it doesn't actually allow you to create disguises for others, my whole argument evaporated like so much mist... :(

My Amazing Failed Argument wrote:

You bring up another staggeringly mind boggling possibility based on how poorly written this spell is.

As written, the benefits of this spell are:
1. It allows the caster to create disguises for the duration of the spell at the speed of it's casting time(this is actually written in the skill description and not the spell itself).
2. You gain a +10 bonus on the disguise skill check if the disguise is made during the duration of the spell.

That being said, there is a clear argument to be made that since you are the only person benefitting from the above two effects, the range of personal can't govern skill use with out a statement expressly permitting it to, you can use this benefit when crafting disguises for others.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

6 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQed.

FAQ wrote:

When I use a magic item like ring of invisibility or hat of disguise that can be activated to gain the effects of a spell, does the wording "as the spell" also include the spell’s duration?

Yes, such items' effects have a duration, as indicated by the spell’s duration and the item’s caster level. If the item has no daily use limit, however, you can simply use the item again to reset the duration.


Thanks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Weak... I'll toss that in the growing pile of FAQ's I dislike. Been quite a while since I've seen one I agreed with...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQed.

FAQ wrote:

When I use a magic item like ring of invisibility or hat of disguise that can be activated to gain the effects of a spell, does the wording "as the spell" also include the spell’s duration?

Yes, such items' effects have a duration, as indicated by the spell’s duration and the item’s caster level. If the item has no daily use limit, however, you can simply use the item again to reset the duration.

<sarcasm>Yay!</sarcasm>

Thanks for answering the FAQ, even though I disagree with it.

Seriously, this is yet another FAQ that I'll be ignoring. I am not going to make a player reactivate a ring of invisibility every couple of minutes. Or a hat of disguise for that matter.

I'm glad I'm not doing organized play. I wish there was a system doing organized play that I actually agreed with a majority of rulings made.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Que all the evil GMs saying "Pop, your invisibility ends right in the middle of the room full of enemies because..." GM checks his watch, "...you didn't renew it in time."

graystone wrote:
Weak... I'll toss that in the growing pile of FAQ's I dislike. Been quite a while since I've seen one I agreed with...

At least you can extend the duration, rather than reset it. It would suck even more if the previous effect ended first, before the new one took effect. This is especially useful for things like an item that grants the use of magic jar (where casting it again would have forced you back into the jar and freed your host each time).

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

Ravingdork wrote:

Que all the evil GMs saying "Pop, your invisibility ends right in the middle of the room full of enemies because..." GM checks his watch, "...you didn't renew it in time."

graystone wrote:
Weak... I'll toss that in the growing pile of FAQ's I dislike. Been quite a while since I've seen one I agreed with...
At least you can extend the duration, rather than reset it. It would suck even more if the previous effect ended first, before the new one took effect. This is especially useful for things like an item that grants the use of magic jar (where casting it again would have forced you back into the jar and freed your host each time).

Good point, the word "extend" was ambiguous. It's been changed to "reset" to unambiguously reflect the fact that is the same as casting the spell at will, you get another instance. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out as always, and let us know if you find any other bugs like this in the FAQs.

Sczarni

This is how I've always ruled these types of items to function, and it's the reason I don't own a single Hat of Disguise amongst my PCs.

It's good to finally have it in black and white. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good FAQ, matches the rules quite clearly even if it doesn't match some people's ideals.

Nefreet, I've never seen a problem with using the Hat of Disguise. It is a cheap way to get a +10 bonus to your disguise check. (Normally +10 would cost 10,000gp.)

Do your mundane disguise, then use a hat of disguise to add a +10 bonus on top of that.

251 to 300 of 964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / On the duration of hats of disguise and rings of invisibility All Messageboards