Hat of Disguise Question


Rules Questions

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Tarantula wrote:

Even a command word truestrike would be too cheap to pay per the guidelines.

For truestrike, I'd argue you take half the price of a weapon bonus (because its only to hit) plus the activation prices.

That gives you 20^2x1000 for the attack bonus. (400,000) * 1800 for command or 2000 for constant. (720,000,000) or (800,000,000). I think 800,000,000 is a reasonable price for a ring of constant truestrike.

Instantaneous spells don't convert well to either constant, or infinite use items.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

Even a command word truestrike would be too cheap to pay per the guidelines.

For truestrike, I'd argue you take half the price of a weapon bonus (because its only to hit) plus the activation prices.

That gives you 20^2x1000 for the attack bonus. (400,000) * 1800 for command or 2000 for constant. (720,000,000) or (800,000,000). I think 800,000,000 is a reasonable price for a ring of constant truestrike.

Instantaneous spells don't convert well to either constant, or infinite use items.

ya best you could go for would be an item with a charge limit per day that uses a free action to activate


Ravingdork wrote:

It's about as bad, and makes just as much sense, as having an emergency flotation device that only keeps you afloat for 5 minutes before deflating. Most people whose boats sink are going to drown if they used such a device.

Such a device is practically useless in most situations!

The same is true of the ring of invisibility and the hat of disguise with their limited duration. They are meant to keep you from becoming exposed (keeping you afloat), but will only serve to expose you at an inopportune time (drowning you).

That's just power creep talking. You may be jaded and feel you deserve to be invisible, magically-disguised, and able to fly and breathe water forever because there's a chance that a duration will expire when it is arbitrarily inconvenient for you.

You may as well complain about your car running out of gas because you can't be bothered to fill it. "What?! I paid $20,000 for something that doesn't just keep driving forever!"
Do you complain about eating because it doesn't keep you fed for as long as you want too?

I am not going to believe that 3 minutes of being invisible is 'useless in most situations.' Just having to activate the item again does not change or contradict what it does. Sorry, the ring is not intended to make you silent, unscentable, and otherwise undetectable in every way. It is intended to make you invisible, and it does that and it even lets you do it as much as you want. That's hardly a worthless item.

Quote:
It's climbing a mountain with an old rope. More risk than it's worth! Who would ever invent such a thing? (Nobody. That answer is nobody. Such items should not exist as clarified.)

Are you seriously asking if anyone has 'invented' the concept of using a rope to climb things?

Are you trying to imply that somehow anyone can make an 'old rope'? No, someone made a rope, and it could be used or suitable for many things and not be 'practically useless in every situation.' However, this about a person taking a rope and using it for something when they can clearly tell whether it should or shouldn't be used for one.

Your example has nothing to do with someone making a rope and saying you should climb a mountain with it any more than someone is going to make 'half a rope'. Your example is someone specifically going, 'Look, a rope! And it's old and may not be suited for what I am going to foolishly choose to do with it! I am going to climb a mountain with it!" That's a person taking an old rope, and using it for a purpose that it may or may not be suited for, and then complaining when it does exactly what everyone expects it to do.

That is exactly like a player getting a ring of invisibility. knowing how it works, that it lasts 3 minutes, and then complaining when it lasts 3 minutes. "Who would seriously invent a ring that turns you invisible for 3 minutes? That's practically worthless for every situation that lasts 4 minutes or more... well... except it does let you stay invisible... but I have to say word sometime in that time period!"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was implying that the rope was rotted, or otherwise unfit for climbing (or use in general). No one would bother inventing a rope that could not serve its intended purpose.


Ravingdork wrote:
I was implying that the rope was rotted, or otherwise unfit for climbing (or use in general). No one would bother inventing a rope that could not serve its intended purpose.

Its pretty simple. You invent a rope. Then over time and use, it rots and becomes unsuited for its purpose.

Same thing with the hat. Originally, it lasted while worn, and over time and edition changes, it now has become unsuited for that purpose, because now it only lasts a few minutes per command word said.


I do very much now want to run a scene where all of the PCs are wearing hats of disguise in a social context, which have command words that are mundane words which they need to work into conversation about every 10 minutes in a way that does not draw undue attention.

I imagine that "I have to say 'pinwheel' every 10 minutes at this fancy party" could be a pretty hilarious thing to RP.


With how magic mart™ is treated in the game world, I'm surprised anyone important allows hats (or anything on the head/in the hair) to be worn at all during any social settings.

The Concordance

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ive been told on a few occasions that hat of disguise gives you a +10 bonus on disguise checks, but no where does it say that. In fact the core rule book states that all you need is a command word and it works. So my question being does it give you a +10 to disguise which requires a role to be added to the plus bonus or do you simply need a command word and it happens?


Half_druid wrote:
Ive been told on a few occasions that hat of disguise gives you a +10 bonus on disguise checks, but no where does it say that. In fact the core rule book states that all you need is a command word and it works. So my question being does it give you a +10 to disguise which requires a role to be added to the plus bonus or do you simply need a command word and it happens?

Based on the description of the spell it works like, it gives you +10 on the disguise roll. I would waive the time needed to make a normal disguise since the magic makes lots of (dispellable) changes for you. However, if a PC with the gumption wanted to make their normal disguise but with additional enhancement of the hat, I'd let them and then not have the disguise immediately and automatically blown by the magic failing.


Half_druid wrote:
Ive been told on a few occasions that hat of disguise gives you a +10 bonus on disguise checks, but no where does it say that. In fact the core rule book states that all you need is a command word and it works. So my question being does it give you a +10 to disguise which requires a role to be added to the plus bonus or do you simply need a command word and it happens?

The command word creates the disguise, every time. Determining whether the disguise is sufficient to fool the viewer requires a Disguise check, just like creating a disguise the old fashioned way, but the disguise self spells provides a +10 bonus to such checks, and the hat explicitly provides the effect of disguise self.

Edit: Note that using an ability like disguise self also reduces the time it takes to make a disguise from 1d3 x 10 minutes to whatever time it takes to invoke the ability, so you're good there--just activate the hat as a standard action and hope that your ability to imagine a disguise is good enough to fool onlookers.


Thread necromancy!

In the NPC Guide I've found the story of Tpannon, who is actualy not one person but a long line of people using one identity in succession for 200 years, using a hat of disguise passed from one wearer to the next. Such feat would be impossible if the hat of disguise would require constant reusing.

Though most likely the creator of the story just didn't care about the limitatons of the rules.

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Hat of Disguise Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.