I play a rogue and I thought I'd try to get my hands on a Hat of Disguise since I like to steal things and that would make some targets easier. However, the rules say everyone I interact with gets a will save. And seeing I got no caster level as a rogue and the speel level is only 1, the DC is 11 for a will save.
Does it completely negate my disguise if the save succeeds or only take the bonus of +10? If it negates completely, it doesn't seem worth getting since I'm always in the danger of being caught.
The rules say:
Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.
And the spell says:
A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion.
There's some GM discretion involved, but they don't get a saving throw unless they "interact with the glamer" -- which in this case probably means touching a part of you that is disguised and should therefore feel different than it does.
Until then, it's a flat +10 to a disguise check.
Useful or not, it's one of the most awesome items out there. Costume change at will - dress like a noble with all sorts of fancy knicknacks without sacrificing comfort. ;)
I would agree with AvalonXQ
Since it's only a visual illusion talking to the disguised person may be intracting with the person but not the glamer.
Shaking your hand and noticing it's 3 sizes smaller than what it looks like is definitely interacting with the glamer.
And if they make their save, they know its an illusion but still don't see the true form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well this all depends on what the GM considers to be 'interact.' Specifically, the spell says "interacts with the glamer" gets a Will save.
Here's how I look at it. Walking down the street no one gets a will save. You're not interacting with them. Useful if someone comes looking for that skinny pointy-eared elf with the blue hair that just robbed the corner liquor store.
Under the saving throws and illusions section it say that you don't get a saving throw to recognize it as illusory until they "study it carefully or interact with it some fashion.
To me that would mean they touch your face, pat your head, shake your hand, etc. Study carefully would be have a prolonged conversation or the like.
Yea, I thought "Interact" means just talking to me, making it near useless.
Have to ask GM how he interptets it. Makes ti sueful to be someone else during robbery so no one looks for me while I walk away with all the loot. Or if I'm seen I can get into crowd, change unnoticed and walk by.
If it's touch, I will get it. If it's just talking to someone, I wont bother.
In this case, I would say that interaction would definitely require more than simply looking at it, otherwise it would defeat the entire purpose of the disguise bonus. As long as you don't try to change the basic body shape, or create illusions of things that clearly are not what they appear to be when you go to touch them, I would say that that perception check to see through the disguise would cover any attempts to see through it. Making your hair grey instead of red, adding/hiding a scar, hiding the magical aura of your weapon, or similar largely surface changes, would not cause anyone to think that illusion magic might be in play in and of itself. In those cases, the illusion magic is part of the disguise and already covered by the opposed disguise and perception rolls, not a separate thing that would require it's own roll. At least, as a DM, that's how I would rule it. The game goes out of it's way to avoid situations where two rolls must be made for an action to succeed, and I see no reason to complicate the game any more than necessary. Just don't try to make the disguise outlandish to the point of unbelievability, based on the circumstances, and they won't have reason to try the will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Costume change at willYeah, the Disguise bonus is nice, but this is honestly the main reason I have players pick it up. It's a full wardrobe in a hat!
They might want to look into the "Sleeves of Many Garments" from UE. A lot cheaper than a Hat of Disguise if you only care about your clothes changing.
|
if it were me, i would let conversation happen from behind the Disguise roll, against a passive (take 10) Perception, with only a fail there causing the disbelief (Will save) to set in. this assumes two otherwise strangers.
of course, if you hadn't taken precautions to alter your voice and back that up with Perform (Acting) to impersonate somebody whom the person you are conversing with knows, suddenly this becomes much harder to pull off. in which case i would offer the Will save first and the Disguise check second.
of course, if you hadn't taken precautions to alter your voice and back that up with Perform (Acting) to impersonate somebody whom the person you are conversing with knows, suddenly this becomes much harder to pull off. in which case i would offer the Will save first and the Disguise check second.
That is where my statement of making a disguise outlandish to the point of unbelievability, with that point shaped by the individual circumstances, comes in. At some point, all disguises will fail, even the most masterful ones. It's important to understand what you are trying to do with the disguise, shape the details of the disguise around that, and come up with at least a rough plan of what you are going to do if/when something comes up and changes your original plan. If you aren't willing to do that, no amount of illusion magic is going to save the disguise.
"interact with the glamer" depends largely on the disguise. Touching it is obvious, but other interactions are possible.
For example, if you disguise like a Royal Outfit, but you are a beggar who live in the sewers, someone with scent might find there's something weird.
If you use the disguise to look naked, but you are wearing a full plate, then someone might hear your plate noise when you run.
Using it to disguise someting as close as you can to yourself is a good idea. Not only it limit the possible situations where a Will Save is allowed, but you can get a free +5 to disguise checks from "only minor details". For example, if you wear full plate, trying to look like a heavy armored soldier is easier than trying to look as a light armored archer.
Also, somthing to take in account; some GM (like me) use the hat of disguise as "use activated". So as long as you have it, you are disguised. Some others use it as "command" item. In those cases, the disguise last only for 10 minutes.
My rogue always wears a mundane disguise under the magic one. If the will save is made you still have the mundane disguise to cover you.
I generally used a hat of disguise in situations where it was socially convenient but not a matter of life and death to conceal somebody's appearance -- in this case, a summoner's eidolon. An aasimar wearing concealing clothing is a lot less likely to draw unwelcome attention than a snake tailed monstrosity. If somebody penetrates the disguise -- well, I never did deny that the eidolon was an eidolon, I just wanted to maker it more socially presentable.
By the way -- for those who interpret the disguise as lasting for only 10 minutes, is there any reason that you cannot re-activate the disguise while it is in effect? Then the only cause for suspicion would be the strange gesture that the disguised person makes every few minutes for the purpose of literally keeping up appearances.
I generally used a hat of disguise in situations where it was socially convenient but not a matter of life and death to conceal somebody's appearance -- in this case, a summoner's eidolon. An aasimar wearing concealing clothing is a lot less likely to draw unwelcome attention than a snake tailed monstrosity. If somebody penetrates the disguise -- well, I never did deny that the eidolon was an eidolon, I just wanted to maker it more socially presentable.
By the way -- for those who interpret the disguise as lasting for only 10 minutes, is there any reason that you cannot re-activate the disguise while it is in effect? Then the only cause for suspicion would be the strange gesture that the disguised person makes every few minutes for the purpose of literally keeping up appearances.
Well, it can be painfully tedious to check every 9 minutes and 50'' to do the gesture. Plus, those in the "command" camp, see it as command item. Which means you need a command word. Being forced to say "klataveratanic...ejem" every 10m make most disguises to blow :P
That's one of the reasons I make it use-activated and let it disguise you as long as you don it.
I generally used a hat of disguise in situations where it was socially convenient but not a matter of life and death to conceal somebody's appearance -- in this case, a summoner's eidolon. An aasimar wearing concealing clothing is a lot less likely to draw unwelcome attention than a snake tailed monstrosity. If somebody penetrates the disguise -- well, I never did deny that the eidolon was an eidolon, I just wanted to maker it more socially presentable.
By the way -- for those who interpret the disguise as lasting for only 10 minutes, is there any reason that you cannot re-activate the disguise while it is in effect? Then the only cause for suspicion would be the strange gesture that the disguised person makes every few minutes for the purpose of literally keeping up appearances.
Unfortunately the hat of disguise wont cover the glowing rune on the head of the Summoner or the Eidolon.
Love Hat of Disguise. Loved the Mask of Lies even more from 3.5.
Unfortunately the hat of disguise wont cover the glowing rune on the head of the Summoner or the Eidolon.I generally used a hat of disguise in situations where it was socially convenient but not a matter of life and death to conceal somebody's appearance -- in this case, a summoner's eidolon. An aasimar wearing concealing clothing is a lot less likely to draw unwelcome attention than a snake tailed monstrosity. If somebody penetrates the disguise -- well, I never did deny that the eidolon was an eidolon, I just wanted to maker it more socially presentable.
By the way -- for those who interpret the disguise as lasting for only 10 minutes, is there any reason that you cannot re-activate the disguise while it is in effect? Then the only cause for suspicion would be the strange gesture that the disguised person makes every few minutes for the purpose of literally keeping up appearances.
A mundane covering over the forehead takes care of that part. Of course, covering the forehead could be suspicious in some circumstances.
I love the Hat of Disguise. The Sleeves are nice, but that hat really shines if you're playing an orc or some other race your GM has decided is prejudiced against. Not only can you pretend to be a human or halfling or whatever is the racial norm, but if someone becomes suspicious, you can become a different normal person in an instant. Someone following you? Round a corner and change into a beggar or a town guard.
Unfortunately the hat of disguise wont cover the glowing rune on the head of the Summoner or the Eidolon.
A hat of disguise is still a hat, or a head wrap, or a silver comb. It's mundane self can still cover the glowing rune.
|
Touching is not the only form of interaction. Anything that breaks with the appearance assumed is game. A husky voiced fat man taking on the illusionary appearance of a thin reedy girl would deinitely give onlookers a will save every time he opened his mouth.
Not by RAW - though he would take hefty penalties to his diguise/bluff checks.
But really - when it comes to disguise self - remember that you don't HAVE to change all of you appearance.
For example - if you don't change your height/clothes etc, and only change your face & hair. How often are people going to touch your face & hair?
For illusions in general, I rule in my games that interaction is anything that requires an in-game game action to do (excluding maybe free actions). Touching would qualify just as readily as someone spending a move action to "look again" more closely.
Despite this ruling, it has yet to ever come up.
as someone spending a move action to "look again" more closely.It's a standard action to study something closer. It's specifically spelled out in the illusion rules.
Is it? Could you quote it please? I seem to have forgotten about it.
I was thinking of (and referring to) the "failed a Perception check, so I try again as a move action" rule listed under the Perception skill.
|
|
Is it? Could you quote it please? I seem to have forgotten about it.as someone spending a move action to "look again" more closely.It's a standard action to study something closer. It's specifically spelled out in the illusion rules.
Actually - my bad. It was RAW back in 3.5, and I believe a designer (Sean K Reynolds? Can't find the exact quote right now - just someone quoting him.) has said it should be a standard action, but I don't think Pathfinder has anything official on what sort of action it should be.
You know, I did not know this, is this a change between D&D and Pathfinder? But, whereas my first thought was one of disappointment, my second is to challenge the glamer by doing interesting things, you might need to shake someone's hands? Wear real gloves of the appropriate type, A proper cloak, maybe a couple of rings, true artifacts used to sell the disguise that people can touch without interacting with the glamer, HAHAHAHAHAHA!