| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just ran a session in which one of my NPCs - a 6th level rogue on her way to becoming an assassin - opened a wax seal on a letter, then used a heated needle to re-seal it, in order to make it look unbroken. I searched and searched, and I could not find an appropriate skill to use for it.
What skill would you use for re-sealing a wax seal on a letter? I know the opposed skill would be "Perception," but I'm confused as to which skill would set the target DC.
Linguistics does forgery. That is what I would use.
|
Good question. Possibly Disable Device. Craft (Alchemy) (with a very low DC, since this is a very simple chemistry trick and a far cry from turning lead into gold) is another candidate, as is Craft (Waxworking) (remember, all Craft skills can be used untrained).
Linguistics does forgery. That is what I would use.
Yeah, this is what I dislike about the Linguistics skill. It combines skills that are just too irrelevant to one another. If I had my way, that skill would be divided into Linguistics (knowledge of languages) and Cryptography (which would be more stuff like this.)
Perhaps Sleight of Hand or Disable Device.
My wife and I actually debated between these, as well as Linguistics (which I threw out early-on, due to I'm Hiding In Your Closet's point about how Linguistics is actually intended for things like forgeries).
Actually, I wouldn't automatically assume the DC is going to be low.
Sure, it's easy to melt wax, but that's not the issue. The concern is whether or not the letter can be re-sealed in such a fashion as to leave the wax seal undisturbed. The seal needs to look like it was unbroken. Anything that deforms the shape of the original seal would indicate to the intended recipient that the seal had been breached (that being the entire point behind wax seals).
Whatever skill you decide to use, I would think it needs to be opposed by a Perception check for anyone inspecting the letter later on to determine whether or not the tampered seal were identified as such.
Absolutely the reason I had trouble picking a Skill. Now you see the difficulty.
And, yes, I'd already worked out that the opposed check should be Perception. I could do a completely crap job re-sealing the letter, but if you don't notice, I might as well have done it perfectly.
For one thing, you can't melt all the wax off the letter very easily. You can't run the risk of scraping it, either. Either case distresses (and possibly ruins) the letter's contents. Steam can work, but then it makes it almost impossible to re-seal (and, again, distressing the letter).
Thus, my quandary.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Linguistics does forgery. That is what I would use.
I think that's referring to actual text-based forgery (matching the handwriting, using the appropriate wording/lingo for the type of document, etc), rather than just any time you fake something. If you made a counterfeit antique table, that could be called a "forgery", but certainly wouldn't use Linguistics.
Since you're trying to interact with a small mechanism in a tricky and precise way, my vote is for Disable Device.
I believe we've just discovered a new use for the Disable Device skill. Someone contact the publishers!
|
My bet is on Disable Device. It's all about bypassing security measures without being noticed.
Linguistics is forgery, yes, but you aren't creating a new seal, you're just trying not to muck up the existing one. IMO there's no linguistics involved in that.
Sleight of Hand is for stealing things or minor "where did the quarter go?" magic tricks. It's no more suitable to this IMO than it is for first aid.
I think linguistics would be appropriate if you were trying to forge the actual seal, but not quite so appropriate in this case.
I don't think so. In this case, I'd say a Craft check is more appropriate, because you're having to make two things, actually - a wax blot that looks like the one you tore off, and a sealer that will leave the correct raised seal when pressed into place - neither of which involves being able to decipher a language or handwriting of any kind.
|
If the goal of the action in the OP is to deceive observers into thinking the seal was never broken, it's pretty clearly a forgery attempt. As seals are essentially the anti-shenanigans security methods of the faux-medieval setting, the Linguistics skill should naturally cover it. Just as, should there be a Pathfinder Modern game (akin to d20 Modern), the Linguistics skill should be used for forging a passport because forging a passport without faking the relevant anti-forgery features is pointless.
Now, if the seal in question is also being forged (you broke the seal? do you have the original stamp? uh oh..), I can see a Knowledge/Nobility test being called for in addition to the Linguistics.
|
|
I think the issue with using Linguistics in this case is that you AREN'T forging anything! You're not making a seal, you're just bypassing it without being noticed. You don't even care what the seal looks like except that it looks untouched. Saying this requires Linguistics would be like saying that bypassing a Symbol of Death requires Linguistics because it has words on it. The rogue doesn't care about the words, he cares about not dying while also not letting on that he was there, and all of that is Disable Device.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the player describes - even if in only a detail or two - how the thing is done and that the GM then asks for a skill, rather than the player saying "I use X skill" and roll a d20.
I would instictually go for Linguistics/forgery, but argments could be made of Slight of Hand or Disable Device. The player would have to do a good job describing in order to justify it. Part of it would have to be planning on replacing it before you even start to remove it.
|
|
I think the issue with using Linguistics in this case is that you AREN'T forging anything! You're not making a seal, you're just bypassing it without being noticed. You don't even care what the seal looks like except that it looks untouched.And what skill would be most appropriate for ensuring the seal looks untouched? That's kind of the OP's entire question.
Sorry that I didn't repeat it in that post: Disable Device. It's all about bypassing security measures without being noticed.
|
|
Sorry that I didn't repeat it in that post: Disable Device. It's all about bypassing security measures without being noticed.I think the issue with using Linguistics in this case is that you AREN'T forging anything! You're not making a seal, you're just bypassing it without being noticed. You don't even care what the seal looks like except that it looks untouched.And what skill would be most appropriate for ensuring the seal looks untouched? That's kind of the OP's entire question.But Disable Device specifically mentions "You are skilled at disarming traps and opening locks. In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors."
Notice, there is nothing there about "security measures," with or without notice.
Are traps and locks not security measures now? Also, I would argue that the primary usage of the "bypass" option for traps is to not to be noticed after-the-fact.
Though I will admit that I thought there was a bit about leaving behind marks if you fail an Open Lock check...
Linguistics is not at all appropriate.
The forgeries covered under linguisitics is about forging written documents. You can fake someone signature, their writing style, you require materials of the same kid the document is written on or that are appropriate to that kind of document (an example being if the king has personal stationary that he always uses you need some of that if you want to forge a personal correspondance from him, or create it which would be craft(paper)).
Probably the most appropriate skills would be disable device. Your goal is to lift the wax without breaking it, perhaps by sliding your very sharp knife between the wax and paper and with a keen hand leaving no blemish. Then simple heating can be applied to warm the wax and harden it so it adheres again. Craft(wax) would also probably be appropriate, though it exceedingly unlikely someone would have such an ability.
I can see using Disable Device to do the initial opening of the seal without damaging it as it requires subtlety and finesse. And as it was what I'd use to open the seal, I'd probably use this to re-seal it.
Linguistics would only be if I am attempting to write (forge) a new letter and/or fabricate a seal. (Though even here, the crafting a reproduction of a seal is more a Disable Device kind of thing to me.)
Bluff? Only as it is a deception-based skill.
Didn't 3.5 have Deception as a skill?
|
|
Linguistics is not at all appropriate.
The forgeries covered under linguisitics is about forging written documents. You can fake someone signature, their writing style, you require materials of the same kid the document is written on or that are appropriate to that kind of document (an example being if the king has personal stationary that he always uses you need some of that if you want to forge a personal correspondance from him, or create it which would be craft(paper)).
Forging a seal of authenticity is a pretty big part of forging documents. I think it's safe to say there's already that assumption that Linguistics involves a specialty in seals (wax or otherwise).
Probably the most appropriate skills would be disable device. Your goal is to lift the wax without breaking it, perhaps by sliding your very sharp knife between the wax and paper and with a keen hand leaving no blemish. Then simple heating can be applied to warm the wax and harden it so it adheres again. Craft(wax) would also probably be appropriate, though it exceedingly unlikely someone would have such an ability.
There's not much wrong with the sentiment; disable device is largely understood to represent tasks requiring intense hand-eye coordination. However, what there is in that sentiment that is wrong is that it's devaluing Linguistics. It's akin to saying one could use disable device to un-harness a horse from a carriage or de-rig a sail on a ship. You could, but SHOULD you devalue Handle Animal or Profession/Sailor in that way?
My vote is for Craft (waxworking).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How I'd run it:
Disable device to carefully open the seal and re-seal it in the manner described in the OP.
Linguistics to forge a new seal if the first check fails hideously and you break the seal.
Linguistics is not at all appropriate.
The forgeries covered under linguisitics is about forging written documents. You can fake someone signature, their writing style, you require materials of the same kid the document is written on or that are appropriate to that kind of document (an example being if the king has personal stationary that he always uses you need some of that if you want to forge a personal correspondance from him, or create it which would be craft(paper)).
Forging a seal of authenticity is a pretty big part of forging documents. I think it's safe to say there's already that assumption that Linguistics involves a specialty in seals (wax or otherwise).
Probably the most appropriate skills would be disable device. Your goal is to lift the wax without breaking it, perhaps by sliding your very sharp knife between the wax and paper and with a keen hand leaving no blemish. Then simple heating can be applied to warm the wax and harden it so it adheres again. Craft(wax) would also probably be appropriate, though it exceedingly unlikely someone would have such an ability.There's not much wrong with the sentiment; disable device is largely understood to represent tasks requiring intense hand-eye coordination. However, what there is in that sentiment that is wrong is that it's devaluing Linguistics. It's akin to saying one could use disable device to un-harness a horse from a carriage or de-rig a sail on a ship. You could, but SHOULD you devalue Handle Animal or Profession/Sailor in that way?
Despite what you are saying, the linguistics skill descriptions provides nothing in the way of stating that it has anything to do with the ability to forge wax seals.
To me this is very clearly a sperate skill. A skill someone who was good at creating forgery would have, but distinct and separate from the ability to write letters in a way that would fool people into believing it came from the real source. In fact, wax seals were implemented specifically to prevent those types of forgeries. Because documents without them were presumed to be non-official.
I think you're confusing good at forgeries in the general sense, with the specific use of creating forgeries as described by linguisitics which is limited.
|
|
Despite what you are saying, the linguistics skill descriptions provides nothing in the way of stating that it has anything to do with the ability to forge wax seals.
A fair critique deserves a fair answer. Let's look at what it does say exactly:
Create or Detect Forgeries: Forgery requires writing materials appropriate to the document being forged. To forge a document on which the handwriting is not specific to a person, you need only to have seen a similar document before, and you gain a +8 bonus on your check. To forge a signature, you need an autograph of that person to copy, and you gain a +4 bonus on the check. To forge a longer document written in the hand of some particular person, a large sample of that person's handwriting is needed.The Linguistics check is made secretly, so that you're not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don't make a check until someone examines the work. Your Linguistics check is opposed by the Linguistics check of the person who examines the document to verify its authenticity. The examiner gains modifiers if any of the conditions are listed on the table above.
Yes, you're technically correct in that it never mentions wax seals. But let's look at the context: are wax seals a reasonable assumption to be included on documents? I'd argue that yes they are. I'd also argue that reasonable people would agree. But that doesn't settle things; the wax seal forgery could be another skill, yes?
I say no, because of the second paragraph. It heavily implies that there is only one skill roll involved. It also makes no sense (mechanical or logical) that a wax seal forgery would be resolved by a separate roll when the forgery itself is resolved in a delayed manner as described.
Edit: Hankos being a thing also convolutes the forgery aspect if you want to separate seals/stamps from a Linguistics check. Signatures don't have to always be handwritten, depending on the cultural context.
You make an increible point duexhero. Why bother with the seal, when you can magic the letter back together.
It might make the letter a little harder to read depending on what format it was written in and how it was sealed, but nothing that should pose a real problem. At worst you transcribe the content and rearrange it.
Yes, you're technically correct in that it never mentions wax seals. But let's look at the context: are wax seals a reasonable assumption to be included on documents? I'd argue that yes they are. I'd also argue that reasonable people would agree. But that doesn't settle things; the wax seal forgery could be another skill, yes?
I say no, because of the second paragraph. It heavily implies that there is only one skill roll involved. It also makes no sense (mechanical or logical) that a wax seal forgery would be resolved by a separate roll when the forgery itself is resolved in a delayed manner as described.
I mean, these days magnetic strips embedded into money are a form of security tag. Are you saying that just because it's a security means, that the ability to print a very good facsimile also means you have the means to recreate the security strip?
If you want to make a successful forgery you should have that ability, but just because you can print well doesn't mean you can make a complete forgery.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, these days metal strips embedded into money are a form of security tag. Are you saying that just because it's a security means, that the ability to print a very good facsimile also means you have the means to recreate the metal security strip?
If you want to make a successful forgery you should have that ability, but just because you can print well doesn't mean you can make a complete forgery.
Yes, as I mentioned upthread, to use modern parallels the Linguistics skill (if used in a hypothetical Pathfinder Modern campaign) WOULD include mimicking anti-forgery technologies as appropriate to the setting. If your Linguistics check is successful, the forgery is successful. But in order to be successful, it logically MUST mimick those anti-forgery tricks (seals in faux-mideval times, what-have-you in modern times)
I disagree completely, it just doesn't include any of those abilities.
It is about writing and reading.
You are skilled at working with language, in both its spoken and written forms. You can speak multiple languages, and can decipher nearly any tongue given enough time. Your skill in writing allows you to create and detect forgeries as well.
|
|
it mentions being able to copy/spoof the "signature" under the skill's use as making forgeries.
The problem is that there are lots of other ways to authenticate a document beyond signature.
We differ in opinion as to whether all those other things (including seals) are loosely grouped under the catchall of "signature".
I think signature means very plainly someone's John Hancock.
Nothing more.
If you wanted to create a seal from scratch you would need (IMO) the following:
1) Knowledge Nobility or Local (assuming you did not have a copy of the seal) you need these to know what the seal looks like.
2) Craft wood/stone/metal to make a signet ring/stamp/etc
To make a complete forgery you would want knowledge nobility/local, the appropriate craft for what you wanted to use to create the seal, and linguistics to create a written document that would pass for being the real deal.
Linguistics doesn't explicitly cover seals, but it's a reasonable approximation as it covers documents/writing/images which you would certainly need to mimic the image of the seal at least. It's certainly at least as appropriate as pretty much anything else. Even craft(wax) is only a 'ballpark' because your actually likely to be forging the implement that imprints the wax. (I am not a forger, so maybe I'm talking rot)
So craft(jeweller) or (smith) might be closer than (wax)...maybe.
Reality is, it isn't explicitly covered anywhere so any reasonable skill might work.
Of course you could always ask a co-conspirator wizard to cast or UMD a wand of 'mending'.
|
|
I'm afraid I agree with Claxon on this one. The ability for the Linguistics skill to deal with forgeries is a direct consequence of the skill's focus on the written and spoken word and extends no further. If you play in a setting where there are lot more kinds of security measures then I would recommend house-ruling the skill or adding a new skill, but as it is the Linguistics skill isn't "all forms of forgery ever". At the moment I would say an appropriate Craft skill is probably what would perform the non-language forgeries.
Either way, the OP's question isn't a forgery at all, so this doesn't matter much. If they screw up their attempt and break the seal *then* they need to move onto to forgery.
There is far, far, far more to language than alphabets and handwriting styles.I disagree completely, it just doesn't include any of those abilities.
It is about writing and reading.
You are skilled at working with language, in both its spoken and written forms. You can speak multiple languages, and can decipher nearly any tongue given enough time. Your skill in writing allows you to create and detect forgeries as well.
But none of it is about wax seals
|
|
But none of it is about wax sealsThere is far, far, far more to language than alphabets and handwriting styles.I disagree completely, it just doesn't include any of those abilities.
It is about writing and reading.
You are skilled at working with language, in both its spoken and written forms. You can speak multiple languages, and can decipher nearly any tongue given enough time. Your skill in writing allows you to create and detect forgeries as well.
In some contemporary (east Asian) cultures, stamps (see my link upthread) are still legally recognized as signatures. Wooden block with an engraving, swabbed in ink, and stomped down on paper. That's a legally recognized signature.
It's not much of a stretch at all to presume that stamps in wax can serve as signatures, especially since they did so historically. The CRB doesn't provide rules to cover every circumstance; they cover what can't be reasonably inferred from experience of the real world. Dragons need rules about how they fly but there is no need for rules about how often characters need to use the privy.
So, a "signature" is not/was not restricted to a hand-scrawled series of letters in the real world (now and in the past), so there's no reason to presume that's the only thing that meets the definition of a "signature" in the CRB.
|
|
But none of it is about wax sealsThere is far, far, far more to language than alphabets and handwriting styles.I disagree completely, it just doesn't include any of those abilities.
It is about writing and reading.
You are skilled at working with language, in both its spoken and written forms. You can speak multiple languages, and can decipher nearly any tongue given enough time. Your skill in writing allows you to create and detect forgeries as well.In some contemporary (east Asian) cultures, stamps (see my link upthread) are still legally recognized as signatures. Wooden block with an engraving, swabbed in ink, and stomped down on paper. That's a legally recognized signature.
It's not much of a stretch at all to presume that stamps in wax can serve the same purpose, especially since they did so historically. The CRB doesn't provide rules to cover every circumstance; they cover what can't be reasonably inferred from experience of the real world. Dragons need rules about how they fly; people don't need rules about how often they need to use the privy.
So, a "signature" is not/was not restricted to a hand-scrawled series of letters in the real world (now and in the past), so there's no reason to presume that's the only thing that meets the definition of a "signature" in the CRB.
I seriously doubt they would thinking internationally when they wrote "signatures" into the description of linguistics.
Regardless, there is neither forgery nor linguistic work occurring in the OP's prompt, so this topic is more appropriate for a different thread.
In some contemporary (east Asian) cultures, stamps (see my link upthread) are still legally recognized as signatures. Wooden block with an engraving, swabbed in ink, and stomped down on paper. That's a legally recognized signature.
It's not much of a stretch at all to presume that stamps in wax can serve as signatures, especially since they did so historically. The CRB doesn't provide rules to cover every circumstance; they cover what can't be reasonably inferred from experience of the real world. Dragons need rules about how they fly but there is no need for rules about how often characters need to use the privy.
So, a "signature" is not/was not restricted to a hand-scrawled series of letters in the real world (now and in the past), so there's no reason to presume that's the only thing that meets the definition of a "signature" in the CRB.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think including "stamp" as valid signature includes our (ok, I'm making assumptions, but my at least) culture. I'm pretty sure there are contracts that I have seen signed with a stamp of a signature rather than a pen.
But none of it is about wax sealsThere is far, far, far more to language than alphabets and handwriting styles.I disagree completely, it just doesn't include any of those abilities.
It is about writing and reading.
You are skilled at working with language, in both its spoken and written forms. You can speak multiple languages, and can decipher nearly any tongue given enough time. Your skill in writing allows you to create and detect forgeries as well.In some contemporary (east Asian) cultures, stamps (see my link upthread) are still legally recognized as signatures. Wooden block with an engraving, swabbed in ink, and stomped down on paper. That's a legally recognized signature.
It's not much of a stretch at all to presume that stamps in wax can serve the same purpose, especially since they did so historically. The CRB doesn't provide rules to cover every circumstance; they cover what can't be reasonably inferred from experience of the real world. Dragons need rules about how they fly; people don't need rules about how often they need to use the privy.
So, a "signature" is not/was not restricted to a hand-scrawled series of letters in the real world (now and in the past), so there's no reason to presume that's the only thing that meets the definition of a "signature" in the CRB.
There's seals and seals which I think is the problem here.
A seal that is a signature (IE, the king's seal on this letter makes it authentic), vs a seal to keep the document closed and let the reader know that the document was received un-opened. Seal as a signature isn't really relevant here because the signature is authentic. You only need to worry about making it a forgery if you need to re-create or re-use the signature. I think we're looking at the later case here. To me, that's disable device. Ultimately, this is a physical security measure built onto the document... effectively a lock not so much to keep someone out, but to let people know if someone has been in. If the seal existed on a chest, to me it would be open and shut on disable being what we're after. The only difference is that this is on paper. What a device is guarding shouldn't alter what you use to bypass it.
What I'd probably rule is that you can use either Disable Device or Linguistics, but how you go about doing it is different.
Disable device is bypassing the seal and re-sealing it and is the 'quick' option (with checks taking rounds and no special equipment beyond a sharp knife and heat). Botch that (fail by 5 or more) and you damage the letter itself so it's plainly obvious that it's been tampered with in some way (which may lead into option 2 below). Perception vs disable device if they are interested in checking if it's been tampered with. Complexity of the check goes up depending on the complexity of the seal (just like a lock). More inticate seals are going to be harder to deal with without damaging some of the fine detail on it.
Linguistics though would be to create a forged seal (or re-forge the whole document), but would take potentially hours of work (depending on the complexity of the seal and if you need to make the whole document again) to make that forgery. A casual look at the document for interference would not pick up the forgery, but a 'proper' examination of the document for authenticity and tampering may (linguistics vs linguistics).
|
|
You don't use a skill. If you're trying to hide the fact that the letter was opened. You need the ring that was used to seal it, or a good copy of it.I just ran a session in which one of my NPCs - a 6th level rogue on her way to becoming an assassin - opened a wax seal on a letter, then used a heated needle to re-seal it, in order to make it look unbroken. I searched and searched, and I could not find an appropriate skill to use for it.
What skill would you use for re-sealing a wax seal on a letter? I know the opposed skill would be "Perception," but I'm confused as to which skill would set the target DC.
If the answer you give a player as a GM amounts to saying "No", you should think long and hard about whether that's the right answer.
In other words, I disagree.
Make it a hard check, make it have horrible consequences if they are caught, or maybe even make success be ephemeral such that they eventually get caught anyway, but don't just say "no."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how Disable Device could be used in this case. The player isn't disabling anything or modifying anything in a way to cause a cease of function. Even if it were semi-relevant, using two skills for this one task seems unnecessarily layered. I really doubt it was RAI to use two separate skills here, and just because Linguistics, the skill for making forgeries, doesn't specify literally every single possible step to making forgeries doesn't mean the skill isn't implied to.
I would say Linguistics almost definitely because making a forgery could easily extend beyond just writing. In fact, here is the entry of an item called "Forger's Kit":
Price 200 gp; Weight 6 lbs.
These inks, pens, papers, templates for certificates, and tools for modifying or copying official seals facilitates the creation of counterfeit documents. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on Linguistic checks made for the purpose of making forgeries.
While it doesn't specify wax seals, they are still 'seals' that fall under the definition of forgery, e.g. imitating legitimate documents to fool someone.
If your GM or someone else doesn't accept this, then I would personally say that it would likely fall under the Craft skill because you're creating something; a replicated seal. Craft(something to do with wax or Art/Sculpting).
|
|
Sorry that I didn't repeat it in that post: Disable Device. It's all about bypassing security measures without being noticed.I think the issue with using Linguistics in this case is that you AREN'T forging anything! You're not making a seal, you're just bypassing it without being noticed. You don't even care what the seal looks like except that it looks untouched.And what skill would be most appropriate for ensuring the seal looks untouched? That's kind of the OP's entire question.But Disable Device specifically mentions "You are skilled at disarming traps and opening locks. In addition, this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults, wagon wheels, and doors."
Notice, there is nothing there about "security measures," with or without notice.
Are traps and locks not security measures now? Also, I would argue that the primary usage of the "bypass" option for traps is to not to be noticed after-the-fact.
Though I will admit that I thought there was a bit about leaving behind marks if you fail an Open Lock check...
And a wax seal is a form of lock.
Historically it was done with a heated stiletto and a steady hand, from what I know, so disable device seem a good solution.Or a scroll of mending and UMD.
|
|
I don't see how Disable Device could be used in this case. The player isn't disabling anything or modifying anything in a way to cause a cease of function. Even if it were semi-relevant, using two skills for this one task seems unnecessarily layered. I really doubt it was RAI to use two separate skills here, and just because Linguistics, the skill for making forgeries, doesn't specify literally every single possible step to making forgeries doesn't mean the skill isn't implied to.
I would say Linguistics almost definitely because making a forgery could easily extend beyond just writing. In fact, here is the entry of an item called "Forger's Kit":
Price 200 gp; Weight 6 lbs.
These inks, pens, papers, templates for certificates, and tools for modifying or copying official seals facilitates the creation of counterfeit documents. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on Linguistic checks made for the purpose of making forgeries.
While it doesn't specify wax seals, they are still 'seals' that fall under the definition of forgery, e.g. imitating legitimate documents to fool someone.
If your GM or someone else doesn't accept this, then I would personally say that it would likely fall under the Craft skill because you're creating something; a replicated seal. Craft(something to do with wax or Art/Sculpting).
Winner, winner: Chicken Dinner!
Obviously I'd agree with everything said above (and I wish I thought to quote that resource as well).
Not only is defeating anti-forgery measures a natural and core concept of forgery, I'll repeat my opinion again that the RAI on "signatures" is far, far beyond scribbling one's name in alphabetic form.
I'd see a combined Lingiustics+something else test necessary for making forgeries of identifiable objects rather than documents. Say, making a fake of the crown jewels that you plan to leave in their place after you steal the bona fides. Or perhaps more plausibly, making counterfeit coins.
|
|
Or a scroll of mending and UMD.
Magical means of bypassing wax seals isn't really relevant to how the rules for skills work, but it IS such an interesting tangential topic I've stayed out of... until now.
Thing to remember #1: Mending/Make Whole doesn't necessarily reconstruct the broken item in such a way that it isn't obvious it was ever broken before. Mending/Make Whole could easily be ruled to not restore a wax seal in an apparently never-broken state unless a Linguistics check was also passed by the caster :)
Thing to remember #2: For every measure, there is at least one countermeasure. If magic is common enough in the setting that any old plebe has plausible access to make whole/mending, then anyone important will have magical security on retainer.
"Mirror, Mirror, made of glass so frail:
Has anyone been going through my mail?"
Auguries allow you to play games of 20 questions with outer powers to figure out to who's house you need to dispatch your minions for some midnight "attitude corrections".