Disguise yourself as another class?


Rules Questions


Hello all!

I've been wondering how it would work to disguise yourself as another class, what kind of penalties would be appropriate. As we all know, fighters wear armor and carry big weapons, rogues are all stealthy, monks wear martial arts outfits, wizards and sorcerer wear robes...

What if the Wizard disguised himself as a monk (a class with high Saving throws progression) to discourage enemies from targeting him with fortitude save based spells, while the monk in the group (high Fort save progression) disguises himself as a wizard to divert the fort based saving throws off the wizard's back and onto himself (and his high fortitude save)?

Of course, illusions would help, but what other things would be involved other than what is covered by the disguise skill (posture, vocabulary, and so on)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it's meta. You can't do that.

Classes don't really have specific looks.

However, you can put yourself in armor if you're an arcane caster to attempt to convince them you're not. Using bluff can help with that.

But disguise as a skill doesn't let you look like another class because classes don't have looks.

But I challenge your assumptions because not every fighter wears big heavy armor or carries big weapons. Look at Valeros. He wears a breastplate and wields a shortsword and longsword. Stealthy rogues...stealthy doesn't look like anything specific. Monks have no requirement to wear martial arts outfits, if by that you mean gi. Go take a look at the iconic monk Sajan. Without knowing he's a monk, he's just some dude who doesn't have a shirt on. And as for the wizards and robes thing...it is again not required nor beneficial.

About the only thing that definitely categorizes people to an extent is the use of armor, especially heavy armor. Arcane casters tend to be able to use armor, but there are even classes that violate that.

Overall, this probably just isn't going to work well. And definitely wouldn't work past the first time you cast a spell. Spell casting pretty much makes you a lightning rod, as it should because you are the most dangerous person in the battle.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:

No, it's meta. You can't do that.

Classes don't really have specific looks.

What!!! Dammit I had all these neck signs "I am a <Class>" ready! I'd have made a fortune!


A monk dressed in robes that goes around punching things is not going to be mistaken for a wizard. A wizard wearing eastern-style monastic stylings that hurls Fireballs is not going to be mistaken as a monk.


Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.

Next you'll be telling me our characters don't all have health bars over their heads.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ellindsey wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.
Next you'll be telling me our characters don't all have health bars over their heads.

There's the Deadpool Archetype that can use those health bars as weapons.


What? You do know that a class isn't a part of a character's identity, right? A fighter, a barbarian, a cavalier, a swashbuckler, a ranger (and so on) could technically be the same character, the characters themselves are not aware of the class that was used to build their stats. In fact, they don't even know that they have stats.

Disguising yourself as a monk to fool anybody into thinking that you have a high Fort save is pure meta-gaming (acting on knowledge a character can't have), on more than one level. First that the disguised character even thinks about fooling aybody in such a way is meta-gaming. And also the fooled person thinking that a monk means a higher Fort save than a wizard, is also meta-gaming.

On the other hand, a character built with the wizard class will most often be a wizard, flavour wise, and not a some other kind of magic user. If the wizard wants to dress like a knight and wear armour, the normal improficiency penalties applies (though note: there is none to disguise checks).
Or maybe the lawful evil cleric doesn't want to blow his cover and just wear regular clothes instead of his cloak embroidered with satanic symbols.
But this has nothing to do with classes. Barely the disguise skill comes into play here, as you don't disguise yourself when dressing in odd clothes.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, a monk wielding a ornate staff, possibly with magical glyphs (arcane mark help there) and flowing robes can be mistaken for a wizard at first glance.

A wizard in an adventurer outfit, without a spell component pouch (a sorcerer is better as he get eschew materials for free), carrying a monk weapon can be mistaken for a monk.

I partially disagree with Claxon. While there is no mandatory look for classes, I am sure there are plenty of traveling comedians that give shows where there are the stereotypical wizard, knight, cleric and so on, so people has a idea of how they look.

To make a modern example, during a public symposium where a a political figures is speaking, the two guys dressed in suits that sit at the back of the room and that are 20 years younger and have 20 kilos of muscle more than the average participant scream security service.
Or the two guys in withe shirts and black dress walking to the supermarket say Mormons.

Even if officially the don't have a specific dress code there are things that pigeonhole people in a group on the basis of their apprentice. And people expert in disguising themselves can benefit from that.


I had a caster in a campaign for another game system that always carried around an absurdly large sword (think Sephiroth's sword in length) specifically to mess with opponent's minds....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elodie Hiras wrote:

Hello all!

As we all know, fighters wear armor and carry big weapons

As do *Takes a deep breath* Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Cavaliers, Samurai, Anti-Paladins, Bloodragers, Slayers, Warpriests, most Inquisitors, and quite a few Clerics, Oracles, Alchemists, and Magi, not to mention those of the other classes that are multiclassed with the above or spent a Feat on armor or weapon proficiency, or had a racial ability that gave them the latter.

ellindsey wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.
Next you'll be telling me our characters don't all have health bars over their heads.

You do, it's just most classes can't see them. Gotta watch out for those Slayers though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

a character doesn't even in-world need to call themselves a <class>, they're what they are, a human who trained for swordsmanship in a Sword College, not a fighter.


Rub-Eta wrote:

What? You do know that a class isn't a part of a character's identity, right? A fighter, a barbarian, a cavalier, a swashbuckler, a ranger (and so on) could technically be the same character, the characters themselves are not aware of the class that was used to build their stats. In fact, they don't even know that they have stats.

Disguising yourself as a monk to fool anybody into thinking that you have a high Fort save is pure meta-gaming (acting on knowledge a character can't have), on more than one level. First that the disguised character even thinks about fooling aybody in such a way is meta-gaming. And also the fooled person thinking that a monk means a higher Fort save than a wizard, is also meta-gaming.

Well, it could work in Order Of The Stick. :P

But after a while people must have noticed magic users tend to not resist to poison/disintegrate/other such thing as well as martial artists, which is what a fort save represents (If fortitude saves had no concrete, measurable effects, you would have a point. But anyone with even a basic understanding of mathematics could repeatedly cast a fort dependent save on someone and make a probability chart about how often the spell passes on this specific person (assuming the target somehow participates in the experiment, whether willingly or unwillingly). And after a while, those same people would notice that on average, the guy who punches things to death resists poison better than the guy casting lightning bolt).

Sure, cover would be blown as soon as you cast your spell/move to punching range, but if you lose the initiative, the enemy wizard/sorcerer burns one disintegrate on the guy who resists it the best.


This would require classes being in the world.

You could totally disguise yourself as a member of an Order. An Order of Holy Knights, an Order of Druids, etc.

Unless someone is intimately familiar with the capabilities expected of one of that order and determines your lack of them your disguise should hold.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Elodie Hiras wrote:


I've been wondering how it would work to disguise yourself as another class, what kind of penalties would be appropriate. As we all know, fighters wear armor and carry big weapons, rogues are all stealthy, monks wear martial arts outfits, wizards and sorcerer wear robes...

What if the Wizard disguised himself as a monk (a class with high Saving throws progression) to discourage enemies from targeting him with fortitude save based spells, while the monk in the group (high Fort save progression) disguises himself as a wizard to divert the fort based saving throws off the wizard's back and onto himself (and his high fortitude save)?

Of course you can disguise yourself as a member of another class and, until you expose your own abilities (or shortcomings as a member of your projected class), the disguise may not be that hard. As others have pointed out, within each class, there can be a substantial amount of diversity and the means you use to disguise yourself may easily be useful in making yourself appear like a number of other classes.

You also should consider exactly how much you can infer from just looking at another character (or NPC) in the game. Disguising yourself as a monk to convince enemies that you're hardier than you are (as in better Fort saves) sounds pretty metagamey. Do others really understand that monks are good at saving throws? I'm not sure that's easy to infer from seeing someone dressed like David Carradine.


Consider the following: If you're dressed up in armor and wielding a large weapon, how does anyone know whether you're a Fighter PC or a Warrior NPC? Could a Fighter use disguise to pass himself off as a non-adventurer Warrior NPC in order to be taken more lightly? Could a Warrior NPC pass himself off as a Fighter PC to make himself seem more dangerous than he really is?


Sleight of Hand + Bluff + UMD + Wand of Fireball = look like a wizard?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Elodie Hiras wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

What? You do know that a class isn't a part of a character's identity, right? A fighter, a barbarian, a cavalier, a swashbuckler, a ranger (and so on) could technically be the same character, the characters themselves are not aware of the class that was used to build their stats. In fact, they don't even know that they have stats.

Disguising yourself as a monk to fool anybody into thinking that you have a high Fort save is pure meta-gaming (acting on knowledge a character can't have), on more than one level. First that the disguised character even thinks about fooling aybody in such a way is meta-gaming. And also the fooled person thinking that a monk means a higher Fort save than a wizard, is also meta-gaming.

Well, it could work in Order Of The Stick. :P

But after a while people must have noticed magic users tend to not resist to poison/disintegrate/other such thing as well as martial artists, which is what a fort save represents (If fortitude saves had no concrete, measurable effects, you would have a point. But anyone with even a basic understanding of mathematics could repeatedly cast a fort dependent save on someone and make a probability chart about how often the spell passes on this specific person (assuming the target somehow participates in the experiment, whether willingly or unwillingly). And after a while, those same people would notice that on average, the guy who punches things to death resists poison better than the guy casting lightning bolt).

Sure, cover would be blown as soon as you cast your spell/move to punching range, but if you lose the initiative, the enemy wizard/sorcerer burns one disintegrate on the guy who resists it the best.

maybe... if we didn't have multiclassing and NPC classes


I humbly suggest a Bluff check and yelling "DEFLECT ARROWS" every time a ranged attack misses you. 'Wax-on' hand motion optional.


Yeah, I've always figured that 'class' has no real application as far as the more visible social aspects of the world are concerned. This somewhat came up when an NPC berated most of my party as 'barbarians'. This group was a cleric of Irori, a bard, a sorceror, and a rogue. (The actual barbarian-classed person was in another room at the time.) And relying on guessing at someone's class isn't really all that great at sussing out saving throws anyway. Think about it -- what's stopping that barbarian I mentioned picking up Iron Will as a feat? Or having decent Wisdom? Or both?

Now, I'll grant some concepts that are shown as a class are easier to justify. Clerics come with (for the most part) churches, druids are pretty stylistic themselves, and if someone's tossing firebombs at you while transforming into a brute, he or she is probably not a bard.

And if you're concerned about looking like you have crappy saves? Dress like a commoner. Components:
Quarterstaff. 0gp, and you're proficient. Seriously, it'd only be -3 damage for my barbarian to whack you with one on average, difference between d6 and d12.
Peasant outfit. 1sp.
Miscellaneous props.
There, you're disguised.


At low levels I still like the half orc earth wizard dressing like a peasant. He wielded a flail (through weapon familiarity) and was accompanied by his pig familiar.

During easy fights he'd just walk up and beat stuff with his flail (Earth Supremacy and some strength helped) and only during harder fights he used his acid cloud (su) school power and only rarely did he really cast spells.
Not easy to identify him as a wizard.


Just a Guess wrote:
He wielded a flail (through weapon familiarity)

Weapon Familiarity: Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions and treat any weapon with the word “orc” in its name as a martial weapon.

Did you mean Chain Fighter?

Chain Fighter: Some half-orcs have escaped from slavery and reforged the chains of their imprisonment into deadly weapons. Half-orcs with this racial trait are proficient with flails and heavy flails, and treat dire flails and spiked chains as martial weapons. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.

On topic: My wizards never dress like wizards, but more like rogues/commoners/hired henchmen. It only works for surprise rounds and if I lose initiative, but those are precisely the times you want to not be the immediate target of everyone!

In a similar, but real-life, vein, I used to play Rugby for a team where the forwards would take it in turns to wear the number 10 shirt...(for those unaware of Rugby, the Fly Half (akin to the quarterback) normally wears 10). It is also one of the reasons why armies stopped having officers in combat zones be easily identifiable by snipers.


There's false armor in ultimate equipment for this exact purpose, I think.


Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.

I wouldn't entirely say that. Wizards need training- formal training often done in magic schools. That eventually builds up a culture of wizards with...their ivory towers (made of real ivory).

I would say there is a bit of ability to do the class fake out. But this is mostly a wizard pretending to be a commoner....BY NOT DRESSING LIKE FREAKIN' DUMBLEDORE. Merchants with some bodyguards are far, far more common than wizards.

Monks, on the other hand, is hard to pull off. Because they are a relatively rare tradition in most of the setting, and as such they would mostly be confused with a commoner. Or maybe a fighter on his day off (no armor for most monks) if he looks buff and maybe carries a temple sword.

Generally, as far as public recognition goes, it breaks down like this:
-melee classes (includes rogues and bards- they have at least some armor and weapons is the general characteristic here; maybe looks tough physically)
-Religious classes (maybe some armor, a holy symbol or two worn prominently)
-full arcane casters (no armor, spell pouches, maybe dressed as mystics/FREAKIN' DUMBLEDORE)
-Commoners (MIGHT carry a weapon for self defense...but generally don't look tough)

Anything more specific than that requires a lot of context clues, and maybe a knowledge (local) check. And you can certainly disguise yourself as another group (a slayer dressed like a cleric to get into a temple; wizard in that one fake stage armor item to look like; anyone dressed like a commoner without armor)

Heck, except for formally trained casters (again- enough of a culture there that they might self identify), I think most people might not even realize their own class. They might just think "I am a warrior with a bit of experience with the wood" (ranger) or "I know a thing or two about getting in stealthy" (rogue/slayer).


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
A monk dressed in robes that goes around punching things is not going to be mistaken for a wizard. A wizard wearing eastern-style monastic stylings that hurls Fireballs is not going to be mistaken as a monk.

by this logic you have to see them in the act. If these same two people are just standing around talking what are they? Two guys in robes. Maybe that's normal dress for the area


lemeres wrote:
I would say there is a bit of ability to do the class fake out. But this is mostly a wizard pretending to be a commoner....BY NOT DRESSING LIKE FREAKIN' DUMBLEDORE. Merchants with some bodyguards are far, far more common than wizards.

If I were GMing that scenario it probably wouldn't go the way you want.

In the mind of the enemy:

Thug 1: Look, a merchant and his guard!
Thug 2: Let's kill the merchant and take his stuff!
Thug 1: But what about the guards?
Thug 2: Offer to let them go once the merchants dead, no need for them to die. If that doesn't work, offer to split the money with them. Either way, their deaths can't bring back a dead merchant. Hahahahaha!


Claxon wrote:
lemeres wrote:
I would say there is a bit of ability to do the class fake out. But this is mostly a wizard pretending to be a commoner....BY NOT DRESSING LIKE FREAKIN' DUMBLEDORE. Merchants with some bodyguards are far, far more common than wizards.

If I were GMing that scenario it probably wouldn't go the way you want.

In the mind of the enemy:

Thug 1: Look, a merchant and his guard!
Thug 2: Let's kill the merchant and take his stuff!
Thug 1: But what about the guards?
Thug 2: Offer to let them go once the merchants dead, no need for them to die. If that doesn't work, offer to split the money with them. Either way, their deaths can't bring back a dead merchant. Hahahahaha!

That is a possibility...or they could think 'lets take care of the guys that will stab us in the kidneys first- forget about the merchant, he is useless'. At best, they might take a pot shot, or throw a net/tanglefoot bag to make sure he doesn't run.

But if you want to metagame your excuse to attack the wizard first, there is nothing that is going to stop you.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know a PFS GM who had a player with a min-maxed barbarian who tried to meta his way in combat against a mage.

Player: I sunder his spell component pouch.

GM: Nevermind the fact you don't know whether this guy is a wizard. How do you know what a spell component pouch is? You have an Intelligence of 5! Do you at least have a rank in Knowledge (arcana)?

Player: No, but everybody knows wizards carry spell component pouches. I sunder it!

GM: The guy is carrying like three pouches on his person. You'd have no idea which one is his spell component pouch, assuming he's carrying one at all. You do a ton of damage. You could just stab the guy...

Player: I sunder his spell component pouch! *Rolls it*

GM: Fine. *Rolls a 1d3.* You slice open one of his pouches and his lunch pops out.

Player: F*** you! *Grabs all of his stuff and leaves the table*


Gilarius wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
He wielded a flail (through weapon familiarity)

Weapon Familiarity: Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions and treat any weapon with the word “orc” in its name as a martial weapon.

Did you mean Chain Fighter?

Yes.

I typed it from memory without re-checking. I should have written: Weapon familiarity or one of its replacements.

@Topic: If you are a wizard and don't want to be recognised easily a cool piece of equipment is the armored coat. Sure, while weaping it you suffer from ASF and big penalties from ACP and non-proficiency. But donning or removing it is only a move action. It might keep you from casting during the surprise round but apart from that it's not that bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:

I know a PFS GM who had a player with a min-maxed barbarian who tried to meta his way in combat against a mage.

Player: I sunder his spell component pouch.

GM: Nevermind the fact you don't know whether this guy is a wizard. How do you know what a spell component pouch is? You have an Intelligence of 5! Do you at least have a rank in Knowledge (arcana)?

Player: No, but everybody knows wizards carry spell component pouches. I sunder it!

GM: The guy is carrying like three pouches on his person. You'd have no idea which one is his spell component pouch, assuming he's carrying one at all. You do a ton of damage. You could just stab the guy...

Player: I sunder his spell component pouch! *Rolls it*

GM: Fine. *Rolls a 1d3.* You slice open one of his pouches and his lunch pops out.

Player: F*** you! *Grabs all of his stuff and leaves the table*

GM: "MY CABBAGES!" screams the wizard.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.
I wouldn't entirely say that. Wizards need training- formal training often done in magic schools. That eventually builds up a culture of wizards with...their ivory towers (made of real ivory).

sure if you're playing an actual wizard... and not some other kind of spell caster in lore.


Bandw2 wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.
I wouldn't entirely say that. Wizards need training- formal training often done in magic schools. That eventually builds up a culture of wizards with...their ivory towers (made of real ivory).
sure if you're playing an actual wizard... and not some other kind of spell caster in lore.

Of course. Sorcerers, for example, are not raised in a closed culture of magical study- they get their powers and learn the basics themselves. They are not beholden to universities, guilds, or other such organizations.

If a sorcerer is dressed as a mystic, it is because they want to dress as a mystic- they want people to know they can blow heads off. Otherwise, they are dressed like any other normal person (unless they are female sorcerers, in which case they apparently dress in dental floss...)

And witches generally should be encouraged to dress as normally as possible outside of certain nations ruled by Baba Yaga's brood. Or perhaps to dress as wizards so they aren't put to the stake when they start slinging spells.


lemeres wrote:

That is a possibility...or they could think 'lets take care of the guys that will stab us in the kidneys first- forget about the merchant, he is useless'. At best, they might take a pot shot, or throw a net/tanglefoot bag to make sure he doesn't run.

But if you want to metagame your excuse to attack the wizard first, there is nothing that is going to stop you.

It's not necessarily meta, but it could be.

My suggestion could be legitimately how that particular NPC thinks. Honestly I as an individual would rather kill the weakling hoping to not have to engage the rest if his death means their surrender or leaving.

It could go either way.

In a world filled with dangerous magic, looking like you might cast spells is a big potential liability. From the enemies perspective it makes sense to target such potential enemies, and requires no special knowledge.

We can keep going back and forth on this all day, and there will never be an end. Players tend to always go for any potential spell casters, why wouldn't enemy NPCs. One it just as bad as the other.

I guess my ultimate point is you can't count on it to work either way.


Claxon wrote:
lemeres wrote:

That is a possibility...or they could think 'lets take care of the guys that will stab us in the kidneys first- forget about the merchant, he is useless'. At best, they might take a pot shot, or throw a net/tanglefoot bag to make sure he doesn't run.

But if you want to metagame your excuse to attack the wizard first, there is nothing that is going to stop you.

It's not necessarily meta, but it could be.

My suggestion could be legitimately how that particular NPC thinks. Honestly I as an individual would rather kill the weakling hoping to not have to engage the rest if his death means their surrender or leaving.

It could go either way.

In a world filled with dangerous magic, looking like you might cast spells is a big potential liability. From the enemies perspective it makes sense to target such potential enemies, and requires no special knowledge.

We can keep going back and forth on this all day, and there will never be an end. Players tend to always go for any potential spell casters, why wouldn't enemy NPCs. One it just as bad as the other.

I guess my ultimate point is you can't count on it to work either way.

It is one of those problems that you make a decision based off what you want, and retroactively justify it. It doesn't even need to be a conscious thing.

That is why I kind of suggest making a small chart of reasonable motivations, and just roll for it.
1-5 attack the weakling first, bribe the guards
6-10 attack the guards first, leave the weaklings for later
11-15 attack the wizard first
16-20 just charge at closest enemy.

And then you remove or add choices based off of things like disguise checks, or them seeing through the disguise checks.

By keeping it a bit random, it keeps you honest. But all of this is for when the fight starts- you can make any reasonable decision once things start becoming clear.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
lemeres wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Classes are purely game mechanics, you can very rarely look at someone and ID their class. They don't come with personalities or mannerisms attached. All you know if you see a dude in a robe is 'hey, that dude's wearing a robe'.
I wouldn't entirely say that. Wizards need training- formal training often done in magic schools. That eventually builds up a culture of wizards with...their ivory towers (made of real ivory).
sure if you're playing an actual wizard... and not some other kind of spell caster in lore.
Of course. Sorcerers, for example, are not raised in a closed culture of magical study- they get their powers and learn the basics themselves. They are not beholden to universities, guilds, or other such organizations.

okay an actual example(since you misunderstood me). eldrtich truth (wizard), some guy who's seen too much and driven mad by it but it gave him knowledge of many things, he writes these things down in his book and can prepare and cast spells. but he definitely didn't go to a university.


lemeres wrote:
It is one of those problems that you make a decision based off what you want, and retroactively justify it. It doesn't even need to be a conscious thing.

It's possible but isn't necessarily the case.

Quote:

That is why I kind of suggest making a small chart of reasonable motivations, and just roll for it.

1-5 attack the weakling first, bribe the guards
6-10 attack the guards first, leave the weaklings for later
11-15 attack the wizard first
16-20 just charge at closest enemy.

And then you remove or add choices based off of things like disguise checks, or them seeing through the disguise checks.

By keeping it a bit random, it keeps you honest. But all of this is for when the fight starts- you can make any reasonable decision once things start becoming clear.

Your little chart isn't a bad idea, but I doubt I could see myself use it. I also don't just go right after the wizard all the time anyways, so it's not particularly important to me as a GM.

Scarab Sages

Well, there is Mock Armor to avoid being seen as a spellcaster:

Quote:
When an arcane caster needs a disguise, she might don a suit of mock armor. Made from leather or thin wood such as balsa or bamboo and painted to look like metal, a suit of mock armor passes as full plate under all but the closest scrutiny. A character inspecting someone in mock armor must succeed at a DC 20 Perception check to identify it as fake. Mock armor gives you no Armor Class bonus, doesn't affect your maximum Dexterity bonus, and has no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. It cannot be given magical armor abilities, whether enhancement bonuses or properties like fortification or ghost touch. When wearing mock armor, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks to conceal your identity or allegiance as a spellcaster (for example, in cities where arcane spellcasting is illegal). The Craft (carpentry) or Craft (leather) DC to create mock armor is 25.


My casters wear hats of disguise to make themselves appear to be larger, more muscular, and wearing full plate. If your enemy gets close enough to tell the difference it's already too late.

The opposite also works for fighters pretending to be casters. It helps to get the enemy to come to you.

In a populated city or something use mock armor.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

My casters wear hats of disguise to make themselves appear to be larger, more muscular, and wearing full plate. If your enemy gets close enough to tell the difference it's already too late.

The opposite also works for fighters pretending to be casters. It helps to get the enemy to come to you.

In a populated city or something use mock armor.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of mock armour. Then again, I ended up coming through gaming from the 'what the hell are you wearing all that armour for in town?' school, and was told that clanking around in full plate is just as much of an attention-getter in most towns.

I think using light armour, or no armour, and plain clothes would be a better 'class disguise'. Or glammered armour; disguise your steel as the latest fashions while you're at it!

Just mind where you keep the two-handed martial weapons. It's hard to pass off a greatsword as common traveling kit.


Qaianna wrote:
Just mind where you keep the two-handed martial weapons. It's hard to pass off a greatsword as common traveling kit.

It's... uh... a walking stick.


If you strap a bow and some arrows to your back, pretty much everyone will believe your a ranger, no questions asked. You can also glammer a sword to look like a wand. I once tricked my party using that tactic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's always the roleplaying element. I know a guy playing 5th Edition running around extolling the virtues of his god(s), healing folks, hurting undead, and everything else a Cleric is known for. His party was 100% convinced he was a divine caster. Only he and his DM knew that he was actually a Rogue lying through his teeth and using tricks and wands and such to make it appear he was a Cleric.

Surely you could do the same in Pathfinder.


K-kun the Insane wrote:

There's always the roleplaying element. I know a guy playing 5th Edition running around extolling the virtues of his god(s), healing folks, hurting undead, and everything else a Cleric is known for. His party was 100% convinced he was a divine caster. Only he and his DM knew that he was actually a Rogue lying through his teeth and using tricks and wands and such to make it appear he was a Cleric.

Surely you could do the same in Pathfinder.

'You should have figured that the god of trickery would approve of me lying about being a cleric!'

And yeah. I think if I didn't burn a few rounds of rage early on (and, you know, tell the other players about it and roll the character up in front of them to help the GM show how it works), they'd legit have no reason to tell whether I have a barbarian or a fighter. And as far as targeting a magic user, I've in-battle refered to a 'caster' or a 'mage' as a target or a threat. Generally noticed by seeing the character do something, and then being asked for a saving throw.

Bottom line, you can disguise yourself as a role (holy man, arcane magic user, melee combatant, royalty) but not a class (cleric, wizard, fighter, aristocrat).


K-kun the Insane wrote:

There's always the roleplaying element. I know a guy playing 5th Edition running around extolling the virtues of his god(s), healing folks, hurting undead, and everything else a Cleric is known for. His party was 100% convinced he was a divine caster. Only he and his DM knew that he was actually a Rogue lying through his teeth and using tricks and wands and such to make it appear he was a Cleric.

Surely you could do the same in Pathfinder.

Did he have a healing shiv?


Love elves

They can all use long-swords and bows.

With a longsword at my hip, bow on me back, my Druid can spend the first 4 level of the game, pretending he is a Ranger in Hide armor :)

At 1st level, you get one spell per day: Might as well be Endure Elements with the 24 hour duration, cast first thing after you excuse yourself to the res.. ah Bush. In the morning

If you have a bonus 1st level spell.... pick some berry off the bushes, and cast goodberry, while your at it. A meal or Heal as you need them, just make sure to pick them, before using the bush.

By level 3, the rest of the party usually caches on, that i am not a Ranger, but Ha, by that point, i have proven that i can fight, track, provide food, and have really good perception for spotting enemy. Which i can keep doing, till around level 6 and i get elemental form.


My halfling barbarian used to dress up in a wizard's robe over her armor and even carried a spell pouch. She provided quite the surprise for anyone who thought she was easy pickings in melee combat. She started with it because she dyed her skin blue and everyone mistook her for a gnome, and since even halfling barbarians know that gnomes are all magic users she just went with it, but it is perfectly viable to present to the world as a class you are not.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Disguise yourself as another class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.