Can you take 10 on disguise?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The question was if you could take 10 on disguise. That question has been answered. Any further discussion should be in a private message or another thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

This has been discussed before.

Quote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Seeing what professional makeup artists can do to make humans look like Klingons, Cardassians, Twileks, Minbari, Narn, and Hellboy, and the use of prosthetic appliances like those used in Mrs. Doubtfire, I'm quite comfortable with allowing someone to spend hours on a disguise and take 20 on the Disguise check.
The problem with Sean's reasoning is that those artists aren't Taking 20 in those situations.

Considering the amount of time they are putting into it to perfect their look, just what exactly do you think they are doing?

Furthermore, there is no reason why perception can't be used to tell how well someone has disguised themselves. Just like another makeup artist can come over and detect flaws in the makeup you applied to that Klingon, someone should be able to come up to you and tell you that the nose just isn't quite right.

In any case, it's always interesting to see people tell the developers that they don't understand their own game.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
The question was if you could take 10 on disguise. That question has been answered. Any further discussion should be in a private message or another thread.

It has? We have 100% consensus? I must have missed that.

The supposed hindrance for take 10 is the same as the supposed hindrance for take 20, the 'secret roll' that prevents a PC from knowing how well they did.

Given that a mirror, or even other PCs can tell you exactly how well you did with a perception roll, discussing the issue in the context of take 20 is directly applicable to take 10.

In any case, there are plenty of moderators around that general contributors don't really need to act like thread police.


It's still the character's decision about how they disguise themselves.

The idea that just because the GM is the one with his hand on the dice means the character can't sit down and take his time doing the job (take 10) seems ridiculous.


Take 10 takes no extra time.

Take 20 takes 20x longer.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Take 10 takes no extra time.

Take 20 takes 20x longer.

What I meant was take 10 represents an unhurried, solid job.

My point was that a characters actions being restricted because the GM rather than the player was the one rolling a die was silly.


Whether or not things are silly has no bearing on a rules discussion. :)


@_Ozy_ - There is no ambiguity in the RAW answer to this question, and the proper rules have been cited.

I make no claim to have any authority on the boards and I do not represent Paizo in any way. I am simply a friendly poster who wants to keep everybody following the community posting guidelines in the forum that most easily gets out of hand. If that annoys you I'm sorry, but attempting to call me out on it is going to change nothing.

Unless there is further discussion on the actual rules question being asked, I have nothing further to contribute to this conversation. Good day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
Whether or not things are silly has no bearing on a rules discussion. :)

But if it's entirely up to the GM how the skill is rolled, whats to stop them from rolling normally, or taking 10, or taking 20, or not rolling at all?

In a situation where there are no mind-control or similar shenanigans going around I don't see why you would take agency away from a player.


I think letting you take 10 or 20 on a disguise rule is fine house-rule and if you want to use it more power to you.

The rules of the game are you can only take 10 on rolls that you make and you can't take 20 when failing is a problem and you don't know how good your disguise roll was.

Those are what the rules are. Other forums exist for not liking the rules or having different rules in your home games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disguise does not prevent taking 10. Now if the player opts to not take 10, then the GM should secretly roll the dice.
Maybe it's possible that by saying the GM rolls the dice the devs were inferring that "there is no taking 10", but I don't see it that way.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:

I think letting you take 10 or 20 on a disguise rule is fine house-rule and if you want to use it more power to you.

The rules of the game are you can only take 10 on rolls that you make and you can't take 20 when failing is a problem and you don't know how good your disguise roll was.

Those are what the rules are. Other forums exist for not liking the rules or having different rules in your home games.

Can you cite where it says you can only take 10 on rolls you make? Take 10 means you aren't rolling in any case, doesn't it?

And Take 10, at least, doesn't cite YOU having to make the roll, just instead of rolling a 1d20, you can just settle for a 10.

On skills saying Take 10 cannot be used:
UMD explicitly rules it out, completely.
Swimming includes a caveat for situations when you cannot do it.
Disguise includes no such injunction.

Just as a side note: On at least one of the VTTs, you can do a roll that only the GM sees, not even yourself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dave Justus is incorrect. If you are not in danger or distracted, you can take 10 on all skill checks (with the exception of use magic device where it is specifically called out).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will agree with others that say RAW is you can take 10 on anything other than UMD , but you cant probably take 20 on disguise since failing would be an issue a majority of times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only line in the take 10 rules that even hints that you have to be personally rolling the dice is "Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.".

The wording could be tightened up a little if we wanted to get super legalistic about it, but doing stuff like that would result in a CRB that's twice the length it already is.


For a house rule: If you add more time, it's pretty sensible that you could add a static +2 modifier for each additional hour you prepare your disguise. If you spend 5 hours setting it up, you're taking 10 with a +10 bonus.

But generally, I only allow the disguise check to be rolled when it's actually being tested, rather than having the PC roll it and the GM remember what the result was whether or not it even gets checked. I might, in hindsight, allow that static bonus to apply if they were especially mindful of allowing themselves extra time to apply the disguise.


_Ozy_ wrote:


Considering the amount of time they are putting into it to perfect their look, just what exactly do you think they are doing?

They are doing it once and applying all the Skill Focus and related feats.

Take 20 takes twenty times as long. The concept is that you keep trying until you do it perfectly. The make-up artist don't put it on...take it off...put it on..take it off. They do it once.

Look, I wasn't going to say this, but I hate it when designers try and cherry pick real life when it suits them. Rolling d20's isn't real life anything even remotely close to it. Citing real life to support a game abstraction and then ignoring real life when it conflicts with the game is, imo, bad form by Paizo.

Quote:
Furthermore, there is no reason why perception can't be used to tell how well someone has disguised themselves.

This is isn't real life. How many zillions of things in this game ignore basic realities? Full Plate doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes you harder to wound. A human being, any human being can be killed by single sword blow in combat.

One problem for the game is that now you're making Perception even more important.

Quote:
Just like another makeup artist can come over and detect flaws in the makeup you applied to that Klingon, someone should be able to come up to you and tell you that the nose just isn't quite right.

Yeah, the game calls it Aid Another.

Quote:
In any case, it's always interesting to see people tell the developers that they don't understand their own game.

That statement is laughable because the designers arbitrary decide when the game should mimic real life and when it gets to be completely ignored if not violated. And FYI...these "developers" didn't invent the game system, they took it from WotC. So no, they don't automatically know the 3.5 game system than everyone on these forums, they just get to decide what it means. Big difference. Big...difference.


This isn't 3.5, this is pathfinder.

Furthermore, the perception skill is used to perceive things. To suggest that this skill couldn't be used to perceive how good a disguise has been applied seems ridiculous. This isn't about 'real life', this is using the rules as designed. The perception skill doesn't list every single DC that will ever be encountered in the game, but rather gives a table of 'guidelines'.

In fact, the skill itself says

Quote:
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment.

It's not about 'penetrating' the disguise, it's evaluating how good it is. Pick a DC, let the player make the roll, move on.


I allow my players to check the other party member's disguises with perception checks. I make all the rolls in secret (giving the perception check a +5 bonus for being very familiar with the subject and because they know it's a disguise). More often than not it helps their final result, but there have been plenty of times where a low perception check has let an awful disguise get through or a high perception check has ruined a good disguise.


_Ozy_ wrote:
This isn't 3.5, this is pathfinder.

Which is the 3.5 ruleset, nearly verbatim in many cases. The point being Paizo did not write the foundation of the rules. Relabeling it and adding a few tweaks doesn't change who the original authors were.

Quote:
Furthermore, the perception skill is used to perceive things. To suggest that this skill couldn't be used to perceive how good a disguise has been applied seems ridiculous. This isn't about 'real life', this is using the rules as designed. The perception skill doesn't list every single DC that will ever be encountered in the game, but rather gives a table of 'guidelines'.

Then I should be able to use Perception to help my lies when I Bluff, or my forgeries using Linguistics, or my Heal checks. Or any number of a dozen skills that fundamentally require perception.

Guess what? 3.5 had skill synergy and Paizo scrapped it. So no, you don't get to use Perception to boost your Disguise check. Sorry.

Quote:
It's not about 'penetrating' the disguise, it's evaluating how good it is. Pick a DC, let the player make the roll, move on.

You're making a flawed assumption. You're assuming that a bad Disguise roll means the make-up artist didn't see the flaws. On the contrary, the artist couldn't fix them. That's done with Disguise. The rules say the player does not get to know the result of the check. That's the game.


Wait, are you telling me that perception isn't used to evaluate a disguise?

Even though it specifically says so in the skill?

Or are you saying that only NPCs get to use perception to evaluate the disguise, and only when they don't know it's a disguise?

Because you're not making a whole lot of sense here...

Linguistics is opposed by linguistics. Disguise is opposed by perception. So, I'm not sure why you're trying to equate the two.


@N N 959 - What skill is used to oppose disguise?


I'm pointing out that people who know it's a Disguise cannot evaluate its effectiveness objectively. Not humanly possible. What ever "flaws" they find in the make-up are readily apparent to the disguise artist, the problem is the artist is not sufficiently skilled at covering them up.

You're the one telling me that Perception is used to notice fine details in the environment and then you're extrapolating that to helping someone put on make-up. If it works for make-up, it works for everything.

I'll repeat this so there is no equivocation. I would not allow someone to use Perception to aid someone in evaluating how good a Disguise check was.


@N N 959 - What skill is used to oppose disguise? If you were attempting to see through a disguise, what game mechanic would be implemented to mechanically handle seeing through said disguise?


What abut using perception for an aid another action to point out fixable flaws in a disguise? As in to offer the standard plus two aid another bonus rather than strictly telling you how good it was, would that be an issue to you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't find any mention of take 10 only being applicable to rolls you make, only that it is applicable to skill checks you make. Regardless of who is rolling the dice, the player's character is making the skill check.

Thus, disguise is perfectly valid option for take-10. The counterargument has no basis in the actual rules and so is (terrible) houserule material. It's also nonsensical: why would a completely metagame component (who is rolling the dice) determine a completely in-character decision?

Or to put it another way: I have DMed for a visually impaired player before, who wasn't interested in rolling the dice. I rolled his dice for him. Does that mean he can't take 10 anymore?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
What abut using perception for an aid another action to point out fixable flaws in a disguise? As in to offer the standard plus two aid another bonus rather than strictly telling you how good it was, would that be an issue to you?

Why bother? Just add the +2 to the disguise check for aiding another (if they beat a DC of 10). Adding another die roll just increases the complexity for no appreciable value.


N N 959 wrote:
I'm pointing out that people who know it's a Disguise cannot evaluate its effectiveness objectively. Not humanly possible. What ever "flaws" they find in the make-up are readily apparent to the disguise artist, the problem is the artist is not sufficiently skilled at covering them up.

Of course they are, they just need to take 20.

Or are you saying that their 'skill' varies from a 1+bonus to a 20+bonus randomly?

Quote:

You're the one telling me that Perception is used to notice fine details in the environment and then you're extrapolating that to helping someone put on make-up. If it works for make-up, it works for everything.

I'll repeat this so there is no equivocation. I would not allow someone to use Perception to aid someone in evaluating how good a Disguise check was.

No, I'm telling you that perception is used to evaluate a disguise because that's what it actually says in the rules:

Quote:
Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Perception check results.

So, you ask your PC friends 'Hey, how good is my disguise', they make their perception check and tell you.


_Ozy_ wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
I'm pointing out that people who know it's a Disguise cannot evaluate its effectiveness objectively. Not humanly possible. What ever "flaws" they find in the make-up are readily apparent to the disguise artist, the problem is the artist is not sufficiently skilled at covering them up.

Of course they are, they just need to take 20.

You can't take 20 because the game tells you that you can't know how good the disguise is. Can you take 20 when telling when fabricating a lie? No. You get to tell your lie once and that's the only time you get to know the result.

PRD on Take 20 wrote:
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding.

If you can't fail and try again, then you can't Take 20.

Quote:
So, you ask your PC friends 'Hey, how good is my disguise', they make their perception check and tell you.

Doesn't work. Your friends know its you. They can't perceive your disguise as a stranger would. That light patch under the left, the disguise artist saw that...but he couldn't blend it any better than he did. The nose to big. Yup, he saw that and that's the best he could do.

You know what your friends could do? Compare your disguise to a picture or a statue. Do you have one of those handy?


@N N 959 - What skill is used to oppose disguise?

I'm assuming since you are ignoring the question you are unable to address it.

Please cite in the rules where it says you cannot attempt to look through a disguise that you know is a disguise. Citation please.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People familiar with you get a bonus to the perception check so even if a GM allow for your friend to check you stil won't know how good the disguise it unless they roll poorly and still see through it. If the devs intended for you to check the disguie they would not have the GM rolling in secret so I doubt most GM's would allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.

Indeed that would be a problem. Fortunately, it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of the mechanics to take 20 on opposed checks - which assume failure before highest possible result. And what's the failure for a disguise check? Having the disguise penetrated by someone you want to fool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.

Indeed that would be a problem. Fortunately, it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of the mechanics to take 20 on opposed checks - which assume failure before highest possible result. And what's the failure for a disguise check? Having the disguise penetrated by someone you want to fool.

Er, yeah, penetrated by your PC buddy who is helping you fix up your disguise. So, you keep trying until you get it right.

I think it's kind of weird how nobody except for the person you're trying to fool gets to have any input as to how well you succeeded with your disguise check. That's some really bizarre meta going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.

Indeed that would be a problem. Fortunately, it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of the mechanics to take 20 on opposed checks - which assume failure before highest possible result. And what's the failure for a disguise check? Having the disguise penetrated by someone you want to fool.

Er, yeah, penetrated by your PC buddy who is helping you fix up your disguise. So, you keep trying until you get it right.

I think it's kind of weird how nobody except for the person you're trying to fool gets to have any input as to how well you succeeded with your disguise check. That's some really bizarre meta going on.

This line right here does it for me:

"When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."

The fact remains you want to use this result later on during the day at a time where it carries pentalty for failure , therefore , it wont work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.

Indeed that would be a problem. Fortunately, it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of the mechanics to take 20 on opposed checks - which assume failure before highest possible result. And what's the failure for a disguise check? Having the disguise penetrated by someone you want to fool.

Er, yeah, penetrated by your PC buddy who is helping you fix up your disguise. So, you keep trying until you get it right.

I think it's kind of weird how nobody except for the person you're trying to fool gets to have any input as to how well you succeeded with your disguise check. That's some really bizarre meta going on.

This line right here does it for me:

"When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."

The fact remains you want to use this result later on during the day at a time where it carries pentalty for failure , therefore , it wont work.

I think that comparing taking 20 on Disguise to other skills runs into an issue with the "carries no penalties for failure".

Taking 20 on Climb: You can't because you immediately fall when you fail.
Taking 20 on Swim: You can't because you immediately begin potentially drowning.
Taking 20 on Craft: You can't because when you fail, you've ruined your materials.
Taking 20 on Ride: You can't because you immediately fall off the horse when you fail.

Disguise doesn't follow that pattern. There's never an immediate penalty that is dependent on the result when the check is made. You can have a failed disguise, but you can't outright fail a disguise check. The Disguise skill doesn't have any DCs that you must meet to not fail.

Think of it this way. You sit in your inn room and make a Disguise check. The dice get rolled and some result is obtained. But, perhaps you're feeling a bit paranoid and want to make another check. What stops you from making another Disguise check? What stops you from making another after that one? Or another? Or another? Or ten, or twenty more?

The only limit is going to be your time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Anything stopping me from taking 20 on my sleight of hand check to conceal an item on my person?

If it's allowed, why wouldn't everyone do that? When using sleight of hand to hide something on your person, or the disguise skill to make a disguise, you generally have plenty of time anyways.

Indeed that would be a problem. Fortunately, it doesn't really make sense from the standpoint of the mechanics to take 20 on opposed checks - which assume failure before highest possible result. And what's the failure for a disguise check? Having the disguise penetrated by someone you want to fool.

Er, yeah, penetrated by your PC buddy who is helping you fix up your disguise. So, you keep trying until you get it right.

I think it's kind of weird how nobody except for the person you're trying to fool gets to have any input as to how well you succeeded with your disguise check. That's some really bizarre meta going on.

This line right here does it for me:

"When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."

The fact remains you want to use this result later on during the day at a time where it carries pentalty for failure , therefore , it wont work.

Thing is, you can't "fail" the Disguise check while doing the check. Saying that you can't take 20 in a skill because it may cause a problem later is not part of the rules and it's illogical even outside of the game (why wouldn't I be able to take 20 to forge a document?). It's just a very vague interpretation of the rules.

The only problem about taking 20 on Disguise and Sleight of Hand checks is that you don't know how good it is, hence it's a bit weird that you would put 20 times more effort when you already think it's good enough. That's why I suggested an ally perception check.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Er, yeah, penetrated by your PC buddy who is helping you fix up your disguise. So, you keep trying until you get it right.

I think it's kind of weird how nobody except for the person you're trying to fool gets to have any input as to how well you succeeded with your disguise check. That's some really bizarre meta going on.

The moment of truth comes when you confront someone who doesn't know they are looking at a disguised person. That's the only way to get an "objective" sense of how good the disguise is.

The rules are explicit. The person using Disguise does not get to know the results of the check. How is that possible with someone Taking 10? It's not.

Complaints about people being able to help you by looking over your shoulder are irrelevant. The game already accounts for that as Aid Another. Sorry, it's a game.

If the PDT wants players to be able to Take 10/20, then they need to explain away the restriction on players knowing the result. And judging by how they neutered Take 10, don't bet on it.

If the GM wants to give a circumstance bonus because you take 20 times as long to do the make-up, that's entirely within the GMs discretion. But they aren't doing that for Hellboy, Wookies, and any other sci-fi monsters for which it takes half a day just to do it once.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

@N N 959 - What skill is used to oppose disguise?

I'm assuming since you are ignoring the question you are unable to address it.

Please cite in the rules where it says you cannot attempt to look through a disguise that you know is a disguise. Citation please.

What rule are you using to say that a person without wings can't fly? What rule are you using to say that wishing upon a star does not bring a wish into the world? What rule are you using to say that being dead limits your actions in a round?

Citations please.

If you know the answer to a question, you can only then, forever more, guess as to how difficult the question is. If you know how to start a car, you can only guess how hard it is for someone that has no idea to figure it out. If you know a painting has a hidden picture, you can only guess how long it will take someone to find it.

It is logical, if not explicitly written, to limit the ability to see through a disguise that you know exists in order to bypass the clear rule that you are not supposed to know how well you did on the disguise.


RDM42 wrote:
What abut using perception for an aid another action to point out fixable flaws in a disguise? As in to offer the standard plus two aid another bonus rather than strictly telling you how good it was, would that be an issue to you?

I would not allow Perception. It's an inherent assumption that the person applying the make-up is already using all her powers of perception to evaluate her own work, essentially she can take 20 on Perception every minute. The problem isn't seeing the flaws, it's fixing the flaws.

That having been said, it's not inconsistent with the spirit of the game for a GM to allow it. But I would not allow Perception, it would have to be some other skill closely related to putting on make-up. I might allow Professional Cake Baker... :). But it's an Aid Another, so not a game breaker either way.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Archive wrote:

I think that comparing taking 20 on Disguise to other skills runs into an issue with the "carries no penalties for failure".

Taking 20 on Climb: You can't because you immediately fall when you fail.
Taking 20 on Swim: You can't because you immediately begin potentially drowning.
Taking 20 on Craft: You can't because when you fail, you've ruined your materials.
Taking 20 on Ride: You can't because you immediately fall off the horse when you fail.

Disguise doesn't follow that pattern. There's never an immediate penalty that is dependent on the result when the check is made. You can have a failed disguise, but you can't outright fail a disguise check. The Disguise skill doesn't have any DCs that you must meet to not fail.

Think of it this way. You sit in your inn room and make a Disguise check. The dice get rolled and some result is obtained. But, perhaps you're feeling a bit paranoid and want to make another check. What stops you from making another Disguise check? What stops you from making another after that one? Or another? Or another? Or ten, or twenty more?

The only limit is going to be your time.

Ultimately, that makes the situation even worse. You may try and try again, but you're never actually testing it as you would meeting a particular DC. The conditions the skill check tests are never occurring. And without that, how do you know to try again? And here, I really can't say that an ally's POV is going to help - they can't really be fooled so their POV isn't objective enough.


Your question is a strawman. I do not have to cite rules to prove a negative.

Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

That question is just as constructive to this argument.

But this entire thread is starting to dissolve into a screaming match. The proper rules have been cited, either take RAW or make your houserules, I can't be bothered to repeat the same things over and over again. Good day.


I'm going to take on the two different arguments that have arisen here: first, the take 20, and then the OP's original question of take 10.

This is meant to generate constructive discussion or answer specific points, not to denigrate or insult. Please, when you read it, take it the former way, not the latter - I know how tone-deaf writing can be. Thanks!

N N 959 wrote:
I would not allow Perception. It's an inherent assumption that the person applying the make-up is already using all her powers of perception to evaluate her own work, essentially she can take 20 on Perception every minute.

... what? I mean, can I just assume that I'm, thus, using all my powers of perception at every moment in any other situation, or is that not what you mean?

The main problem I have with this statement is that it runs contrary to what you were saying before, on the difference between reality, game rules, and assumptions made in between.

N N 959 wrote:
The problem isn't seeing the flaws, it's fixing the flaws.

... hence taking 20.

(Related to the conversation, I think: Bob Ross on the process of taking 20. :D)

Nox Aeterna wrote:

This line right here does it for me:

"When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."

The fact remains you want to use this result later on during the day at a time where it carries pentalty for failure , therefore , it wont work.

This actually is a really good point, and I was in agreement, but the more I thought about it, the more fault I have with the argument - not that Nox is making it, but rather the logic train that flows from it.

Effectively, there is no skill use in which 20 could be taken under this line of thought.

A list of skills:
Acrobatics: obvious; you don't successfully move well

Appraise: no matter how good your appraise check, if you're wrong, someone can come back and charge you more later, even charging you with false advertising (penalty)

Bluff: obvious; you fail the opposed roll

Climb: obvious; you can't climb

Craft: obvious; also, however, even if you took 20 and eventually succeeded (for whatever reason), later on the thing could have been made poorly in secret, and snap apart later in battle or after it's sold

Diplomacy: obvious; you don't convince folk

Disable Device: obvious; you don't disable the thing (incidentally: man, I sure hope my rubix cube can be put back together later!)

Escape Artist: obvious; you don't escape

Fly: obvious; you don't control your flight

Handle Animal: obvious; you don't train the animal

Heal: obvious; you don't treat the thing (whatever it is) or aid in the save

Intimidate: obvious; you fail the opposed roll

Knowledge: obvious (but just in case: you don't know it)

Linguistics: obvious; also, forgery, and, of course, you can't translate anything even with a translation tablet?

Perception: I presume obvious, but just in case: you missed something and it's important later (imposing a penalty)

Perform: obvious; you have a bad performance and get less/no money

Profession: again, I presume obvious, but just in case: you don't get money or successfully complete your job; as these are bad things, this is a penalty

Ride: obvious; you don't ride the thing

Sense Motive: obvious; you fail the opposed roll

Sleight of Hand: obvious; you fail the opposed roll

Spellcraft: obvious; you don't identify the thing

Stealth: obvious; you fail the opposed roll

Survival: again, I presume obvious, but: you can't survive in the wilderness (obvious penalty, yeah?) or track, both things that have consequences

Swim: obvious; you don't swim

Use Magic Device: obvious; it explodes on you

... so at what point could I possibly take 20, in any situation ever?

I really am curious - there is never a case that I can use a skill in which there is no chance for penalty "later" unless the GM really metagames and tells me outright "there will never ever have any bad things happen to you for failing this skill check" which, you know, seems like it's opposed to the intent of the game.

So what is the cut-off point?

The take 20 skills say,

Quote:

Taking 20

When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).

Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

That bolded part right there, though? That's... significant. Because I can search for traps as much as I want and fail over and over again, but I can succeed by taking 20 without suffering penalties (i.e. you won't run into a trap, later, even if you "failed" your first Perception).

See, Disable Device, Escape Artist, and Perception all have penalties "later" even though you're using them "now".

===================== ===================== =====================

Back to the original OP, though, let's look at the relevant rules.

Da Rules:
Taking 10

Quote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

Disguise

Quote:

Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Perception check results. If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.

You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Perception checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.

So, the bolded part of the skills are places where contention might (or does) lie.

The first one,

Quote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.

... combines with...

Quote:
The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.

... to make people divide on what, exactly, the rules say.

The question, really, is which is the question about specific beats general (i.e. an exception-based rules system).

So, which is the more specific rule?

a) some people say the unknown result line
b) some people say the take 10 rules

If "a", then no, you cannot take 10.

If "b", then yes, you can take 10.

Ask your GM.

Quote:
Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.

The problem with relying on this line, is that it supplies an extra word - and extra "you" - where none is actually written:

Quote:
Instead of you rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.

This additional word is a bad argument to make, for a couple of reasons; one of which may help resolve our dilemma, above (or, at least, suggest a solution).

Quote:
If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Perception checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Perception checks.

What's important about this, is that the GM is making this roll for all creatures involved (unless otherwise noted, as indicated "can be assumed"). This rule is fundamental to the skill - if the PC is, in fact, a guard watching commoners in an adventure, than, unless they state otherwise, they're assumed to be taking 10, just like NPCs... regardless of whether or not the GM is rolling the dice, or the PC is even aware they are rolling dice. This makes the Perception check result an unknown, as it's unknown that they are even making the check in the first place.

This is also points toward evidence that the GM can "take 10" for a PC, when appropriate, for a PC, too, though it's certainly not solid evidence, and I could see arguments against it (including, "How often does that come up in a game?" to which the response is, "As often as a given group follows that kind of playstyle." - as I noted, this is something I'm going back and forth on. :D)

Hope that helps! :D


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
But this entire thread is starting to dissolve into a screaming match.

:)


Komoda wrote:
What rule are you using to say that a person without wings can't fly?

The fly spell. :)

Komoda wrote:
What rule are you using to say that wishing upon a star does not bring a wish into the world?

I'm not. The GM of a given game is.

Komoda wrote:
What rule are you using to say that being dead limits your actions in a round?

The definition of the word "dead".

Komoda wrote:
Citations please.

Sure!

- Fly
- GM
- dead, life, dead, action, and so on. Enjoy! :D

Komoda wrote:
If you know the answer to a question, you can only then, forever more, guess as to how difficult the question is.

Nope. You can run tests by going with independent observers.

But really, that's not what we're talking about. Your allies don't know the "answer" to the "question" of a disguise - rather, they simply know that it is a disguise. What they can know, however, is whether or not that person looks like their friend.

Example: Simon Pegg v. Simon Pegg - if I didn't know for a fact that the second was also Simon Pegg, I'd never come to that conclusion on my own.

Komoda wrote:
If you know how to start a car, you can only guess how hard it is for someone that has no idea to figure it out. If you know a painting has a hidden picture, you can only guess how long it will take someone to find it.

Car: it depends entirely on whether or not the person has a key, and whether or not they are familiar with "key"-based technology. Or electronics (for hot-wiring a vehicle). This, then, is based on the other person's knowledge skill against a given DC. I.e., the basis of your question is not one of opposed skill (which is the disguise question) but one of opposing a knowledge

Komoda wrote:
It is logical, if not explicitly written, to limit the ability to see through a disguise that you know exists in order to bypass the clear rule that you are not supposed to know how well you did on the disguise.

This is, in fact, quite logical, and is a valid interpretation. :)

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Disguise is not only about putting masks, false beards etc on. It's also about acting and try to make yourself pass for someone else. So depending on how risky those activities may be I think a GM should reserve the right to allow or deny take 10 (are you trying to pass youself as some peasant great great uncle? No worries, take 10. Do you want to try decieving that ancient red wyrm posing as one of his minions you previously dispatched? No taking 10, and if you fail you are in for a world of pain).

There is no acting mentioned in the disguise skill.

Quote:
The effectiveness of your disguise depends on how much you're changing your appearance.

So... You're saying Clark Kent doesn't slouch and pretend he's far weaker then he actually is in addition to putting on a pair of horn rimmed glasses? You're further saying that as Superman he doesn't carry himself differently, walk differently, speak more authoritatively, and use a deeper voice?

Are you also suggesting that Batman doesn't use a deeper voice then usual? Or that when he goes out as Bruce Wayne that he isn't acting like a playboy buffoon?

A good disguise is equal parts acting and changing your appearance.

Dark Archive

_Ozy_ wrote:

That's ridiculous. It would prevent a take 20 as well then.

There is no reason to make opposed checks secret, otherwise the DM should be rolling the PCs stealth rolls, perception rolls, bluff rolls, sense motive rolls, and everything else that is potentially contested. Or you could just trust the players.

I understand not wanting to provide metagame information, but even in game the other PCs could look at someone who messed up their disguise roll and say, with a halfway decent perception roll (using a take 10 even just like explicitly mentioned in the disguise skill):

"Dude, your boobs are lopsided."

Fairly sure you can't take 20 on a disguise check. There is a consequence for failure (you get detected), and you don't KNOW you failed until you get detected. If you keep disguising yourself and trying to sneak into the same place enough times to have a 100% chance that you eventually roll a 20... Odds are by then the people you're trying to fool are going to be highly alert, and would stop even their boss until he can prove his identity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

This actually is a really good point, and I was in agreement, but the more I thought about it, the more fault I have with the argument - not that Nox is making it, but rather the logic train that flows from it.

Effectively, there is no skill use in which 20 could be taken under this line of thought.

A list of skills: Show
... so at what point could I possibly take 20, in any situation ever?

I think what you really need to consider is not just failure is possible but what happens when you fail (other than waste time). You can take 20 with the skills in the example (disable device to open locks, escape artist, perception to search for traps/secret doors/hidden stuff) because failure costs you nothing significant - you just try again. Your lockpick won't break. You won't jam the lock. The restraining device won't get tighter. And, for the last one, simply searching for traps won't trigger them.

But you're right in one sense - there aren't all that many skills that really allow someone to take 20 because there's usually more at stake then just lost time.

And while it is true that there is an opportunity loss for failing to open a lock or find a secret door and there may be more profound penalties for failing to escape or find a deadly trap, those are really penalties of another sort that don't flow directly from failing to use the skill. If you need to use escape artist, you were already restrained by something and that's what gets you in the end. And in the case of failing to find a trap, depending on what you then do, you may still never actually trigger the trap - it's trigger is based on some criteria specific to it and if you never trigger it, it doesn't matter than you never found it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Disguise is not only about putting masks, false beards etc on. It's also about acting and try to make yourself pass for someone else. So depending on how risky those activities may be I think a GM should reserve the right to allow or deny take 10 (are you trying to pass youself as some peasant great great uncle? No worries, take 10. Do you want to try decieving that ancient red wyrm posing as one of his minions you previously dispatched? No taking 10, and if you fail you are in for a world of pain).

There is no acting mentioned in the disguise skill.

Quote:
The effectiveness of your disguise depends on how much you're changing your appearance.

So... You're saying Clark Kent doesn't slouch and pretend he's far weaker then he actually is in addition to putting on a pair of horn rimmed glasses? You're further saying that as Superman he doesn't carry himself differently, walk differently, speak more authoritatively, and use a deeper voice?

Are you also suggesting that Batman doesn't use a deeper voice then usual? Or that when he goes out as Bruce Wayne that he isn't acting like a playboy buffoon?

A good disguise is equal parts acting and changing your appearance.

I think a fair argument can be made that Disguise does involve some semblance of acting, particularly if one is trying to impersonate a specific person.

Disguise wrote:

If you are impersonating a particular individual, those who know what that person looks like get a bonus on their Perception checks according to the table below. Furthermore, they are automatically considered to be suspicious of you, so opposed checks are always called for.

An individual makes a Perception check to see through your disguise immediately upon meeting you and again every hour thereafter. If you casually meet a large number of different creatures, each for a short time, check once per day or hour, using an average Perception modifier for the group.

Impersonating someone and giving a convincing performance goes farther than simply trying to look like them. Now conceivably, you could work Bluff checks and the like into the scenario if you want, too. But I think based on rules language, it's all done pursuant to Disguise. Even if it's just physical acting, it's still acting nonetheless.

Dark Archive

_Ozy_ wrote:

Take 10 takes no extra time.

Take 20 takes 20x longer.

And take 20 ALSO assumes that you failed 19 (or more) times before getting a 20. If there's any penalty for failure, you can't take 20. So as I already mentioned, taking 20 on a disguise check to sneak into a castle as one of the guards would mean the following process:

1. Disguise yourself as guard
2. Try to enter the keep
3. Guard spots you and sees through the disguise
4. Escape
5. Disguise yourself as a guard, again
6. Try to enter the keep, again
7. Guard spots you and sees through the disguise, again
8. Escape, again
9. Repeat steps 1 through 4 until you manage to get a natural 20

Note, if you're doing that and I'm the GM, each failed attempt is probably giving an ever increasing circumstance bonus to the guards to see through your disguises. You know, kinda like how each failed attempt to bluff the same person increases the DC to bluff them by 5. That would probably mean that by the time that natural 20 you're assumed to have eventually gotten occurs, the guards have a +95 circumstance bonus to Perception to see through disguises. Or only a +20 bonus if I'm feeling lenient. Either way if you cant fool them the first time, it becomes increasingly less likely you're fooling them the next time.

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you take 10 on disguise? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.