| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You're conflating two things that could be taken as different (but related).
There's the disguise portion, and then there's the bluff portion.
The Disguise portion includes what you do to make yourself appear different.
The Bluff portion includes what you do to make sure people buy it, when you interact with them.
(Alternatively, as actors will do, your Disguise skill is independent of your Perform skill - the performance could be terrible, but daggumit that guy sure does look like an alien who's bad at acting.)
EDIT: I will submit that all of this can be placed under Disguise. I'm just pointing out that there are also other takes that can be made from the same time.
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.
Entering the place is not what you do when you make the disguise check. You take 1d3x10 minutes to make the disguise, you don't try to "sneak into the same place" to make it.
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.
So, go back and look at the Simon Pegg thing above. What happens when the people fail their skill check other than time (and money) being wasted?
Or, on these skills, what about bindings that get tighter the more you move in them? Or traps made to trigger... when you're looking for traps? These are more specific situations, sure... but they're entirely valid, and you don't (necessarily) know whether or not those are things, unless you start trying to take 20 and suddenly you're taking the penalties (or you happen to have a knowledge or lore skill or ability that tells you).
Or, hey, let's go with this: why won't your lockpick break? What if that's part of the device? Or, why won't the lock get jammed? That seems quite likely, actually. What happens if, while you're looking for a trap, you fail and accidentally step on it?
Compare, for example, cleaning up broken glass: people generally take a long time to make sure we "do it right" ("as long as it takes!" in fact), yet glass fragments remain hidden at times.
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.
This is fundamentally false. I pointed out above how penalties directly flow from failing those skills once.
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.
Again, that's not true. In those cases you are very likely under pressure or danger - you just have no way of knowing whether you are or not until you "try" at which point your initial "1" comes up, and that's all she wrote.
If you need to use escape artist, you were already restrained by something and that's what gets you in the end.
This is true, but it's definitively the the thing that gets you - you failed to beat the DC, and hence, failure. Consequences. If you don't know whether or not you'd succeed (sometimes some people will, but often they may not) it's the same thing.
"Will it work?"
"I dunno, I'll try until I get it right!"
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.
Sure - you might or you might not. Who knows?
Similarly, however, when you make a Disguise, you may or may not ever be put into a position where you have to have people actively examine your disguise. There are plenty of places where they will - but plenty of places where they might not.
The Perception skill opposes the Disguise skill - but the Perception skill isn't necessarily rolled (assumed to have it take 10), even though there is a chance for the person to take a serious penalty for failure: it just is, because, even though failure is a strong possibility, it's not a major thing.
Effectively, the only arguments I can see are those I've mentioned: which one is more specific? The take 10, or the Disguise skill?
(The question becomes: do the Take 10 rules modify the Disguise skill, or does the Disguise skill modify the Take 10 rules?)
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
That's a lot to do in 1d3*10 minutes!
And it's even more to do within the span of time of one standard action!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are putting on your disguise and roll a 1 and had a -3 mod to begin with what happens?
NOTHING!!! You just have a disguise that ANYONE can see through. So since you "failed" to do your best disguise you do another one, and another, until you feel you've done your best. That is taking 20.
You then leave with your best disguise because you spent all day making it your best.
There is no penalty for "failure"
Now, it taking 20 good enough to fool the guards? YOU DON'T KNOW, thus you don't know how well your disguise is, but you do know it's the best you could do.
The opposed perception checks are looking at the disguise you have. Not at all the attempts you made.
|
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
That's a lot to do in 1d3*10 minutes!
And it's even more to do within the span of time of one standard action!
You're right, it is a lot more time consuming then a standard action. But as the skill says... You don't know how good or bad your disguise is until it's put to the test. If someone sees through it, the disguise was bad. If nobody sees through it, the disguise was good. And 'take 20' assumes you failed many many times. So if you were allowed to take 20, each assumed attempt ALSO involves putting the disguise to the test.
Then again, the fact that there's a consequence for failing, you can't take 20 to begin with.
Then again, the fact that there's a consequence for failing, you can't take 20 to begin with.
Please see all skills at all times.
There is always a consequence of failure (or the potential thereof).
Taking 20 for searching on traps? You've no idea if there's a trap you'll trigger while searching or not. It's just something you've got to try to do your best at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an actor, I can tell you that our makeup artists very consistently "Take 20" when they doll us up. I've had to sit through makeup more than ten times in a row because the artist took so long to be happy with the result.
Also, if you can't take 20, how do you explain Johnny Depp?
|
|
If you are putting on your disguise and roll a 1 and had a -3 mod to begin with what happens?
NOTHING!!! You just have a disguise that ANYONE can see through. So since you "failed" to do your best disguise you do another one, and another, until you feel you've done your best. That is taking 20.
You then leave with your best disguise because you spent all day making it your best.
There is no penalty for "failure"
Now, it taking 20 good enough to fool the guards? YOU DON'T KNOW, thus you don't know how well your disguise is, but you do know it's the best you could do.The opposed perception checks are looking at the disguise you have. Not at all the attempts you made.
Problem with your theory... You the person who's disguising them self don't actually know how effective your disguise is until you go out and it's put to the test. So what happens is this:
You put on the disguise. The GM rolls in secret, notes down that you have a total of -2 for the disguise check. You think you're disguise is pretty good, until someone comments that your nose is falling off. It wasn't doing that before, but the spirit gum holding it in place must not have been applied properly. At which point, you go back to your hideout and try again. GM rolls a second disguise check, let's say they roll a 16 this time. They note down the perception DC is 13. You head out, and this time someone asks why your hair, eyebrows, and beard are all different colors.
Er, oops? You go back to your lair once again to try this one more time. GM rolls a 17 this time and records the DC is 14. The first couple people give you odd looks, but don't say anything. Then someone says "Who the hell are you? Wait a second, those are Carl's boots!" Erm, oops? Clearly you've been spotted. So you flee. After a couple days to allow people to forget (and for the search for you to be called off) you try yet again. This time the GM rolls a 20, and records the DC is 17. This time you manage to slip past without arousing suspicion. Well, mostly.
THIS is what taking 20 on a disguise check would be like. Not taking your time and being careful with each step. Take 20 assumes multiple failures. And with disguise checks, failure isn't determined until someone tries to see through the disguise. Taking your time and being thorough would be taking 10. You've done your best to eliminate any glaring flaws in the disguise. It's as perfect as you can reasonably make it. May not be the best job you've ever done, but it's still pretty good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just have your party members check it instead of the guards.
Problem with your theory... You the person who's disguising them self don't actually know how effective your disguise is until you go out and it's put to the test.
Problem with your rebuttal: so... what?
You think you're disguise is pretty good, until someone comments that your nose is falling off. It wasn't doing that before, but the spirit gum holding it in place must not have been applied properly.
<snip>
Then someone says...
This is exactly what people are saying your friends are for, and part of taking twenty times as long on the skill as necessary is a thing.
THIS is what taking 20 on a disguise check would be like.
There is no proof of this. You're saying that it takes more to make the disguise check than the rules say it takes to make the disguise check.
I cast disguise self; I make a Disguise check with a +10 bonus. Welp, that was easy.
This is the same sort of logic that says "It never says Dead people can't take actions, so..." but twisted in the other direction.
What does it mean when you don't know the result? It means, simply, you don't know the result, unless you have some reason to do so. Generally speaking, people can't see what they look like.
The only question is whether or not the "take 10" or the "you don't know" rules take precedence. There is no argument within the rules that I'm aware of that show which take precedence.
If, however, the argument is, "You can never know, because arbitrary reasons."* one of us is using common and straightforward language, and one of us isn't. Which one isn't is entirely based on a person's internal barometer.
I will say, however, that,
The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.
... is an absolute statement, and thus, if it's a matter of following the rules to the letter, you can't be sure how good the disguise is.
"I say, sir, your nose is falling off."
Maybe he thinks I have leperosy. I don't know, but it's a valid possibility.
"Hey! Those are Carl's boots!"
Well, maybe we traded or something. Who knows? I'm not sure.
"Arrest this imposter! His face is clearly visible!"
I hope they don't notice me! I'm unsure if this disguise is any good!
Obviously silly example is obviously silly (it's a Straw Man), but the basic logic is the same. If the objection is that "you can't be sure how good the disguise is" than under no circumstances can you be sure how good the disguise is.
... unless your claim is that the Disguise skill trumps the Take 10 and Take 20 rules. Which is strictly a matter of GM interpretation.
* Reasons that are not only against the noted intention of the developers who printed the books**. If we don't want to go with that, sure, that's fine, but that falls into House Interpretations, which, you know, all GMs fundamentally do by virtue of being a GM.
** I.e. the people we purchased the rules from. They get to tell us what they meant when they printed the rules. If someone else meant something different when they printed the rules, that's fine... that's not who we're talking with or about, at present.
|
|
Then again, the fact that there's a consequence for failing, you can't take 20 to begin with.Please see all skills at all times.
There is always a consequence of failure (or the potential thereof).
Taking 20 for searching on traps? You've no idea if there's a trap you'll trigger while searching or not. It's just something you've got to try to do your best at.
Since some people seem confused about the take 20 rules, here's the entry in the Core Rule Book. It's on page 86.
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).
The bolded part is for emphasis. It doesn't say taking 20 is action type times 20 for length of time it takes. It says it USUALLY takes action type times 20. It does say it takes 20 times as long as it normally would. For a disguise check it takes the time to apply the disguise, plus the time to reach your destination, plus the time it takes for interacting with someone who could see through said disguise. Multiply THIS time by 20. Apply any penalties for each and every failure.
Wait, go back to the first paragraph of the rules entry though. Let's read that again.
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.
Trying to pick a lock has no real penalty for failure. The lock is still secure, true. But it's not damaged. It hasn't tried to kill you. It just sits there, still locked. Go ahead and try again. Nothing's going to happen if you fail.
You strongly suspect there's a trap, but you're not sure. That blood stain in the middle of the hall though is awfully suspicious though. You NEED to know if there's a trap, and how to avoid it. Obviously going where the blood stain is located would probably be a bad idea. Okay, take 20 on the trap search. There's no consequences for not finding the exact trap. You already know not to stand where the blood is. But it takes you a long time to find that there's a pressure plate where the bloodstain is, let alone the fact the ceiling is designed to drop down right there to crush whoever steps on the pressure plate.
Now, disarming that trap? That's a whole other ball of wax. If you flib the disarm too badly, the trap goes off. This is dangerous, you're distracted (worry about what could happen), and there's a real danger if you fail. You can't take 20 because you'd be taking the consequences for failing multiple times. Those consequences are that the trap goes off, possibly hurting you.
What's the consequences of a flubbed disguise check? Well, obviously people see through it. This could mean anything from ridicule in the streets to being attacked by the guards you were trying to fool. But here's the thing. You don't KNOW your disguise failed, until someone sees through it. And even then, the same disguise check could be good enough for some, or even most of the people you encounter. Yet still not be good enough to fool that one rather perceptive guard. Or the Duke of Earl you meet in the ball you infiltrated. Sure, you fooled the other dukes, counts, and the king. But the Duke of Earl noticed something about you isn't right.
This is why I'd say you can't take 20 on a disguise check.
As an actor, I can tell you that our makeup artists very consistently "Take 20" when they doll us up. I've had to sit through makeup more than ten times in a row because the artist took so long to be happy with the result.
Also, if you can't take 20, how do you explain Johnny Depp?
How do you explain Johnny Depp? High ranks and high charisma. There's no need to assume anything akin to taking 20 in the d20/PF rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, the fact that there's a consequence for failing, you can't take 20 to begin with.Please see all skills at all times.
There is always a consequence of failure (or the potential thereof).
Taking 20 for searching on traps? You've no idea if there's a trap you'll trigger while searching or not. It's just something you've got to try to do your best at.
Since some people seem confused about the take 20 rules, here's the entry in the Core Rule Book. It's on page 86.
The bolded part is for emphasis. It doesn't say taking 20 is action type times 20 for length of time it takes. It says it USUALLY takes action type times 20. It does say it takes 20 times as long as it normally would. For a disguise check it takes the time to apply the disguise, plus the time to reach your destination, plus the time it takes for interacting with someone who could see through said disguise. Multiply THIS...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).
RIGHT before the part you bolded:
"Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check
would take"
There's no ambiguity there. It's always 20x longer than the normal action. The "usually" is because most skill checks are 1 standard action, not because it's "usually" 20 times longer.
Walking to where someone else is making their opposed check against you is not part of the time it takes for you to make your check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you can't take 20, how do you explain Johnny Depp?How do you explain Johnny Depp? High ranks and high charisma. There's no need to assume anything akin to taking 20 in the d20/PF rules.
I will reiterate my refusal to use sarcasm brackets no matter how tongue-in-cheek I'm being.
A quick survey of the thread shows this hasn't been mentioned yet : the Pass for human feat <snip>
That's not a bad find, but I think your self-imposed skepticism is well-needed. There are plenty of obscure abilities that make mistakes. Also the ability could actually intend to mean "You can always take 10 on your disguise check, even if distracted or in danger". But it's hard to argue intent when the wording is poor.
A quick survey of the thread shows this hasn't been mentioned yet : the Pass for human feat, which states :
You receive a +10 bonus on Disguise checks to disguise yourself as a human, and do not receive the penalty for disguising yourself as a member of another race when you do so. In areas largely populated or settled by humans, you can take 10 on your Disguise check, meaning most people tend to assume you are human unless given a reason to think otherwise.
Emphasis mine.
Since specific trumps general, I would argue that in any other conditions you cannot take 10 on disguise checks.
However, it is possible that the feat might just be badly written (specifying you can take 10, when in fact you always can). We all remember Prone shooter...
Ooh! This is a great find, and definitely swings things the other way, though you bring up a good point about the original Prone Shooter.
RIGHT before the part you bolded:
"Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check
would take"There's no ambiguity there. It's always 20x longer than the normal action. The "usually" is because most skill checks are 1 standard action, not because it's "usually" 20 times longer.
Walking to where someone else is making their opposed check against you is not part of the time it takes for you to make your check.
Hah! I can make that mistake, too (reading only for what I want, and missing the rest). Thanks, Ian!
That said, I would suggest that it does leave GM-purview wiggle room (in the wording) for interpretation - either "it usually takes 2 minutes for skills that take one round" (so that there is some temporal variance for <reasons>, subject to GM purview), or "most skills take 1 round or a standard action, and thus limited to one per round, and thus it takes 2 minutes" - but that's just splitting hairs, and again goes back to GM adjucation and reading.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The street performer archetype, also from the APG, has similar language:
"Quick Change (Ex): At 5th level, a street performer can don a disguise as a standard action by taking a –5 penalty on his check. He can take 10 on Bluff and Disguise checks and use Bluff to create a diversion to hide as a swift action. He can take 20 on a Bluff or Disguise check once per day, plus one time per six levels beyond 5th. This ability replaces lore master."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pass for human and quick change are the only rules evidence I have seen so far for the side that you can't normally take 10 on disguise. With that evidence in mind I'm no longer at "The rules clearly say you can" and instead I'm at "My interpretation is the rules clearly say you can, but there is room for interpretation so ask your GM".
I'm just a lucky GM because my players think taking 10 is boring and they always deign to roll.
|
|
The initial check, no. However you have zero reason to believe your disguise isn't going to work... until it doesn't work. And when it doesn't work, trying again and again isn't really a good option. Each failure would make the next attempt even harder. Assuming you weren't drawn into a battle because of your failure.
From a movie example, James Bond is absolutely horrible at disguising himself. All he ever does is change his cloths. He doesn't alter his mannerisms or change his facial features. This is probably taking 10, with a high charisma but no ranks in the skill. Bond is able to fool the rank and file common man. When he disguises himself as a wealthy playboy most people assume he's a wealthy playboy. The problem is that because he's horrible at disguising him self, the bad guys nearly always realize exactly who he is within minutes of Bond's arrival. The first Bond realizes this fact though is usually when someone tries to kill him.
How do you know he's taking 10 and not 20? Because if you take 20 you WILL fail multiple times. A disguise only has to fail once to be negated by someone shouting "Stop that impostor". Although, he may not even take 10. It's assumed he studied his cover off camera, thus took 10.
On the other hand, if you watch the old Mission Impossible series (not the movies) you'll see examples of people who ARE good at disguising themselves. They use tricks and tools Bond never considers. They include acting skills as well. And the team's infiltration expert rarely gets caught out. It happens on occasion, but most often it's because someone stumbled across the man while he's donning his disguise.
The IMF is probably taking 10 when they do disguises. They take the time to do things right, and research the target they're impersonating. They practice the mannerisms they will use before going out into the public eye, only leaving once they either are running out of time or are sure of their act. It's not always a perfect disguise, but 8 out of 10 times it's good enough that nobody notices till the team's making it's exit.
Course the IMF's infiltration expert also probably has a rather large skill bonus on disguise checks too.
|
As I read it, disguise can't take 10 or 20 on the disguise skill (without feats/abilities).
"Try Again: Yes. You may try to redo a failed disguise, but once others know that a disguise was attempted, they'll be more suspicious."
The issue is that if you do it once, and it doesn't work, then you take penalties on further attempts with the same viewer. So trying until you succeed won't work, as it may become impossible.
As for using your own perception for the test, it's not that you couldn't, but that you'd fail without horrible perception and amazing disguise skills...
Looking at your disguise in the mirror with passive perception (taking 10), you'd be consider "intimate" for recognizing yourself, so you'd be +10 on the passive perception. So passively, you'd have 20+ranks+wis+other bonuses for any attempts to passively disguise yourself from yourself. With further attempts likely getting more and more penalties.
As I read it, disguise can't take 10 or 20 on the disguise skill (without feats/abilities).
"Try Again: Yes. You may try to redo a failed disguise, but once others know that a disguise was attempted, they'll be more suspicious."
The issue is that if you do it once, and it doesn't work, then you take penalties on further attempts with the same viewer. So trying until you succeed won't work, as it may become impossible.
I follow your logic as far as not allowing taking 20 (I wouldn't either) but how does any of that rule out taking 10?
|
|
I follow your logic as far as not allowing taking 20 (I wouldn't either) but how does any of that rule out taking 10?
You are correct, I failed to address it.
Taking 10:
"Taking 10: 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."
I think the +5 to disguise for "minor details only" covers it pretty well with regard "routine tasks."
I guess, if a particular elaborate disguise for your PC is a "routine task" then I'd allow the taking 10, but only for that disguise. Especially if you modeled the disguise onto your miniature..
Otherwise, I don't think the above applies to disguise checks. Nothing in the wording seems like something you could apply to a disguise check, as all of it describes the conditions that should always be present when disguising. Not to mention the 1d3 minutes required to disguise doesn't exactly seem like something you could do any more cautiously.
I would allow PCs with matching thematic disguises to aid each other on the disguise rolls, so long as they remained together and neither disguise was seen through. In example, 3 PCs disguised as 2 guards and a prisoner would each get +4 on their disguises (+2 for each other PC with a thematic costume). If the PCs were smart enough to disguise as only guard/prisoner versions of themselves, then I'd add another +5 for their "minor details only" bonus. That's +9 before skill ranks/mods.
I would also not consider a natural 1 to be an automatic failure for disguise checks. Since it's a resisted skill, it seems like the natural 1 just being very low is penalty enough.
So 3 PCs disguised as 2 guards and prisoner, all rolling natural 1s on their disguise checks, would still have 10s on their disguise check in my book. So, yeah, almost everyone will see through their disguises, but a few guilible people might still be tricked.
I will also note that being able to see through the disguise does not confer automatic knowledge of what the PC is originally. They just know you are disguised. So, depending on what you are pretending to be <Bluff check> a bad disguise could still function in a useful manner.
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.
You specifically asked someone to cite a negative:
@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.
And then got annoyed when someone called you out for it through examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pass for human and quick change are the only rules evidence I have seen so far for the side that you can't normally take 10 on disguise. With that evidence in mind I'm no longer at "The rules clearly say you can" and instead I'm at "My interpretation is the rules clearly say you can, but there is room for interpretation so ask your GM".
I'm just a lucky GM because my players think taking 10 is boring and they always deign to roll.
Now this is a statement that just about everyone should make concerning just about every rules interpretation. That sir, is a great post.
I ask for that citation because in the perception and disguise skills it clearly states that you are allowed to use perception to look through a disguise. I see no clause that says your friends cannot simply because they are your friends. That's not asking to prove a negative, that is asking to prove his claim that there is an exception to the normal use of the skill. Entirely different.
That statement applies to a very broad scope of rules, but not all.
|
|
Did you miss all of the discussion when your PC companions are the ones using their perception to guide your disguise success?1) disguise yourself as a guard
2) PCs say: you don't look like a guard
3) repeat until 2 no longer occursHow is having your PC companions use their perceptions not 'putting the disguise to the test'? Again, why is it only NPCs that are allowed to evaluate the effectiveness of a disguise?
1) Disguise yourself as a guard. Assuming you keep race/size/age, you are +5 to this roll.
2) PCs now get passive perception to notice you. Passive perception is described as taking 10. That said, fellow PCs in your party would qualify as at least "Friends and associates" so they get +6 (at least) to this passive perception test. So you already net at least -1 on this roll.
3) As for repeating, the skill says you can, but it says "once others know that a disguise was attempted, they'll be more suspicious." As the GM, I'd add penalties for each time you try to disguise in front of your party. So even if the secret disguise roll is amazing, they're still going to see though it after a few failed attempts.
So it isn't that you couldn't attempt multiple disguise checks on fellow PCs, it's that it would be counter productive, as you'd think you were failing when you were actually succeeding.
3) As for repeating, the skill says you can, but it says "once others know that a disguise was attempted, they'll be more suspicious." As the GM, I'd add penalties for each time you try to disguise in front of your party.
I'm curious as to why. The party can't get "more suspicious" - they already know the disguise is fake.
I'm not trying to call you wrong, just understand what you take that statement to mean.
|
|
3) As for repeating, the skill says you can, but it says "once others know that a disguise was attempted, they'll be more suspicious." As the GM, I'd add penalties for each time you try to disguise in front of your party.I'm curious as to why. The party can't get "more suspicious" - they already know the disguise is fake.
I'm not trying to call you wrong, just understand what you take that statement to mean.
Have you tried disguises in real life? The more times you try, the less they see the disguise and the more they see a person in disguise.
They aren't getting more suspicious, they are adapting to an aspect of you that changes a bunch. They start to see the consistencies in the person, not the disguise that they are supposed to be seeing. It's like looking at photos of a person from different stages of their life, you notice what is the same with each additional "incarnation" of a person you see. It becomes harder and harder to see the different versions of a person as different people.
In the case of the suspicious person, they are becoming more aware that people may be disguised. As a result, they are adapting their suspicions to include disguises.
As for the party "knowing the fake," if the party already knows the PC is trying to disguise and they are evaluating the disguise, I'd make them roll perception, as that's not passive use of perception, that's active. I may even grant a circumstance bonus to their perception because they expect the disguise. Beyond that, the stuff above still applies.
Murdock Mudeater: what if you use 20 different people? Would you have an issue THEN with a take 20?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock Mudeater: what if you use 20 different people? Would you have an issue THEN with a take 20?
I love this!
"Alright peasants, who wants to earn some money? Simple job, no danger, just have to judge our skill at makeup."
As for the party "knowing the fake," if the party already knows the PC is trying to disguise and they are evaluating the disguise, I'd make them roll perception, as that's not passive use of perception, that's active. I may even grant a circumstance bonus to their perception because they expect the disguise. Beyond that, the stuff above still applies.
And taking 20 on this doesn't apply because...?
I mean, here's a paraphrase of things I've seen in real life:
"What about this?"
"No, that doesn't look right."
*go and fix things*
"Now?"
*studies*
"Much better. You need to cover <stuff> better, I think."
*go and fix things*
"Now?"
*studies*
"Yeah! If I didn't know it was you, I couldn't have guessed!"
^ People who know each other.
Your suggestion that people can't improve their disguise more than others improve their perception hasn't held up in my own real life experience (being related to an actor and producer, and a knowing a large number of other actors).
You make your disguise and build it as best you can; you then go back and make it better when people point out its flaws.
I already pointed out:
- Simon Pegg
- Simon Pegg in Star Wars
But then, there's Andy Serkis and Gollum and Caesar. That's not "cheating", by the way: that's using disguise self.
Allow me to introduce Max Schreck, or, as you you might know him.
Lieutenant Commander B'Elanna Torres. But her actor doesn't really look like a Klingon. At all.
Who are these people?!
(The last one is this guy, by the way.)
There really are just too many examples to show off. You just take your time until you get it "right" - it's fairly common in real life, and it's what acting companies almost always do (unless they're in a hurry).
|
|
Murdock Mudeater: what if you use 20 different people? Would you have an issue THEN with a take 20?
Taking 20 doesn't apply to this one. The issue is that the disguise check doesn't represent a thing you pass or fail in a clear manner. You take the check and then OTHER people notice the disguise or don't. And even if they notice, it doesn't mean that you inherently are outed as a disguised character, they just know that you are disguised.
There are lots of ways to make this one more effective, for example, anything that penalizes an observers perception will effectively increase your own ability to disguise. For example, pretending to be a guard at night would penalize any observer -2 to perception in torchlight, and -5 with only candlelight. That in turn, makes for an effective +2 disguise with only torchlight and +5 with only candlelight. I could get another -5 perception if the observer is distracted, which is functionally +5 disguise.
So, example. Late at night, there's an explosion at the prison. Our party created the explosion an is disguised as two guards and prisoner. Their moving in the opposite direction as the explosion, and if asked, they explain that they are relocating the prisoner due to the explosion.
Assuming the PCs each rolled 2s, have only 1 rank in disguise, only a +1 CHA mod, and it isn't class skill. That's a base of 4 for the secret skill roll. Another +5 for being disguised with only minor details changed (+9). I'd given another +2 for each other PC with a similar themed disguise (aid another, so +4 each, +13 now). Its night, so encounters are likely only with torchlight (-2 perception for opposing, so functionally now +15 disguise), and then the explosion has created a panic, which is distracting (another -5 perception, so functionally +20 on disguise with a natural 2 rolled) as the actual guards are concern more about the explosion than the secure prison being escorted to another secure location.
Murdock Mudeater: what if you use 20 different people? Would you have an issue THEN with a take 20?Taking 20 doesn't apply to this one. The issue is that the disguise check doesn't represent a thing you pass or fail in a clear manner. You take the check and then OTHER people notice the disguise or don't. And even if they notice, it doesn't mean that you inherently are outed as a disguised character, they just know that you are disguised.
There are lots of ways to make this one more effective, for example, anything that penalizes an observers perception will effectively increase your own ability to disguise. For example, pretending to be a guard at night would penalize any observer -2 to perception in torchlight, and -5 with only candlelight. That in turn, makes for an effective +2 disguise with only torchlight and +5 with only candlelight. I could get another -5 perception if the observer is distracted, which is functionally +5 disguise.
So, example. Late at night, there's an explosion at the prison. Our party created the explosion an is disguised as two guards and prisoner. Their moving in the opposite direction as the explosion, and if asked, they explain that they are relocating the prisoner due to the explosion.
Assuming the PCs each rolled 2s, have only 1 rank in disguise, only a +1 CHA mod, and it isn't class skill. That's a base of 4 for the secret skill roll. Another +5 for being disguised with only minor details changed (+9). I'd given another +2 for each other PC with a similar themed disguise (aid another, so +4 each, +13 now). Its night, so encounters are likely only with torchlight (-2 perception for opposing, so functionally now +15 disguise), and then the explosion has created a panic, which is distracting (another -5 perception, so functionally +20 on disguise with a natural 2 rolled) as the actual guards are concern more about the explosion than the secure prison being escorted to another secure location.
So what if all 20 people take 20 on their check vs your disguise? How would that NOT result in your making your best disguise as per the take 20 rules? Why would later modifiers like future lighting or distraction matter when it withstood the test under optimal perception factors? Make your take 20 when it's least effective and then you just add circumstance modifiers to it. Easy peasy.
|
|
Murdock Mudeater: what if you use 20 different people? Would you have an issue THEN with a take 20?I love this!
"Alright peasants, who wants to earn some money? Simple job, no danger, just have to judge our skill at makeup."
It's not a skill of make up, it's the still at not being recognized as the person you actually are. If they see only a more glamoured version of yourself, the disguised failed...The whole point is that they don't see the disguise.
The above would certainly work for training your make-up skills.
"Yeah! If I didn't know it was you, I couldn't have guessed!"
This line^
That's exactly it. They saw the disguise. That's failure. Which was my point, that repeating the disguise check with people who know you just results in them being more able to recognize you.
That said, the way the disguise skill works, it's a secret roll. So you don't know if this disguise is better than the last one, all you know is what those around you say in response to your disguised self. And depending on your sense motive, they could just be being nice...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well clearly nobody is changing their mind. The same arguments are being repeated over and over again as if the results are going to change. It's time to agree to disagree and step away from the keyboard.
Remember that taking 20 doesn't actually represent doing something 20 times until you roll a 20, that's just the player behavior it replaces. It's still just a single check, that takes a long time.
As such a lot of this 'how many people check your work for you' is irrelevant. If you're allowed to take 20, you don't need assistants, and if you're not allowed to take 20, having assistants won't change that.
|
|
So what if all 20 people take 20 on their check vs your disguise? How would that NOT result in your making your best disguise as per the take 20 rules? Why would later modifiers like future lighting or distraction matter when it withstood the test under optimal perception factors? Make your take 20 when it's least effective and then you just add circumstance modifiers to it. Easy peasy.
Perhaps you should read the skill again, as I feel I'm being asked to explain what the PRD says regarding disguise.
"You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people make Perception checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can't be sure how good the result is."
You'd make your check when putting on the disguise, when people notice you, they'd make passive perception against what you already rolled, which is then modified by circumstantial modifiers.
Perhaps you were confused by my example. Your disguise check would be 9 in that example (2 rolled, 1 CHA, 1 rank, and +5 for only altering minor details). The other modifiers I mentioned would apply only when they came up. Mentioning the modifiers seemed like a good point to make, as people seem to think you'd need to take 20 on disguise, when you can get really high results by just creating circumstances that are favorable to your disguises.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a skill of make up
It isn't? What are the tools used in disguise? "makeup and fake facial hair" and "skin cream". So what do you call a skill that uses make up if not a skill of make up. If it was acting it sure wouldn't take 1d3 × 10 minutes of work. Let me quote the skill: "You are skilled at changing your appearance". That's make up 101.
it's the still at not being recognized as the person you actually are. If they see only a more glamoured version of yourself, the disguised failed...The whole point is that they don't see the disguise.
You bring in 20 people to see group then one at a time bring them in and judge the new disguise. Take 20.
That said, the way the disguise skill works, it's a secret roll. So you don't know if this disguise is better than the last one, all you know is what those around you say in response to your disguised self.
Person one see an error, fix it. Person two sees something else. fix that. Person 3 sees something different...
Having a super secret roll doesn't stop the viewer from communicating what they notice wrong.
|
|
It's not a skill of make upIt isn't? What are the tools used in disguise? "makeup and fake facial hair" and "skin cream". So what do you call a skill that uses make up if not a skill of make up. If it was acting it sure wouldn't take 1d3 × 10 minutes of work. Let me quote the skill: "You are skilled at changing your appearance". That's make up 101.
it's the still at not being recognized as the person you actually are. If they see only a more glamoured version of yourself, the disguised failed...The whole point is that they don't see the disguise.You bring in 20 people to see group then one at a time bring them in and judge the new disguise. Take 20.
That said, the way the disguise skill works, it's a secret roll. So you don't know if this disguise is better than the last one, all you know is what those around you say in response to your disguised self.Person one see an error, fix it. Person two sees something else. fix that. Person 3 sees something different...
Having a super secret roll doesn't stop the viewer from communicating what they notice wrong.
Are you really using make up to disguise as a guard? If I saw a medieval guard wearing make up, I'd be suspicious.
I'd put on the tabard, wear the correct armor, and have the right weapons. That's a guard disguise with "minor details only."
The disguise skill is not just about changing your appearance, but about tricking someone into believing you are someone your are not. If you just want to look good, just role play that. Disguise is about looking as something you aren't.
Are you talking about metagaming or just role playing? If you gather up 20 random people, you'd have 20 different opinions on a single disguise roll. Yes, after seeing what each NPC used for perception, a player could deduce what the "super secret" disguise roll was. But that doesn't affect their PC's in-game understanding of what happened. You could certainly keep trying until 20 random NPCs believe your disguise, but it isn't the same concept as taking 20.
Though if you have 20 people, it would be entirely feasible to say 20 people were "aiding" your PC in their Disguise attempt. It still doesn't qualify as taking 20, but the end result should be high enough where it doesn't matter what it counts as.
"Yeah! If I didn't know it was you, I couldn't have guessed!"
This line^
That's exactly it. They saw the disguise. That's failure. Which was my point, that repeating the disguise check with people who know you just results in them being more able to recognize you.
... what? No, okay, I get what you're saying, but no: you're exactly wrong in this specific case.
The only reason they knew it was the other person, is because the other person told them.
Let me put it this way: if I know my friend is going to be in a blue parka, a skiing mask, skiing goggles, black gloves, gray pants, black boots, and a red scarf that's great information. I can find them. The next time I saw someone with a blue parka, a skiing mask, skiing goggles, black gloves, gray pants, black boots, and a red scarf, I would presume it was them, even though I didn't know it. Who's behind that ensemble? No idea. I believe that it's my friend, but I don't know that it's my friend. There isn't a way to see "past" that kind of fluff.
The cues I'd look for to distinguish them would be different from visual cues, but, in all likelihood, I'd just go up to the person and start gabbing away, until it was proven they weren't my friend. I've then been fooled by their "disguise" (in this case, plain clothing), because I lack the distinguishing features to tell them apart from another person.
(Specific colors of clothing aside, this actually happened. They later got a picture together in all their stuff - people can't tell them apart.)
In this case, there were circumstance modifiers.
The problem is, despite knowing "what" to look for, despite having seen the get-up made, I (and others) were wrong. Fooled by our senses. We'd already seen through the disguise, but we were still tricked.
When someone says, "If I didn't know it was you, I couldn't have guessed!" it doesn't mean they saw through the disguise - it means they can't see through the disguise, unless said disguise is broken for them (such as their friend going, "Hey, this is me.")
When the only thing that tells you that person A is really person A, is person A literally telling you, "Hey, I'm person A." you've got a disguise that isn't able to be penetrated.
Here's another example. The dress. Hey, look at that... it just kind of... changes, even if you know what color it is and are taking your time to "look at it right" or whatever. Good disguise! It fools you, even as you know the solution.
That said, the way the disguise skill works, it's a secret roll. So you don't know if this disguise is better than the last one, all you know is what those around you say in response to your disguised self. And depending on your sense motive, they could just be being nice...
So, going back here, with,
So, which is the more specific rule?
a) some people say the unknown result line
b) some people say the take 10 rulesIf "a", then no, you cannot take 10.
If "b", then yes, you can take 10.
... what you're saying is option "A" is the "more specific" line. Valid interpretation, but only that.
|
|
Mr. Reynolds is (was, I guess, now...) very much a "rules guy", and unless he's overridden by Mr. Bulmahn, his clarifications were definitive. Players may take 10 or take 20 on Disguise checks, provided they have the time and aren't presently in a situation that prevents the general take 10 or take 20 rules. You can rule otherwise for your home games, but the Rules-As-Intended are clear for default Pathfinder.
Link Please?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was posted on page 1, then quickly dismissed as "Sean K. Reynolds isn't a rules guy and nothing he says matters."
[url]http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nhrz?Why-not-take-20#37[/url] found it
Ah, found it:
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.
Yeah, I'll go with that. That's about as official as we're going to get.
Thanks to Gatherer818 and to Sean.
With taking 20 is allowed, I withdraw my argument against taking 10.
The make up and fake hair etc in a disguise kit only accounts for +2 of the total bonus.
Disguising yourself as a guard can mean putting on a guards uniform or at least having something similar to a guards uniform and covering up the identifying insignia.
Putting a hat on and some mud on your face may be enough.
Cutting your hair shorter or shaving off a beard.
Wearing a cloak and walking with a hunchback.
It is strongly implied in the text that the core use of disguise is to look like you are not you. Looking like a specific person is another use and much harder.
I think some people are discussing the skill as if it involves an entire face mask. If players go to that length then they should get a circumstance bonus as has been discussed earlier not an auto 20 on the roll.
Also I wouldn't allow the PCs to be able to judge how good the disguise is unless they have the disguise skill themselves. Then I would allow them to aid another by giving constructive advice. This is already covered quite simply in the rules.