Do they just automatically work?
1. Because bonuses are less common in 2E (mechanic reason), and because disguises are about more than appearance (narrative reason).
2. No, they aren't automatic, at least not more than any other disguise.
The spells do allow you (typically) to disguise yourself without a kit and often with your level added to proficiency even if untrained (which is quite a bonus in those instances). Which is to say, those spells do confer a certain minimum ability. Yet much like identical twins can often vary enough they're hardly identical, so too can a non-Minotaur fail to act enough like a Minotaur to pass as one, even if sharing the shape. Note that usually an observer doesn't get a check vs. a disguise unless they interact with/evaluate the disguised creature, so the spells are quite effective alone, yes. An unskilled, high-level person could simply polymorph and fool most onlookers, even skeptical low-level ones. Versus a significant creature who's skeptical, then no, one spell can't grant the same benefits as another PC gets from heavy investment in skills and Charisma.
One line of reasoning available is that there's an obvious discomfort in one's new form, at least to those paying attention. And should you be, say, a horse in a herd of horses, it'd be rare for anybody to pay enough attention to you to get a roll. And that'd be darn hard for a disguise kit to pull off.
Also, PF2 doesn't even have a Disguise skill. I guess it is an application of Deception?
Also, PF2 doesn't even have a Disguise skill. I guess it is an application of Deception?
Yes, Deception.
This means taking Trained gives a +2 bonus even to somebody using polymorph (or some illusions), making the investment worthwhile.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humanoid form grants you a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to pass as a generic member of the chosen ancestry, and you add your level even if you’re untrained.
Battle forms don't last long enough for Impersonate to matter anyway, so they didn't bother adding rules for it.
Humanoid form grants you a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to pass as a generic member of the chosen ancestry, and you add your level even if you’re untrained.
Battle forms don't last long enough for Impersonate to matter anyway, so they didn't bother adding rules for it.
They don't normally, but there are several options for expanding that duration.
I've never been fond of these sorts of checks. The polymorphed druid looks like the bear they transformed into. If there is some social interaction, then for sure a deception check is appropriate. But normally I wouldn't roll one.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been fond of these sorts of checks. The polymorphed druid looks like the bear they transformed into. If there is some social interaction, then for sure a deception check is appropriate. But normally I wouldn't roll one.
That is more or less how the rules work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, someone has you suspect there is an issue before their would be a check made. Just like with illusions
What gives it away is "that bear is acting strangely" not "that bear doesn't convincingly appear to be a bear". If a sentry sees a bear try to interact with a doorknob, they're going to know something is up.
Idk how explictly RAW it is, but this has been the main benefit in my games to familiars and form retention shapeshifting; you don't HAVE to be stealthy because even if you are spotted, an animal is less likely to be seen as suspicious. Generally, I only allow npcs to roll to find out something is up is if the players do something that breaks character or draws attention, or if the npcs are actively patroling and looking for threats, since, well, Impersonate requires an active check to see through.
Now, they still react to you as they would an animal, so like a large predator might draw aggro from guards and hunters while scaring others, a fox might get chased away by food vendors and farmers, etc, but they won't typically sus you out until you break character
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk how explictly RAW it is, but this has been the main benefit in my games to familiars and form retention shapeshifting; you don't HAVE to be stealthy because even if you are spotted, an animal is less likely to be seen as suspicious. Generally, I only allow npcs to roll to find out something is up is if the players do something that breaks character or draws attention, or if the npcs are actively patroling and looking for threats, since, well, Impersonate requires an active check to see through.
Now, they still react to you as they would an animal, so like a large predator might draw aggro from guards and hunters while scaring others, a fox might get chased away by food vendors and farmers, etc, but they won't typically sus you out until you break character
I think typical familiar creatures, i.e. black cats, ravens, and whatever matches those in Golarion cultures, would draw attention. I know savvy players/PCs would make sure their NPC ally guards were trained to suspect most any creature as a potential spy, worthy of being driven off if not outright attacked (depending on temperament). I'd think armies would have similar policies of shooting down lingering birds, at least in worlds with ample magic like Golarion.
Infiltrating into a group of other animals seems the better route, especially if said group were important, like an army's horses.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Idk how explictly RAW it is, but this has been the main benefit in my games to familiars and form retention shapeshifting; you don't HAVE to be stealthy because even if you are spotted, an animal is less likely to be seen as suspicious. Generally, I only allow npcs to roll to find out something is up is if the players do something that breaks character or draws attention, or if the npcs are actively patroling and looking for threats, since, well, Impersonate requires an active check to see through.
Now, they still react to you as they would an animal, so like a large predator might draw aggro from guards and hunters while scaring others, a fox might get chased away by food vendors and farmers, etc, but they won't typically sus you out until you break character
I think typical familiar creatures, i.e. black cats, ravens, and whatever matches those in Golarion cultures, would draw attention. I know savvy players/PCs would make sure their NPC ally guards were trained to suspect most any creature as a potential spy, worthy of being driven off if not outright attacked (depending on temperament). I'd think armies would have similar policies of shooting down lingering birds, at least in worlds with ample magic like Golarion.
Infiltrating into a group of other animals seems the better route, especially if said group were important, like an army's horses.
I would handle it like Alchemic-Genius most of the time, and like Castilliano only during war time or when such activities are otherwise expected by an enemy.
There's far, far too many cat, rats, and ravens in the world for them all to be spies. Attacking such creatures on sight on the 1/10,000 off-chance that one could be a familiar would be the height of paranoia. Even worse yet, you might one day be right, and incure the wrath of a powerful spellcaster.
I've never been fond of these sorts of checks. The polymorphed druid looks like the bear they transformed into. If there is some social interaction, then for sure a deception check is appropriate. But normally I wouldn't roll one.That is more or less how the rules work.
So how do these rules actually work? Is there some guidance here you can quote to me? I have seen a number of games (in other systems as well) where these types of checks are made when they really should not have. That is because there is a skill check listed, the GM rolls it. But if the check wasn't listed the GM would have just hand waved it and moved on. In effect having the skill was a negative. In PF2 it is more of a problem because there are a lot more skill checks described.
I encounter this even with spells like Illusory disguise. Is the design intention that just using a spell to bypass a situation inherently should require a skill check? or can the skill check bypass it?
Illusions don't give saves unless someone spends an action engaging with the disguise. If my character is a wanted outlaw on the streets of Alkenstar, and I cast illusory disguise just to look like someone I am not, do I even need to be making checks when I walk past a deputy on the street? Are we really supposed to assume that the deputies are spending an action everyone, inspecting every single person that walks by isn't a wanted criminal? Is magic just inherently something that can raise suspicions?
I think that these are pretty difficult questions for the game to answer conclusively with rules, because the most accurate answer is probably, will adding a check here feel like it is a fun part of the adventure for everyone, or just a punitive way to stifle player creativity?
If you get too permissive with spell casters and letting them bypass checks that other players are having to make, with spells (especially cantrips that utilize no resources), you run the risk of making things less fun for everyone else at the table who feels like they should just let casters do everything, because "magic." But if you force rolls for every little thing a caster chooses to do, then many casters will start asking, "why even bother casting these spells, I will just have to make the same skill check anyway?"
Thinking about context is important. Making players roll when the outcome of the roll will not lead to an interesting or fun set of alternate possibilities often leads to player frustration. Setting DCs can be tricky too. Often time, when these are situations involving lots of low level NPCs, it can be tricky to set the right DC. It is generally a good idea to let PCs feel powerful when they spend limited resources to take a creative approach to problem solving that makes everyone have more fun. Give them the low level DC for many of the checks, but if there are some level appropriate or even higher guards or other check points, try to make it clear that those situations are looking like they might be riskier. Let the player see the guard actively inspecting people ahead, and maybe even have them spot something the player's character might have struggled to notice to give that hint, rather than just slamming them up against a very high perception DC to try to overcome with a subpar skill the player is trying to bypass with magic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my character is a wanted outlaw on the streets of Alkenstar, and I cast illusory disguise just to look like someone I am not, do I even need to be making checks when I walk past a deputy on the street?
You don't make checks when using Impersonate in the first place. Someone else makes a perception check, if they're looking for you. So... you should never be making a check.
Ignoring that, the answer is... yes? If they aren't looking for you. The whole point of making disguises work this way is that so you aren't doomed to fail by getting bombarded with incidental checks.
If a deputy is combing the streets looking for disguised outlaws, they'd probably get a check. But if you walk by a restaurant and thirty people are outside eating lunch, the GM rolling thirty free secret perception checks is essentially just fiating your disguise away.
... The whole aside about spellcasters is a bit misleading because Impersonate functions the exact same way if you only mundane skill checks anyways.
I think typical familiar creatures, i.e. black cats, ravens, and whatever matches those in Golarion cultures, would draw attention. I know savvy players/PCs would make sure their NPC ally guards were trained to suspect most any creature as a potential spy, worthy of being driven off if not outright attacked (depending on temperament). I'd think armies would have similar policies of shooting down lingering birds, at least in worlds with ample magic like Golarion.
Infiltrating into a group of other animals seems the better route, especially if said group were important, like an army's horses.
Can't speak to golarion specifically, but in my home games, there really isn't a "typical familiar" since any tiny animal can hypothetically be one. Spellcasters of high society might have familiars of a "stylish" sort, and some cultures might ascribe mystical properties or magical associations with some animals, but in the end, it's not really anything thats factual. Paranoid PCs that think they can familiarproof their guards by targeting black cats or ravens will still find that beetles and dogs and raccoons can also be familiars. We know in real life that black cats do tend to suffer more cruelty because of superstition, but society overall still wont attack a black cat on sight.
Plus, if you shoot down every animal, then it would be very easy to drain an army of it's resources as they waste arrows and spells hitting birds
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Squiggit is more or less right on the money. Technically, you do roll a Deception check if you directly interact with someone while using Impersonate, but you don't roll a check just for walking by someone (or them walking by you.) Much like illusions, it requires capital A Actions to be used to get a check.
So how do these rules actually work? Is there some guidance here you can quote to me?
Impersonate action, CRB 245. In most cases, creatures have a chance to detect your deception only if they use the Seek action to attempt Perception checks against your Deception DC. If you attempt to directly interact with someone while disguised, the GM rolls a secret Deception check for you against that creature’s Perception DC instead. If you’re disguised as a specific individual, the GM might give creatures you interact with a circumstance bonus based on how well they know the person you’re imitating, or the GM might roll a secret Deception check even if you aren’t directly interacting with others.
I have seen a number of games (in other systems as well) where these types of checks are made when they really should not have.
This is definitely a problem, yes. People also get mixed up in the order of operations for who can roll a check. Sense Motive is a major pet peeve for me. PF2 axed he awful experience of every player rolling Sense Motive after every NPC sentence. (Or even worse, letting one player roll Sense Motive after every sentence until they roll low and then everyone piles on.) But people don't realize the person telling a Lie needs to roll Deception and Sense Motive is a once a social situation thing.
But if the check wasn't listed the GM would have just hand waved it and moved on. In effect having the skill was a negative.
I've seen this to. GMs who bristle at things like tying a the gnome sorcerer to the monk's back instead of making the untrained 8 strength gnome roll athletics to climb.
In PF2 it is more of a problem because there are a lot more skill checks described.
I think the actual problem is people just don't know the rules. There's a lot of pretty clear guidance on when checks are supposed to be used and when they are not, but people have trouble with some combination of reading, understanding, and remembering them.
"why even bother casting these spells, I will just have to make the same skill check anyway?"
... The whole aside about spellcasters is a bit misleading because Impersonate functions the exact same way if you only mundane skill checks anyways.
Squiggit is right on the money again. This does beg a further question, which is why use magic if you use the same rules as a Disguise Kit. Some answers:
-Illusion spells take 2 actions to set up, not 10 minutes.
-Spells usually give you a +4 status bonus to the check.
-Spells let you add your level even untrained.
-Higher level spells let you disguise your voice and scent as well.
Thanks. The impersonate rules do cover it. Though they are full of escape clauses and weasel words. There is still a whole lot of judgement a GM has to use, and they do it differently.
Squiggit is right on the money again. This does beg a further question, which is why use magic if you use the same rules as a Disguise Kit. Some answers:
-Illusion spells take 2 actions to set up, not 10 minutes.
-Spells usually give you a +4 status bonus to the check.
-Spells let you add your level even untrained.
The difficulty here is that taking one rank in Deception skill is fairly cheap. If you are a caster playing around with Illusions a rank in Deception is worthwhile. Ten minutes is often not important.
I agree that Maxing your Charisma, your Deception skill, and getting the right items is more expensive.But this is where the game gets undefined and you need to rely on the judgement of your GM being reasonable. Which is tricky as that is very subjective and expectations vary a lot. I found myself gently suggesting some rules to a new GM last night regarding another players actions. He was floundering so it was well received.
-Higher level spells let you disguise your voice and scent as well
So does the skill. I can deliberate alter my voice or apply various things to mask my odor. So that technically is a penalty only for the spell.
I mean if your opponent has to be actively searching to get a check then you can make a low effort disguise and technically it will work provided you can avoid direct interaction.
Well I think the really big part is the +4 status bonus, which stacks with all your other investment. So a bard or sorcerer will pretty much always be the apex of Impersonate. Plus they have access to a lot of other social spells, like Charm and Mond Reading. Bards are the best because they can use their god skill Performance both for the Impersonate check and to mask their casting.
|
So to sum it up, basically both deception and stealth work in same way: You roll once (well gm does secretly) to pass foes' "passive" perception and then not again unless they are actively searching for you, in which case they roll versus your dc.
Invisibility spell in this edition automatically makes you undetected, so you don't need to roll stealth to pass that passive though guards actively searching for you still roll perception vs your stealth dc. So to me illusion(and polymorph) spells work the same way, you are already disguised so you don't roll deception vs passive perception, but that +4 is really nice for having higher deception dc is guards search you.
Rules also support this as illusory disguise explicitly says it gives +4 to prevent others seeing through your disguise, aka +4 to your deception dc. It doesn't actually give you bonus to impersonation checks.(but of course allows you to try that because you already have a convincing disguise)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to sum it up, basically both deception and stealth work in same way: You roll once (well gm does secretly) to pass foes' "passive" perception and then not again unless they are actively searching for you, in which case they roll versus your dc.
Not quite. Stealth requires you to roll up front when you hide. Lie requires you to roll when you Lie. Impersonate doesnt call for you to roll when you assemble the disguise, but when you actually interact with a character. It is entirely possible you will assemble a disguise and never roll a check, nor will anyone else roll one against you.
Invisibility spell in this edition automatically makes you undetected, so you don't need to roll stealth to pass that passive though guards actively searching for you still roll perception vs your stealth dc.
This is sort of true but misleading. Invisibility doesn't call for a check to make you undetected, but you still need to roll a stealth check to move without being noticed. Nothing frees you from the normal restraints of the Sneak action. By contrast you can move around while using Disguise Self with no check.
|
|
I mean, it does make sense to some extend since while invisible you can "hide" anywhere and you still might make sounds, but I feel like its also kinda fair to be like "if you don't do anything risky, these non alert guards aren't going to require you to make a check"
Otherwise it kind of makes stealth missions underwhelming if certain party members can't even try in any circumstances. Especially since any enemies with high perception are... Well yeah
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it does make sense to some extend since while invisible you can "hide" anywhere and you still might make sounds, but I feel like its also kinda fair to be like "if you don't do anything risky, these non alert guards aren't going to require you to make a check"
Otherwise it kind of makes stealth missions underwhelming if certain party members can't even try in any circumstances. Especially since any enemies with high perception are... Well yeah
I dunno about fair, but thems the rules. It a champion with 0 Dex and no training tries to squeeze between two adjacent gaurds, odds are they will bump into someone, make a noise, or what have you.
Now where you do have discretion for Sneaking are circumstance adjustments. APs are full of guards who are slacking off and take a -4 circumstance penalty to their initiative modifiers, and cover rules mean sneakers usually have +2 circumstance bonus to their check, or a +4 if they are lying in ambush. The rules also leave a lot of leeway for distance. If a party under Invisibility Sphere is 200 feet from a watch tower, you could reasonably give them a bonus or even not require a check.
Finally, you should keep in mind an unnoticed creature only becomes hidden on a normal Sneak failure, and becomes observed on a critical failure. That means that you might roll initiative but could still conceivably escape without ever being directly observed. A guard could very conceivably lose track of you and decide it must have been a deer in the bushes or otherwise be unwilling to abandon their post to chase you down.
The stealth rules actually give you a lot of room to create interesting scenarios falling between encounter/no encounter.
What gives it away is "that bear is acting strangely" not "that bear doesn't convincingly appear to be a bear". If a sentry sees a bear try to interact with a doorknob, they're going to know something is up.
Bears are pretty intelligent, definitely enough to figure out that messing with a doorknob might open a door if they wanted to get behind it and it was shut.
Now if they picked up a set of thieves' tools and started working away at a locked door then there's probably something up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What gives it away is "that bear is acting strangely" not "that bear doesn't convincingly appear to be a bear". If a sentry sees a bear try to interact with a doorknob, they're going to know something is up.Bears are pretty intelligent, definitely enough to figure out that messing with a doorknob might open a door if they wanted to get behind it and it was shut.
Now if they picked up a set of thieves' tools and started working away at a locked door then there's probably something up.
People are pretty ignorant in general though.
It's not like they've seen the latest YouTube video of an animal being clever.
Your average NPC might see a (genuine) bear fumble a door open and leap to the conclusion that it couldn't be a dumb beast, but rather is a wizard in disguise, or possessed by a demon, or something else.