| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to turn into a specific person is a very very strong narrative ability. It also steps on the toes of the Deception skill. Paizo wanted skill based characters to be able to contribute in various ways without magic always being the better option. Between wanting to restrict a narrative ability and keep some stuff unique to skills, the purposeful choice to limit the abilities of certain spells was made. You can still do a lot with those spells but you can't do everything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, PF2 has less "solve this situation" spells, and a lot more emphasis on skills. pixierose exactly has the right of it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a shapeshifter who disguises as specific people, you totally can! The spells are still helpful, and if you invest in Deception (which an impersonation-focused shapeshifter should totally be doing anyways), you'll be really good at it!
OH yeah to help there is also the Reflection heritage and the Alter Ego archetype can help as well if I am remembering correctly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What these illusion spells do is allow you to use the Impersonate skill action.
You could also use a disguise kit, but that takes more time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it is a little weird that Humanoid Form doesn't even give you a bonus to disguise as a specific person. A +1 or +2 seems like it'd be fine. Magic should be able to help your skills, even if it can't fully replace them.
|
My issue is that there doesn't seem to be any way to magically impersonate another individual in a way that fools touch and blindsight, even with extremely-late-game spells like shapechange.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “fools . . . blindsight[.]” Can you please give an example of the sort of rules interaction you’re talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main complaint, I guess, is that a disguise consists of two parts: craftsmanship and persona. When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of craftsmanship (makeup, prosthetics, etc.), it's anticlimactic and sometimes even slightly humorous (a fake mustache drooping, for example). When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of the persona (the impersonator doing something their target never would, or not knowing something their target could ever plausibly forget), it adds far more drama.
A high-level spell or item should be able to remove the possibility of failure due to bad craftsmanship, but a failure due to persona mismatch is always going to remain a possibility. After all, they are logically two different people (or it wouldn't be a disguise at all), so there must be some difference between the two that could theoretically be uncovered.
That is pretty much what I am already reading the spell rules as.
If a non-spellcaster wants to impersonate a specific person, then they can use a disguise kit to make themselves look like that person, and then act like that person. Both of those are wrapped up in to one Deception check rather than making two separate checks (which would have a much higher risk of failure than one check would).
If a spellcaster wants to impersonate a specific person, then they can use Illusory Disguise - which can make them look like that person, but doesn't cause them to act or sound like that person. So they still have to use Deception for those parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also alchemy.
The Infiltrator's Elixir can't do specific individuals, but it can get you the basic chassis for Impersonate to build off of so that you don't need major modifications which would be too easy to detect with examination or just plain difficult like fake Orc tusks or scaly skin.
That should help with some special senses, like Scent, since it's a Polymorph effect so you would smell like that species (though diet, hygiene, & other factors contribute to smell too).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a little annoying, but speaking as someone whose low level Warlock has shut down entire dungeons with Mask of Many Faces, I can see why they raised the cost of the ability to 3rd level spells.
I think it was fairly late in PF1 when you started getting decent player options for impersonating specific individuals. PF2 hasn't had a real intrigue-focused book yet so maybe it'll still happen. But the bias for making specific impersonation hard, was already in PF1.
Disguise Self didn't have any restrictions on what you could look like out the gate. It also didn't cover scents or sounds though, so a heightened version is actually stronger in PF2. (You also have the option to sufficiently heighten it to where True Sight doesn't automatically beat it. Heightening is really important in PF2.)
Oh! But Ravingdork reminded me Illusory Creature doesn't have this restriction. You can usually use it for the same sort of purpose. Incredibly flexible spell.
Illusory creature doesn’t have the restriction, in fact it outright allows you to imitate a specific person when used along with the Deception or Performance skill:
The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A kitsune with Shifting Faces: "When you Change Shape into your tailless form, you gain the effects of 3rd-level illusory disguise for 1 hour or until you shift back, except it's a transmutation effect rather than an illusion." IMO, this would cover the touch part.
My main complaint, I guess, is that a disguise consists of two parts: craftsmanship and persona. When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of craftsmanship (makeup, prosthetics, etc.), it's anticlimactic and sometimes even slightly humorous (a fake mustache drooping, for example). When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of the persona (the impersonator doing something their target never would, or not knowing something their target could ever plausibly forget), it adds far more drama.
I hardly see how a disguise could be pierced through a failure of craftmanship unless there was a failure in persona first.
My main complaint, I guess, is that a disguise consists of two parts: craftsmanship and persona. When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of craftsmanship (makeup, prosthetics, etc.), it's anticlimactic and sometimes even slightly humorous (a fake mustache drooping, for example). When a disguise is pierced due to a failure of the persona (the impersonator doing something their target never would, or not knowing something their target could ever plausibly forget), it adds far more drama.I hardly see how a disguise could be pierced through a failure of craftmanship unless there was a failure in persona first.
A disguise might be set up well indoors, but not account for the hot weather, or strong winds outdoors. Eye color is tricky to change through mundane means before modern plastics, but also hard to notice. And so on- there are plenty of technical details that can go wrong without a mistake in behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A disguise might be set up well indoors, but not account for the hot weather, or strong winds outdoors. Eye color is tricky to change through mundane means before modern plastics, but also hard to notice. And so on- there are plenty of technical details that can go wrong without a mistake in behavior.
But I've never seen a GM going into such details. In general, if the character is "disguised", the GM will ignore all but the most extreme situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A disguise might be set up well indoors, but not account for the hot weather, or strong winds outdoors. Eye color is tricky to change through mundane means before modern plastics, but also hard to notice. And so on- there are plenty of technical details that can go wrong without a mistake in behavior.But I've never seen a GM going into such details. In general, if the character is "disguised", the GM will ignore all but the most extreme situations.
Some GMs also allow familiars to scout without rolls too but that doesn't mean we should assume that all GMs are going to nudge odds in their player's favor.
Some GMs also allow familiars to scout without rolls too but that doesn't mean we should assume that all GMs are going to nudge odds in their player's favor.
Well, if you ever met a GM asking you how you handle the eye color of the person you are impersonating, I'd be happy to know. Or one explaining you that you don't sweat in the same way that the person you are impersonating, or that the wind blows your disguise away. I think these GMs just want your attempt to fail no matter what.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some GMs also allow familiars to scout without rolls too but that doesn't mean we should assume that all GMs are going to nudge odds in their player's favor.Well, if you ever met a GM asking you how you handle the eye color of the person you are impersonating, I'd be happy to know. Or one explaining you that you don't sweat in the same way that the person you are impersonating, or that the wind blows your disguise away. I think these GMs just want your attempt to fail no matter what.
I think you misunderstand the intent behind my response. You said that you couldn't see how a disguise could fail without a failure of persona. I took that to mean you couldn't picture how that would look, so I provided some examples of what could cause a disguise to fail other than "a failure in persona". These are not "things that the GM would introduce to make a check fail", they are "things that the GM would introduce to explain the failure of a check after the rules and rolls determine that it fails".
In the case of Pathfinder 2e, disguises are generally set by deception DC rather than rolling, so there's no chance of simply rolling a particularly bad disguise. But when the guard or town gossip who has a reason to be examining people beats your deception DC, it's nice to have an explanation for what did it that doesn't make the character look incompetent. A wig being a little askew because it's windy, makeup starting to run a little at the corner, somebody happening to know the real duke's eye color oddly well, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were running a game where disguises and intrigue were integral to the campaign I'd use the rules below.
I'd set a fixed DC to create the disguise and then use the 4DS system to grant a +1, a working disguise with no modifier, a -1 penalty, and a complete failure that requires you to not only start over but to observe the target a second time. From there the disguise would work as normal and checks to stay in character would be run using the usual social skills modified by how well you've been disguised.
I'd also let others aid the check with with a broader range of skills than I would in a normal game so everybody feels involved even if they aren't as skilled in disguise or might not have as large a role in the upcoming scene. I'd also make sure the rules changes are making things at my table more fun and see if my players like the rule or want to ditch it for RAW starting next session.
In a normal game, I'd use the rules as written as I wouldn't expect it to come up overly often.
|
|
A disguise might be set up well indoors, but not account for the hot weather, or strong winds outdoors. Eye color is tricky to change through mundane means before modern plastics, but also hard to notice. And so on- there are plenty of technical details that can go wrong without a mistake in behavior.
I’d expect all that to either be already accounted for in the question of whether a check is possible and whether the check is successful. A failed result could be explained by any one of those factors, and a successful check apparently overcame them all. At most I might consider something like that a basis for a circumstance penalty to the check, but I honestly I’m not sure I’d even go that far.
I think you misunderstand the intent behind my response. You said that you couldn't see how a disguise could fail without a failure of persona. I took that to mean you couldn't picture how that would look, so I provided some examples of what could cause a disguise to fail other than "a failure in persona". These are not "things that the GM would introduce to make a check fail", they are "things that the GM would introduce to explain the failure of a check after the rules and rolls determine that it fails".
In the case of Pathfinder 2e, disguises are generally set by deception DC rather than rolling, so there's no chance of simply rolling a particularly bad disguise. But when the guard or town gossip who has a reason to be examining people beats your deception DC, it's nice to have an explanation for what did it that doesn't make the character look incompetent. A wig being a little askew because it's windy, makeup starting to run a little at the corner, somebody happening to know the real duke's eye color oddly well, etc.
Ok, I see what you mean. What I meant was that whatever the quality of your disguise, the GM will not forgo rolls because of that. The guard will roll anyway and the GM will interpret the failure as a failure in the disguise or a failure in persona if the disguise is supposed to be perfect. Roughly, people touching you will not happen out of the blue, there'll always be a failed roll or a failed interpretation generating that. So it's not really important to have a flawless disguise because it won't give you automatic successes to skill checks.
Yeah, even if you want to roleplay that your disguise is physically flawless, the GM can easily explain a failure as "you act out of character".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A disguise might be set up well indoors, but not account for the hot weather, or strong winds outdoors. Eye color is tricky to change through mundane means before modern plastics, but also hard to notice. And so on- there are plenty of technical details that can go wrong without a mistake in behavior.I’d expect all that to either be already accounted for in the question of whether a check is possible and whether the check is successful. A failed result could be explained by any one of those factors, and a successful check apparently overcame them all. At most I might consider something like that a basis for a circumstance penalty to the check, but I honestly I’m not sure I’d even go that far.
Like I said earlier, these aren't ideas for screwing over disguises or giving out penalties. You could definitely disguise yourself as somebody and not have a matching eye color; it'd almost always work unless the person has a very distinctive eye color. But if somebody succeeds on their perception check, then it's a convenient detail for them to notice if it wasn't a problem with the acting.
I'm not sure exactly what check you're talking about failing, though- making a disguise doesn't involve any checks in PF2. You take the time, and your deception modifier sets the DC for other people's deception checks.
|
|
I'm not sure exactly what check you're talking about failing, though- making a disguise doesn't involve any checks in PF2. You take the time, and your deception modifier sets the DC for other people's deception checks.
Making a disguise doesn’t involve a Deception check, but,
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.
There’s even a list of results for these checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure exactly what check you're talking about failing, though- making a disguise doesn't involve any checks in PF2. You take the time, and your deception modifier sets the DC for other people's deception checks.Making a disguise doesn’t involve a Deception check, but,
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.There’s even a list of results for these checks.
Cool, we're on the same page then; I was just a bit confused by how you worded it. I would generally save "issues with the disguise itself" for those occasional cases where somebody has a reason to check on you without a conversational interaction (i.e. they're the ones making a check that beats your deception DC), and rolling poorly on a deception check to interact would generally be saying something that gives them enough reason to be suspicious and spot that something is off.