|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Oct 10, 2019 13:21:41 GMT -5
My comments start based on the sever rule below:
------
5. Disguise Checks - The following guidelines will determine the outcome of a Disguise Check when required:
- Disguised Characters normally roll Bluff. Those having Perform may substitute this skill. Clerics with the Trickery Domain may use the Persuade Skill.
- Skeptical Characters challenging the disguise may roll Spot if they are seeing something to give doubt or Listen if they are hearing something to give doubt.
- If the disguise roll is higher or ties the challenging roll, the Disguise is upheld. If the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the disguise is busted.
------
My comment has to do with the last statement: It says that if the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the disguise is busted. To me, this isn't worded properly. Bluff is about convincing someone of something that may or may not be true (As opposed to persuade/diplomacy with is convincing someone to take your side, see your point of view, or act for you). That something doesn't even have to be false. If you're rolling bluff about a statement, someone opposes it to decide whether you convinced them of it's validity. If my character comes into town and says they killed a dragon, it may be true or it may not be true. We roll to see whether my character is convincing enough to make you believe them, whether its true or not doesn't matter. And it should be done on an individual basis. Just because one person may beat the roll, doesn't mean everyone does. The same should be true for disguises. A disguise shouldn't be 'busted' (I don't think its a good term to use) because one person beats the roll. Everyone contesting the roll should have to make their own roll to decide what their character believes.
First, just because one character has a reason to roll against a character doesn't mean everyone does. Second, if one character beats the roll and calls the disguised character out that might cause all the others present to justify their own rolls but that doesn't mean everyone else automatically should believe them. Everyone should have to make their own rolls, and if the rest of the characters fail they might even tell the first character that he's paranoid and seeing things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sioladuil on Oct 10, 2019 13:29:32 GMT -5
When I played Sepoto, few years back, I made a similar issue over people flat out ignoring the rolls for RP skills.
He had massive intimidate, I invested a lot of points in to it.
Overall, I was basically told that RP skills have no real standing and people will mostly ignore them unless a DM says so.
Since that character I have rarely bothered with RP skills. Which is unfortunate, because they can add a lot of dynamic to a character
|
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Oct 10, 2019 14:17:16 GMT -5
I agree that if a disguise is penetrated ("busted") that it should only be for that character. If that character then points out the disguise, other characters should get to roll (since they now have reason to be "skeptical"), perhaps with a circumstance bonus.
Whether someone believes the character penetrating the disguise should be RPd and separate from whether the other character makes the roll. If someone I trust tells me that Elminster there is really Dragonbait and not Elminster at all, I might well believe them... but if I don't penetrate the disguise myself I can't tell what the person really looks like.
|
|
|
|
Post by ID10Tango on Oct 10, 2019 15:45:19 GMT -5
I have seen this a handful of times and it's something that I've quietly disagreed with, similar as Lady Frost: The person who beats the disguise check then enlists everyone around as if they're all sharing the same roll.
Furthermore from my experience and perspective, 1 person beating a disguise check doesn't automatically grant that person "Identify Person". I see it more along the lines of "You're dressed as a clown, but I know you're not a clown. So who are you". But often it ends up more like: "MOBIUS IN A PDK OUTFIT!"
It should only mean that the disguise itself is unconvincing to that 1 person, but doesn't give away the identity entirely. Of course there is room for exceptions based on RP and other factors (i.e. RDD wings are tricky to hide) but I'd like to see more thorough RP when challenging someone's disguise, and more integrity from others in the vicinity of it's going down near you...
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, just one players opinion is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 10, 2019 17:40:15 GMT -5
Are we allowed to give our experiences here or would we get called bitter, whiney, complainers for joining in on the topic? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by ID10Tango on Oct 10, 2019 18:24:30 GMT -5
...maybe I should have simply said "I agree entirely with Lady Frost." *sry shrug?*
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Oct 10, 2019 19:26:27 GMT -5
Are we allowed to give our experiences here or would we get called bitter, whiney, complainers for joining in on the topic? Asking for a friend. I don't mind experiences being talked about so long as they're constructive towards giving a point of view and not just to flame someone. I know you've had disagreements in the past with how disguises were handled and since you tend to be on the side trying to see through disguises I think it's fair to hear your experiences. I'm specifically curious if you agree or disagree with the points I made in the OP though, which I think can be agreed with even while understanding that people who are disguised may not be handling it appropriately. I agree that disguises tend to favor the person hiding. Rogues and bards, for example, get bluff as a class skill, while Search is only a class skill for assassin, ranger, red dragon disciple, rogue, shadowdancer - and Search is int-based so only wizards likely see much benefit from the ability score. What I don't want you to think is that I'm saying the method to FRC's disguises is or is not fair. I'm not discussing the fairness. I'm discussing -how- bluffing and overcoming bluffing should work and should be handled. If you want to discuss the fairness of FRC's disguise policy, we can do that, that just wasn't the argument I was initially making. |
|
|
|
Post by bloodalchemist on Oct 10, 2019 20:17:46 GMT -5
So usual quip before i get to the meat, from a design perspective player v player is not something any version of DnD supports in the idea of balance or rule design. They simply do not consider it a part of the game and thus don't design any of their systems for it, so keep this in mind. I think this is important because the moment you engage in rp or combat that involves pvp, such as with disguises in areas you shouldn't be in or to stalk players, you are taking on the role of a hostile npc, (dm territory), and thus should fall under those rules.
The general rule with all perception based rolls is that if one party member passes, all party members do. Some party members can choose not to share their discoveries, but generally its a given in all pnp once a player goes, "Hey, look at that guy in the doofy clown mask" all the players in the group will see this. I would say that once a players disguise has been beaten, and its pointed out, we could easily consider that a +5 to +10 to everyone elses checks mechanically if the disguised player really wants to enforce that no one else see's through it just cause someone else pointed out their zipper on their face mask =P
|
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 10, 2019 23:17:33 GMT -5
So usual quip before i get to the meat, from a design perspective player v player is not something any version of DnD supports in the idea of balance or rule design. They simply do not consider it a part of the game and thus don't design any of their systems for it, so keep this in mind. I think this is important because the moment you engage in rp or combat that involves pvp, such as with disguises in areas you shouldn't be in or to stalk players, you are taking on the role of a hostile npc, (dm territory), and thus should fall under those rules. The general rule with all perception based rolls is that if one party member passes, all party members do. Some party members can choose not to share their discoveries, but generally its a given in all pnp once a player goes, "Hey, look at that guy in the doofy clown mask" all the players in the group will see this. I would say that once a players disguise has been beaten, and its pointed out, we could easily consider that a +5 to +10 to everyone elses checks mechanically if the disguised player really wants to enforce that no one else see's through it just cause someone else pointed out their zipper on their face mask =P I guess this is true if you have never played in an evil campaign where characters do fight one another, or plot against one another, or where they exist in a society of evil intrigues. The rules is 3.5 regarding skills, skill checks, and combat work perfectly well when one player is set against another, in fact, NPCs are just player characters under the control of the DM in many cases, utilizing player character classes, because lets face it, NPC classes like expert are rarely used in cases where the NPC is a significant threat. Monsters and NPCs have classes, skills, spells, class abilities, feats, and other powers highly similar to what the PCs have....it's literally exactly what the system is designed for. The only part where it gets funky is that we can never win against each other really....we just ...come back with a little amnesia and one side gets to say "We really got him maybe we should tell him since he doesn't remember". I say this as a -complete- outsider, since I take part in none of this. I don't use disguises, ever, on any character I play, and I also do not engage in PVP that isn't essential to the story. I don't go out of my way to see through disguises because...well...why the hell would I? I don't look around for people in my day to day life who may be my disguised rivals...it's almost absurd to think anyone does that isn't working in special ops and is suspecting that infiltrators from rival black ops groups are trying to kill them. Also, running typical PnP game, is really just a little different and it's in the DMs interest for the party to share this info on a fast track and alert each other so that all the intrigue, fights, and advancement of plot fits into a 2-3 hour session, on here...well..we actively live the lives of characters on a day by day year by year basis and it just isn't nearly as abstract as a PnP game with a clearly defined group, a DM, and NPCs. There are differences. SOmetimes it's hard to make a call on what having fun at the expense of others is. Bitter arguments over disguises just detract from almost everyones fun. I don't think the area outside the regal really counts as an area 'you shouldn't be in' since a hundred or so PCs move through every day and it's a high traffic area sometimes brimming with new and old faces alike, many races, exotic cultures (aka the perfect place for a disguised character to stand around and try to glean info). I use this area as an example since this is almost 100% of the time where I see disguised characters. I just ignore them since I see people I have never ever seen before there, every single day, usually more than one. Near a rival factions guild area or player home? Sure, it's suspicious, but...in any area in any city that has traffic, being there in a disguise is not being somewhere you aren't supposed to be, it's being somewhere that foot traffic exists and many people move through at all times of day and night. If someone points out a disguised person, and identifies them by name, yeah...others should have a cue to notice their identity, if three people standing together across a space whispering to each other notice them and don't point it out to the rest of town, no one else should be any the wiser. If I am in the royal palace..yes, Im where I am not supposd to be, if I am in greatgaunt I am exactly where tons of individuals who have never met stand around all day every day (for some reason). In that regard, finding disguised people there should be pretty stiff. Back to the issue at hand, bluff, Ladyfrost is actually spot on in this regard with how bluff works. And what really constitutes party members in this situation, everyone in town, or the couple of people standing with you? |
|
|
|
Post by ID10Tango on Oct 11, 2019 12:11:31 GMT -5
I agree entirely with both Lady Frost and The Bard Darkharp 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Oct 11, 2019 12:24:34 GMT -5
The phrasing in the rules probably need to be clarified. Every time I've tried breaking a disguise it has always been a matter between myself and the other player. If I had won the roll it would be that my character could do with that information what he will, be it tell others, or let the guards know, or nothing even. My success or failure never extended to my party or surrounding players. Success always had to be RPed as a unique discovery by my character and had to be RPed out IC for others to share in that discovery.
Generally the way I've conducted disguise rolls was to send a tell to the disguised player and ask for a disguise check. We'd roll and whoever won, won.
Course the rule needs to be heavily polished cause the way it is written out leaves way too much up to the interpretation of players, which eventually turns to accusations of metagaming or different interpretations like mentioned here. Though I do think that since earlier on in the 3 lines of rules it mentions challengers to the disguise, it is safe to assume that it doesn't mean that if one person sees through the disguise that everyone and their mother now automatically sees through it too.
The third line in the should rule probably should read along the lines of:
- If the disguise roll is higher or ties the challenging roll, the Disguise is upheld. If the challenging roll is higher than the disguise roll, the challenger detects a disguise.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Oct 11, 2019 13:18:58 GMT -5
I agree that disguises tend to favor the person hiding. Rogues and bards, for example, get bluff as a class skill, while Search is only a class skill for assassin, ranger, red dragon disciple, rogue, shadowdancer - and Search is int-based so only wizards likely see much benefit from the ability score. What I don't want you to think is that I'm saying the method to FRC's disguises is or is not fair. I'm not discussing the fairness. I'm discussing -how- bluffing and overcoming bluffing should work and should be handled. The disguise check is opposed by Spot and Listen, not Search, both of which are a wisdom based skill not an intelligence based skills so it's be more beneficial to Clerics/Druids/Rangers then to Wizards. You aren't actually opposing a characters ability to bluff. The skills (Bluff / Perform or Persuade if Trickery Domain Cleric) are just being used as stand in for a disguise skill (the ability to come up with a full disguise, new name, voice, way of talking, vocal inflection, outfit/appearance with makeup usage, keep to that new persona, etc), it grants a bonus usage to social skills which were already pretty limited in their overall scope mechanically, but also makes it so there's a defined system to make use of instead of the old "put hood on" and there's no opposed checks for suspicious characters to pursue
I'm unsure where the belief that one person present defeating the disguise automatically informs everybody nearby came from. It has been the handful of times Tasar has had reason to oppose a disguise completely up to him to keep that information private or spread the information about either out loud or slowly to people of a "disguised" persona, their general description as the disguised persona and who they are, to those around him or those he wishes to be aware of said persona and up to them to decide if they believe him or not as a trusty source of information. That's the way it honestly should be, up to RP to inform & believe or not, of course if someone then asks them to take their hood/helmet/mask off and they refuse it's probably going to be likely that people will believe such a statement from there if they refuse or at the very least will be incredibly suspicious.
I don't go out of my way to see through disguises because...well...why the hell would I? I don't look around for people in my day to day life who may be my disguised rivals...it's almost absurd to think anyone does that isn't working in special ops and is suspecting that infiltrators from rival black ops groups are trying to kill them. Definitely don't need to be working as special ops or some such to keep a general eye out for people acting suspicious, covering their heads or carrying weapons and from there it's an easy jump to considering if any of the known highly wanted people might be in disguise (I know my local train station has a wall of mug shots for dangerous individuals out the front of the security check point no idea what it's like in the rest of the world though). I work excessive hours at a college, I see somebody covering their face, acting suspicious, hanging around near the car park for hours or having weird lumps under their outfit that could be a weapon, first thing I do is inform security that they might want to check the cameras for the area and investigate, I leave it with them from there because I've done my job, I don't go out of my way looking for such, but it's something all staff are informed they should pay attention for when on campus, thankfully we've never had a shooting or the like to date. Back when I worked in a shopping store many many years ago, same sort of thing, pay attention to suspicious individuals, pass information onto security to look into was always a large part of training for new employees to try and deal with theft and armed robberies.
Greatgaunt might not be a "major" security place like the Royal Court House of Suzail or some such, but it's a place known to attract adventurers both new and old, a place where they gather in mass for whatever reason. Where Dragons, Demons, Devils, Slaad, Hags, Rust Monsters, Purple Worms, Umberhulks, Orcs and numerous other monsters have assaulted time and time again through the years. The fact many of the most dangerous things to enter the township are other adventurers that are often carrying powerful magical weapons, are known to wield spells of Arch Wizards, cover up their heads with hoods & helmets or what have you, I'd rather think it's fairly reasonable for a successful adventurer to be rather suspicious of anybody covering their head in that place, considering how dangerous an adventurers job tends to be and reasonable amount of paranoia keeps them alive, more so if they've had assassination attempts or even just normal attacks on them there previously (I'm not saying your way is wrong for your own characters, I'm just saying the opposite isn't wrong either).
FM. |
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Oct 11, 2019 17:32:54 GMT -5
I agree that disguises tend to favor the person hiding. Rogues and bards, for example, get bluff as a class skill, while Search is only a class skill for assassin, ranger, red dragon disciple, rogue, shadowdancer - and Search is int-based so only wizards likely see much benefit from the ability score. What I don't want you to think is that I'm saying the method to FRC's disguises is or is not fair. I'm not discussing the fairness. I'm discussing -how- bluffing and overcoming bluffing should work and should be handled. The disguise check is opposed by Spot and Listen, not Search, both of which are a wisdom based skill not an intelligence based skills so it's be more beneficial to Clerics/Druids/Rangers then to Wizards. You aren't actually opposing a characters ability to bluff. The skills (Bluff / Perform or Persuade if Trickery Domain Cleric) are just being used as stand in for a disguise skill (the ability to come up with a full disguise, new name, voice, way of talking, vocal inflection, outfit/appearance with makeup usage, keep to that new persona, etc), it grants a bonus usage to social skills which were already pretty limited in their overall scope mechanically, but also makes it so there's a defined system to make use of instead of the old "put hood on" and there's no opposed checks for suspicious characters to pursue
I'm unsure where the belief that one person present defeating the disguise automatically informs everybody nearby came from. It has been the handful of times Tasar has had reason to oppose a disguise completely up to him to keep that information private or spread the information about either out loud or slowly to people of a "disguised" persona, their general description as the disguised persona and who they are, to those around him or those he wishes to be aware of said persona and up to them to decide if they believe him or not as a trusty source of information. That's the way it honestly should be, up to RP to inform & believe or not, of course if someone then asks them to take their hood/helmet/mask off and they refuse it's probably going to be likely that people will believe such a statement from there if they refuse or at the very least will be incredibly suspicious.
I don't go out of my way to see through disguises because...well...why the hell would I? I don't look around for people in my day to day life who may be my disguised rivals...it's almost absurd to think anyone does that isn't working in special ops and is suspecting that infiltrators from rival black ops groups are trying to kill them. Definitely don't need to be working as special ops or some such to keep a general eye out for people acting suspicious, covering their heads or carrying weapons and from there it's an easy jump to considering if any of the known highly wanted people might be in disguise (I know my local train station has a wall of mug shots for dangerous individuals out the front of the security check point no idea what it's like in the rest of the world though). I work excessive hours at a college, I see somebody covering their face, acting suspicious, hanging around near the car park for hours or having weird lumps under their outfit that could be a weapon, first thing I do is inform security that they might want to check the cameras for the area and investigate, I leave it with them from there because I've done my job, I don't go out of my way looking for such, but it's something all staff are informed they should pay attention for when on campus, thankfully we've never had a shooting or the like to date. Back when I worked in a shopping store many many years ago, same sort of thing, pay attention to suspicious individuals, pass information onto security to look into was always a large part of training for new employees to try and deal with theft and armed robberies.
Greatgaunt might not be a "major" security place like the Royal Court House of Suzail or some such, but it's a place known to attract adventurers both new and old, a place where they gather in mass for whatever reason. Where Dragons, Demons, Devils, Slaad, Hags, Rust Monsters, Purple Worms, Umberhulks, Orcs and numerous other monsters have assaulted time and time again through the years. The fact many of the most dangerous things to enter the township are other adventurers that are often carrying powerful magical weapons, are known to wield spells of Arch Wizards, cover up their heads with hoods & helmets or what have you, I'd rather think it's fairly reasonable for a successful adventurer to be rather suspicious of anybody covering their head in that place, considering how dangerous an adventurers job tends to be and reasonable amount of paranoia keeps them alive, more so if they've had assassination attempts or even just normal attacks on them there previously (I'm not saying your way is wrong for your own characters, I'm just saying the opposite isn't wrong either).
FM. I can agree with most of this, the carrying a weapon part certainly isn't suspicious in it's self depending on location. Almost every adventurer seen anywhere is armed, usually visibly. I agree that some of this depends on the character, which makes 'reason to be suspicious' really widely interpretable. |
|
