Changeling and Disguise/Alter Self

[moritheil]

No, you're not, and you haven't been since we started goin' 'round on this.

You can create a helmet, and some greaves, and a breastplate, and call the whole deal "D&D Breastplate Armor," which has a unified mechanical effect.

You can apply some fake ears, some make-up, and and a wig and call the whole thing an "Elf Costume," which has a unified mechanical effect.

You can dig a deep hole, cast an illusion of solid ground over it, and call the whole thing an "Illusion-obscured pit trap," which has a unified mechanical effect.

Hmm.

Let me put it to you another way. I stated above that do not consider fake ears and make up applied to be different effects because they are part of the same disguise kit. A wig could be added and remain part of the same disguise kit.

However, a character with 50,000 fake ears cannot gain the cumulative benefits of all of them - would you agree?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Let me put it to you another way. I stated above that do not consider fake ears and make up applied to be different effects because they are part of the same disguise kit. A wig could be added and remain part of the same disguise kit.

Similarly, two separate spells are part of the same disguise "kit" - potentially along with a mundane disguise kit.

However, a character with 50,000 fake ears cannot gain the cumulative benefits of all of them - would you agree?

Depends on what he's attempting to disguise himself as ...

 

[moritheil]

Similarly, two separate spells are part of the same disguise "kit" - potentially along with a mundane disguise kit.

Depends on what he's attempting to disguise himself as ...

In light of the statement that they each create something that is usually a complete disguise, I don't feel comfortable viewing them as being part of the same "disguise kit equivalent." You're free to disagree.

Something with two ears.

For the record, I do recall reading numerous articles regarding choices of spells for Wizard and Sorc, and they keep saying things like "you don't need both Alter Self and Disguise Self because they don't stack, so decide which one you want if you're a Sorc and have limited spells known."

I do not submit that to sway your judgement, as the articles are not canonical in the sense that the rules are. I merely wish to point out that I am not blindly interpreting here.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In light of the statement that they each create something that is usually a complete disguise,

Let's look at that word: "usually."

So, you agree that there are times when each might create a part - let's say half - of a "complete disguise"?

 

[moritheil]

Let's look at that word: "usually."

So, you agree that there are times when each might create a part - let's say half - of a "complete disguise"?

This gets into a "spirit of the rules" discussion, and that is where we apparently differ.

The number one thing that I come away from this discussion with is the idea that apparently the writers thought that the way they had written the spells was sufficient to deter attempts at stacking, but it wasn't. They should have named the bonuses to be completely clear.

I agree that it is not stated that it absolutely must be a complete disguise. However, the reason it is not stated is that there are no rules for creating partial disguises using those spells - only creating disguises. If we accept the assertion that one die roll - one disguise check - exists for the creation of each disguise, how do you handle the check that comes from an "incomplete disguise?" Suppose that in the six seconds in between the two spells, someone bursts into the room and takes a good hard look at this character. What do they see? Do you penalize the player for only having the "incomplete" disguise up? When do you roll? Once all bonuses are in place? Before? It creates a morass of ambiguity, because there are no rules for partial disguises, are there?

Certainly you can impose order upon the situation by making a ruling, but that ruling would then be a house rule, made to cover a situation that does not come up in the core rules. And my understanding is that, in this case, it does not come up in the core rules because you are not supposed to do it.

 

[moritheil]

Let's look at that word: "usually."

So, you agree that there are times when each might create a part - let's say half - of a "complete disguise"?

"Usually [considered to be]"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I agree that it is not stated that it absolutely must be a complete disguise. However, the reason it is not stated is that there are no rules for creating partial disguises using those spells - only creating disguises.

Just as there are no rules for creating partial suits of armor, etc.

However, we have no problem assuming that, halfway through the required craft checks, you've got what amounts to half a suit of armor on your hands.

Halfway through the 1d3x10 minutes required to make a disguise using the disguise skill, you've got what amounts to half a disguise on your hands.

What's the mechanical effects of "half a disguise"? Darned if I know.

I do, however, know the stacking rules. I also know that, even if the spells were converted to circumstance bonuses (the most likely type), they'd still stack - so long as they represented different circumstances (like making yourself physically resemble a hobgoblin with Alter Self, and making your stuff look like hobgoblin stuff with Disguise Self).

 

[Kurotowa]

In other words, using Alter Self and Disguise Self as two steps to creating the same disguise is no different from using elf ears and make-up as two steps to creating the same disguise.

Alright, let's use your example of the hobgoblin warchief.

Alter Self, Disguise Self, and the Changeling transformational ability all give the same +10 to a Disguise check. This means that, mechanically, they are all equally effective. No matter which you use, you are equally as good at making the other hobgoblins believe that you ARE their warchief. Thus, it can't be claimed that an illusion of the warchief's equipment makes your disguise better, because a Disguise Self does not give a greater bonus than Alter Self.

Now, this is not to say that Disguise Self or the right outfit does not have benefits. If the hobgoblins meet their warchief wearing strange clothing and without his vestments of office, it's probably going to take a serious Bluff check to explain it away. But this does not make the disguise itself any less good. It simply creates a suspicious circumstance that causes the hobgoblins to make a Spot check, possibly with a circumstance modifier if the Bluff check goes badly.

 

[Caliban]

Alright, let's use your example of the hobgoblin warchief.

Alter Self, Disguise Self, and the Changeling transformational ability all give the same +10 to a Disguise check.

But it's not the same bonus. It's a different bonus for each one (they just happen to add the same number to the roll). (Although I think it could be argued that the changeling ability is similar enough to one or the other to abilities not to stack.)

This means that, mechanically, they are all equally effective. No matter which you use, you are equally as good at making the other hobgoblins believe that you ARE their warchief. Thus, it can't be claimed that an illusion of the warchief's equipment makes your disguise better, because a Disguise Self does not give a greater bonus than Alter Self.

It certainly can be. There are many instances of using one ability or effect to enhance another, or even using multiple abilties and spells to enhance a single check.

I've seen up to a dozen different spells, feats, items, and abilities go into increasing an attack roll for example.

 

[Kurotowa]

I know it's possible to stack many spell bonuses onto one check. I just put forth my case for why these specific spells should not stack in this specific case. Do you have a specific counter-case, or just a general denial?

That came out snarkier than I wanted. It's just I feel like I did my best to explain why I don't see the spells stacking and didn't feel like you responded to any of the points I raises, despite quoting my post.