Changeling and Disguise/Alter Self

[Plane Sailing]

I would say that they stack legally because they are different bonus types

I would say that they stack conceptually because one is a physical change and disguise self is just illusion - changeling shapechange can change the foundations and disguise self can provide a layer on top... e.g. changeling alters his race, gender and appearance with his shapechange and alters his clothing with disguise self...

Cheers

 

[moritheil]

I would say that they stack legally because they are different bonus types

That was my original response before the mechanics were clarified. Do you rule that different disguise checks can be cumulative?

 

[Plane Sailing]

That was my original response before the mechanics were clarified. Do you rule that different disguise checks can be cumulative?

Do you consider that once a changeling has changed his form, he can improve his disguise by also changing his clothes? I do.

 

[Kurotowa]

Do you consider that once a changeling has changed his form, he can improve his disguise by also changing his clothes? I do.

Sure, you can try to improve a disguise by changing your clothes. But that just means you re-roll your disguise check with a better circumstance modifier. I know of no situation where you can improve a skill check's result after you make the check.

 

[moritheil]

Sure, you can try to improve a disguise by changing your clothes. But that just means you re-roll your disguise check with a better circumstance modifier. I know of no situation where you can improve a skill check's result after you make the check.

Agreed. I'd be interested in seeing something that lets you do this.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, you can try to improve a disguise by changing your clothes. But that just means you re-roll your disguise check with a better circumstance modifier. I know of no situation where you can improve a skill check's result after you make the check.

So, I guess you only get to make one Disguise check per disguise, huh?

DISGUISE (CHA)
Check: Your Disguise check result determines how good the disguise is, and it is opposed by others’ Spot check results. If you don’t draw any attention to yourself, others do not get to make Spot checks. If you come to the attention of people who are suspicious (such as a guard who is watching commoners walking through a city gate), it can be assumed that such observers are taking 10 on their Spot checks.
You get only one Disguise check per use of the skill, even if several people are making Spot checks against it. The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.

So, the question then becomes, "What constitutes a 'use of the skill'"?

Obviously, it must be a complete disguise.*

If you are using both Alter Self and Disguise Self to make a single disguise, then both bonuses apply.

* - Why must it be a complete disguise?

Because to assume otherwise leads to all kinds of stupidity. Let's assume that a thin human male wants to disguise himself as an elven female. In order to make his disguise, we'll assume that he must alter his ears, his eyebrows, and his bustline, as well as apply some make-up.

When do you make the disguise roll?

According to those who say that the two spells / abilities may not be used in concert, you must here make 4 separate Disguise rolls: once to disguise himself as a human with funny ears, once to disguise himself as a human with altered eyebrows, once to disguise himself as a human male with breasts, and once to disguise himself as a human male wearing some make-up.

Why such craziness? Because:

But that just means you re-roll your disguise check with a better circumstance modifier.

So, he gets slightly better circumstance modifiers each time he adds something new to his disguise, and since the results of the previous disguise are "discarded," this requires four rolls with increasingly better modifiers.

Do you agree that this is a pretty silly way to rule?

Then, similarly, altering your physical form as one aspect of a disguise, followed by cloaking yourself with illusion magic as another aspect of that same disguise, are summed up with a single Disguise check with the appropriate modifiers. The two spells / abilties must stack.

 

[moritheil]

The two spells / abilties must stack.

Interesting. So if you ran a campaign, it would be worth it for a caster to have both Disguise Self and Alter Self.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interesting. So if you ran a campaign, it would be worth it for a caster to have both Disguise Self and Alter Self.

With the understanding that the disguised caster would radiate magic in some suspicious schools, yes.

Of course, the thing to do then is to mundanely disguise yourself as one thing, and then magically disguise yourself as another. Then, anyone who pierces your magical disguise is still misled.

 

[moritheil]

So, I guess you only get to make one Disguise check per disguise, huh?

If you are using both Alter Self and Disguise Self to make a single disguise, then both bonuses apply.

The argument here is that you cannot use Alter Self and Disguise Self to make a single disguise. Assuming that you can do something and then pointing out the ridiculousness of it is not a good way to prove that you can do the thing in the first place.

In fact, I would say that your example is an argument against the concurrent use of Alter Self and Disguise Self.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The argument here is that you cannot use Alter Self and Disguise Self to make a single disguise.

Then, similarly, you cannot use false ears and make-up to make a single disguise.

In fact, I would say that your example is an argument against the concurrent use of Alter Self and Disguise Self.

Explain.

assuming that you can do something and then pointing out the ridiculousness of it is not a good way to prove that you can do the thing in the first place.

That's not what I did.

I assumed you couldn't do it, and showed the ridiculousness that it leads to.

In mathematics, it'd be a proof by contradiction: http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html