Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1948112" data-attributes="member: 17296">A player in a game I'm running came up with an intriguing idea.He's playing a halfling caster. Now say he casts reduce on himself. Among other things this should grant a +4 to hide, and he should be tiny. Now say he casts Disguise Self on his reduced person, granting the appearance of being one foot shorter. At that size, one foot shorter moves his appearance down another size category to diminutive. Would that grant an additional +4 to hide?Thoughts:It IS a glamer.Hiding is the only thing it would actually effect that I can see, as that does rely on sight. Invisibility is a second level spell, and grants +20 (+40 if standing still), this is level one and would give +4 (if allowed).There was much debate among the group he'll be playing with. Mostly people speaking up against the idea. Everything I'm reading implies that it would work that way by a RAW interpretation, however if it would it would also be a use not likely intended by the writers.In one of the arguments against it was the scenario of casting Disguise Self to look like a one armed man, while using two weapon fighting (or even normal, but with the weapon in the missing arm), and then the opponent won't see the hand and so could theoretically be attacked flatfooted by it. Granting a sneak attack each time.I thought that was interesting too, although I wouldn't say it would work quite that way... if you appeared as a one armed man, I can see it granting at least give a bonus to bluff for a feint. Or possibly it would act to feint as a free action against that one attack only (not the full action, but the first with the "invisible" arm. After one hit I'd say that the effect would be automatically disbelieved, as per invisibility. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. So what do you say, ENWorld?</blockquote>

Verification