Hey, so just wanted some help on what to possibly do here. I have a player who had just gone into a store and met with the owner, talked for a while and then left the store. He then found a dark corner, successfully donned his disguise kit and is now re-entering that same store under this new persona.
I figure I would have the shop owner do an Investigation check vs the players Deception to see if he was able to fool this shopkeep since he had literally just been speaking with him moments earlier.
So I just wanted to know if this seems like overkill on my part?
Should I do this or something different? Or should I just let the player fool this npc with no check needed since he’s successfully donned his disguise?
I would use a perception check. And since the PC was just talking to the shopkeeper less than an hour ago I would make it with advantage if the PC did something easy to remember and he does the same thing once he’s in disguise. If the PC doesn’t talk with the shopkeeper while he’s in disguise I’d have him make the check with disadvantage.
I would ask for 2 checks here. First, an Int check using the proficiency with the tools (assuming he has it) to see if he can even craft a believable disguise. This is explicitly listed in the PHB as an example under "other reasons the DM might make you do an int check" ("Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard"). If he passes that check, then the disguise itself is successful and he won't be recognized instantly as "someone wearing a disguise" by probably everyone else, or as "that guy I just talked to" by the shopkeeper.
Assuming this check is successful, then the player is capable of walking into the shop and browsing, and not interacting closely with the shopkeeper, without provoking an additional check. If he now goes up to the shopkeeper who has already met him, and tries to speak with him as if he is another person, then I would call for a Deception check vs. the shopkeep's passive Perception (unless the shopkeep has a reason to suspect something is amiss, then it might be against Insight).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I ended up allowing him to change into the disguise with an adequate stealth check (next time I might also add that int check as well) and allowed him into the store without raising suspicions but then gave him a deception check with disadvantage since he essentially went up to the shopkeep and said “Oh my god, what’s that over there” vs the shopkeep’ s insight since I believe upon seeing a stranger come into your store essentially saying “hey, turn around”, you would be rather suspicious.
(The player has been trying really hard to make this shopkeeper turn around long enough to pickpocket them).
Now that you've had an outcome, I won't bother with the original post, but something I may add for the future is that there are times that as DM, you may want to roll for the player. NOT OFTEN. But hear me out. A player wants to hide, or disguise themselves etc. You ask for a stealth check, or performance check or whatever. The PC thinks they're doing a passable job, but they don't know the result of the roll. If you let them roll, and they roll a 2, they KNOW they've failed, and they (most of the time) can't help but play it that way. If YOU roll it, they have to carry on just as they would have, thinking they're hidden, or disguised, or whatever. it ups the suspense significantly.
You can have all players make a DC check, but don't tell them why, unless a fail occurs.
In addition I have questions.
What was the roll for the disguises? Ie: how good a disguise?
are they changing their voice any? If not that “could” raise a flag since the conversation was moments ago. The voice is still fresh and the conversation.
then it’s deception vs insight
or perception of its not a phenomenal disguise.
or if the disguise is below passives... then they are SOL. And now the shop keeper is “playing along” and up to the PC to figure out how much of a crime they admitting to committing.
Now that you've had an outcome, I won't bother with the original post, but something I may add for the future is that there are times that as DM, you may want to roll for the player. NOT OFTEN. But hear me out. A player wants to hide, or disguise themselves etc. You ask for a stealth check, or performance check or whatever. The PC thinks they're doing a passable job, but they don't know the result of the roll. If you let them roll, and they roll a 2, they KNOW they've failed, and they (most of the time) can't help but play it that way. If YOU roll it, they have to carry on just as they would have, thinking they're hidden, or disguised, or whatever. it ups the suspense significantly.
I’ll add on to these good points too...
also, when the shopkeeper notices he’s been robbed. History checks to see if he remembers anything weird/odd that stands out that could have been it. And if it stood out via the check about the character and the other (disguised) person immediately afterward, now that throws the entire party, even those as not involved, as possibly “in on it” with the thief, since he’s “clearly not working alone”
nothing like city watch scuffles and possible jail/executions to build suspense too.
(if you do something illegal, be good at what you do. There’s consequences for all actions)
I need to read through the replies, but when running skills specifically counter to a Disguise Kit and Deception, aren't the actual skills supposed to be Perception and Insight? I'm curious on the reasoning for Intelligence basically.
I need to read through the replies, but when running skills specifically counter to a Disguise Kit and Deception, aren't the actual skills supposed to be Perception and Insight? I'm curious on the reasoning for Intelligence basically.
The intelligence is for a history check, if the situation calls for it, to recognize an identical voice minutes later.
or to recall “lore” of 2 people asking similar questions or about similar things in a short timeframe next to each other.
or do you mean for the initial creation of the disguise kit?
the initial creation of a disguise kit... what else would creating a fashion show style of clothes, a persona, and a disguise be? It’s not strength based. It’s not dexterity based. It’s not charisma based. It’s not con based. So it would come down to wisdom or intelligence. Then in PhB under ability checks we have:
the city guard is a specific example. But it’s for any disguise too. As you can also try to communicate to plants without words. Or estimate the value of non precious items.
Presumably being able to disguise oneself includes he skill to disguise their voice. Unless the character is incompentent or has a very low intelligence, they should know not to use the same voice when later conversing with the shopkeeper.
Anyway, as far as I understand it, the intelligence check cited above is to determine whether the character successfully disguises themselves as a guard (or whatever) not whether someone notices if they are disguised or not. If they fail the initial intelligence check then very few people would actually believe that they are a guard (or whatever they have disguised themselves as ... maybe they put the sigil for the guards on upside down for example).
Presumably being able to disguise oneself includes he skill to disguise their voice. Unless the character is incompentent or has a very low intelligence, they should know not to use the same voice when later conversing with the shopkeeper.
Anyway, as far as I understand it, the intelligence check cited above is to determine whether the character successfully disguises themselves as a guard (or whatever) not whether someone notices if they are disguised or not. If they fail the initial intelligence check then very few people would actually believe that they are a guard (or whatever they have disguised themselves as ... maybe they put the sigil for the guards on upside down for example).
My only counter I’ll state.
is I can make a brilliant disguise as an elf as a human. But if I don’t speak elvish. No disguising my voice will fix that. Additionally:
your voice doesn’t change without a check. Otherwise 5e is invalidating the Actor Feat, a Kenku Racial Ability, and 1 of the Mastermind Rogue’s archetype specific abilities.
Now that you've had an outcome, I won't bother with the original post, but something I may add for the future is that there are times that as DM, you may want to roll for the player. NOT OFTEN. But hear me out. A player wants to hide, or disguise themselves etc. You ask for a stealth check, or performance check or whatever. The PC thinks they're doing a passable job, but they don't know the result of the roll. If you let them roll, and they roll a 2, they KNOW they've failed, and they (most of the time) can't help but play it that way. If YOU roll it, they have to carry on just as they would have, thinking they're hidden, or disguised, or whatever. it ups the suspense significantly.
I’ll add on to these good points too...
also, when the shopkeeper notices he’s been robbed. History checks to see if he remembers anything weird/odd that stands out that could have been it. And if it stood out via the check about the character and the other (disguised) person immediately afterward, now that throws the entire party, even those as not involved, as possibly “in on it” with the thief, since he’s “clearly not working alone”
nothing like city watch scuffles and possible jail/executions to build suspense too.
(if you do something illegal, be good at what you do. There’s consequences for all actions)
I need to read through the replies, but when running skills specifically counter to a Disguise Kit and Deception, aren't the actual skills supposed to be Perception and Insight? I'm curious on the reasoning for Intelligence basically.
The intelligence is for a history check, if the situation calls for it, to recognize an identical voice minutes later.
or to recall “lore” of 2 people asking similar questions or about similar things in a short timeframe next to each other.
or do you mean for the initial creation of the disguise kit?
the initial creation of a disguise kit... what else would creating a fashion show style of clothes, a persona, and a disguise be? It’s not strength based. It’s not dexterity based. It’s not charisma based. It’s not con based. So it would come down to wisdom or intelligence. Then in PhB under ability checks we have:
the city guard is a specific example. But it’s for any disguise too. As you can also try to communicate to plants without words. Or estimate the value of non precious items.
Uh.... what? Have you read the description of the History skill? It has nothing to do with your memory of recent events.
Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
Just a straight Intelligence roll is all you need for recall of the kind you reference. Being proficient in History means you've studied history, not that you're better at recalling stuff you've seen or heard.
Now that you've had an outcome, I won't bother with the original post, but something I may add for the future is that there are times that as DM, you may want to roll for the player. NOT OFTEN. But hear me out. A player wants to hide, or disguise themselves etc. You ask for a stealth check, or performance check or whatever. The PC thinks they're doing a passable job, but they don't know the result of the roll. If you let them roll, and they roll a 2, they KNOW they've failed, and they (most of the time) can't help but play it that way. If YOU roll it, they have to carry on just as they would have, thinking they're hidden, or disguised, or whatever. it ups the suspense significantly.
I’ll add on to these good points too...
also, when the shopkeeper notices he’s been robbed. History checks to see if he remembers anything weird/odd that stands out that could have been it. And if it stood out via the check about the character and the other (disguised) person immediately afterward, now that throws the entire party, even those as not involved, as possibly “in on it” with the thief, since he’s “clearly not working alone”
nothing like city watch scuffles and possible jail/executions to build suspense too.
(if you do something illegal, be good at what you do. There’s consequences for all actions)
I need to read through the replies, but when running skills specifically counter to a Disguise Kit and Deception, aren't the actual skills supposed to be Perception and Insight? I'm curious on the reasoning for Intelligence basically.
The intelligence is for a history check, if the situation calls for it, to recognize an identical voice minutes later.
or to recall “lore” of 2 people asking similar questions or about similar things in a short timeframe next to each other.
or do you mean for the initial creation of the disguise kit?
the initial creation of a disguise kit... what else would creating a fashion show style of clothes, a persona, and a disguise be? It’s not strength based. It’s not dexterity based. It’s not charisma based. It’s not con based. So it would come down to wisdom or intelligence. Then in PhB under ability checks we have:
the city guard is a specific example. But it’s for any disguise too. As you can also try to communicate to plants without words. Or estimate the value of non precious items.
Uh.... what? Have you read the description of the History skill? It has nothing to do with your memory of recent events.
Your Intelligence (History) check measures your ability to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations.
Just a straight Intelligence roll is all you need for recall of the kind you reference. Being proficient in History means you've studied history, not that you're better at recalling stuff you've seen or heard.
Do you have never seen or heard history in the making?
not all players play the character at the youngest possible ages.
some events that happen in campaigns become cannon historical events. 🤷🏼♂️
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey, so just wanted some help on what to possibly do here. I have a player who had just gone into a store and met with the owner, talked for a while and then left the store. He then found a dark corner, successfully donned his disguise kit and is now re-entering that same store under this new persona.
I figure I would have the shop owner do an Investigation check vs the players Deception to see if he was able to fool this shopkeep since he had literally just been speaking with him moments earlier.
So I just wanted to know if this seems like overkill on my part?
Should I do this or something different? Or should I just let the player fool this npc with no check needed since he’s successfully donned his disguise?
Thanks in advance for any tips/help.
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head. He went galumphing back.
You can have all players make a DC check, but don't tell them why, unless a fail occurs.
playing since 1986
I would use a perception check. And since the PC was just talking to the shopkeeper less than an hour ago I would make it with advantage if the PC did something easy to remember and he does the same thing once he’s in disguise. If the PC doesn’t talk with the shopkeeper while he’s in disguise I’d have him make the check with disadvantage.
Professional computer geek
I would ask for 2 checks here. First, an Int check using the proficiency with the tools (assuming he has it) to see if he can even craft a believable disguise. This is explicitly listed in the PHB as an example under "other reasons the DM might make you do an int check" ("Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard"). If he passes that check, then the disguise itself is successful and he won't be recognized instantly as "someone wearing a disguise" by probably everyone else, or as "that guy I just talked to" by the shopkeeper.
Assuming this check is successful, then the player is capable of walking into the shop and browsing, and not interacting closely with the shopkeeper, without provoking an additional check. If he now goes up to the shopkeeper who has already met him, and tries to speak with him as if he is another person, then I would call for a Deception check vs. the shopkeep's passive Perception (unless the shopkeep has a reason to suspect something is amiss, then it might be against Insight).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Result.
I ended up allowing him to change into the disguise with an adequate stealth check (next time I might also add that int check as well) and allowed him into the store without raising suspicions but then gave him a deception check with disadvantage since he essentially went up to the shopkeep and said “Oh my god, what’s that over there” vs the shopkeep’ s insight since I believe upon seeing a stranger come into your store essentially saying “hey, turn around”, you would be rather suspicious.
(The player has been trying really hard to make this shopkeeper turn around long enough to pickpocket them).
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head. He went galumphing back.
Now that you've had an outcome, I won't bother with the original post, but something I may add for the future is that there are times that as DM, you may want to roll for the player. NOT OFTEN. But hear me out. A player wants to hide, or disguise themselves etc. You ask for a stealth check, or performance check or whatever. The PC thinks they're doing a passable job, but they don't know the result of the roll. If you let them roll, and they roll a 2, they KNOW they've failed, and they (most of the time) can't help but play it that way. If YOU roll it, they have to carry on just as they would have, thinking they're hidden, or disguised, or whatever. it ups the suspense significantly.
In addition I have questions.
What was the roll for the disguises? Ie: how good a disguise?
are they changing their voice any? If not that “could” raise a flag since the conversation was moments ago. The voice is still fresh and the conversation.
then it’s deception vs insight
or perception of its not a phenomenal disguise.
or if the disguise is below passives... then they are SOL. And now the shop keeper is “playing along” and up to the PC to figure out how much of a crime they admitting to committing.
Blank
I’ll add on to these good points too...
also, when the shopkeeper notices he’s been robbed. History checks to see if he remembers anything weird/odd that stands out that could have been it. And if it stood out via the check about the character and the other (disguised) person immediately afterward, now that throws the entire party, even those as not involved, as possibly “in on it” with the thief, since he’s “clearly not working alone”
nothing like city watch scuffles and possible jail/executions to build suspense too.
(if you do something illegal, be good at what you do. There’s consequences for all actions)
Blank
I need to read through the replies, but when running skills specifically counter to a Disguise Kit and Deception, aren't the actual skills supposed to be Perception and Insight? I'm curious on the reasoning for Intelligence basically.
The intelligence is for a history check, if the situation calls for it, to recognize an identical voice minutes later.
or to recall “lore” of 2 people asking similar questions or about similar things in a short timeframe next to each other.
or do you mean for the initial creation of the disguise kit?
the initial creation of a disguise kit... what else would creating a fashion show style of clothes, a persona, and a disguise be? It’s not strength based. It’s not dexterity based. It’s not charisma based. It’s not con based. So it would come down to wisdom or intelligence.
Then in PhB under ability checks we have:
Other Intelligence Checks. The GM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
the city guard is a specific example. But it’s for any disguise too. As you can also try to communicate to plants without words. Or estimate the value of non precious items.
Blank
Presumably being able to disguise oneself includes he skill to disguise their voice. Unless the character is incompentent or has a very low intelligence, they should know not to use the same voice when later conversing with the shopkeeper.
Anyway, as far as I understand it, the intelligence check cited above is to determine whether the character successfully disguises themselves as a guard (or whatever) not whether someone notices if they are disguised or not. If they fail the initial intelligence check then very few people would actually believe that they are a guard (or whatever they have disguised themselves as ... maybe they put the sigil for the guards on upside down for example).
My only counter I’ll state.
is I can make a brilliant disguise as an elf as a human. But if I don’t speak elvish. No disguising my voice will fix that. Additionally:
your voice doesn’t change without a check. Otherwise 5e is invalidating the Actor Feat, a Kenku Racial Ability, and 1 of the Mastermind Rogue’s archetype specific abilities.
Blank
Uh.... what? Have you read the description of the History skill? It has nothing to do with your memory of recent events.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#History
Just a straight Intelligence roll is all you need for recall of the kind you reference. Being proficient in History means you've studied history, not that you're better at recalling stuff you've seen or heard.
Do you have never seen or heard history in the making?
not all players play the character at the youngest possible ages.
some events that happen in campaigns become cannon historical events. 🤷🏼♂️
Blank