I"m just curious on people's interpretation of Xanathar's Guide to Everything and its usage of Disguise Kit. Specifically it lists special uses for Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion checks.
So would you say you can apply your proficiency bonus to those checks if your disguise has passed their inspection so long as you are wearing that disguise for that encounter? (NPC fails investigation check against your DC for the disguise)
I"m just curious on people's interpretation of Xanathar's Guide to Everything and its usage of Disguise Kit. Specifically it lists special uses for Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion checks.
So would you say you can apply your proficiency bonus to those checks if your disguise has passed their inspection so long as you are wearing that disguise for that encounter? (NPC fails investigation check against your DC for the disguise)
No, only for the contexts where it's relevant. It's certainly possible to be wearing an irrelevant disguise. But where it's relevant, I would say Xanathar's is clearly pitching the case that you should be able to use your Disguise Kit proficiency as proficiency in those skills - for example, the listed example of a plague victim disguise for Intimidate. You would roll Intimidate with proficiency if you're proficient in either the kit or the skill, and with advantage if you have both.
Where you'll have difficulty is setting the DC of your disguise, since the PHB contradicts itself telling you what stat to use.
I guess an example i'm thinking of is like if you disguised yourself as a Noble and the NPC is say a City Guard, if you pass inspection would you be able to use your tool proficiency bonus for all of those checks. Deception to tell a lie because a city guard may listen blindly, Intimidation because they are scared of your position, Performance because they want to please you, and Persuasion again due to listening blindly.
That should be possible right??? (again assuming you pass their investigation check)
I guess an example i'm thinking of is like if you disguised yourself as a Noble and the NPC is say a City Guard, if you pass inspection would you be able to use your tool proficiency bonus for all of those checks. Deception to tell a lie because a city guard may listen blindly, Intimidation because they are scared of your position, Performance because they want to please you, and Persuasion again due to listening blindly.
That should be possible right??? (again assuming you pass their investigation check)
Only when the disguise is relevant. For example, if the lie is "I am Sir Reginald Fontlebottom.", and your disguise matches what a knight would wear, then yes, proficiency/advantage on the Deception check. If the lie is, "My favorite food is yogurt.", then unless Sir Reginald is famous for liking yogurt, no benefit. It's highly context sensitive, is what I'm saying.
So it appears proficiency with a disguise kit allows proficiency in the charisma checks even if you don't have proficiency in those skills.
What if a PC has proficiency in those skills already? Does it upgrade to expertise? And if the PC has expertise, as many Bards would have in Persuasion, does it grant any other bonus?
I have always felt the DM must gage carefully how this should work. It is one thing to say disguise yourself as a knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as a knight. It is another thing to disguise yourself off as a specific knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as that specific knight. And it is still another thing to disguise yourself as a specific knight and then pass yourself as that knight among persons that know this knight to some degree. Dressing as a specific person can accidentally attract attention if an NPC who has reason to care believes they saw the same person only a moment ago in a place too far removed from where you are now. "Guard, did you see Lady Elaina just now, walking that way? I need you to run ahead and ask her to await my arrival. I shall be right behind you, now move along quickly."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So it appears proficiency with a disguise kit allows proficiency in the charisma checks even if you don't have proficiency in those skills.
What if a PC has proficiency in those skills already? Does it upgrade to expertise? And if the PC has expertise, as many Bards would have in Persuasion, does it grant any other bonus?
I have always felt the DM must gage carefully how this should work. It is one thing to say disguise yourself as a knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as a knight. It is another thing to disguise yourself off as a specific knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as that specific knight. And it is still another thing to disguise yourself as a specific knight and then pass yourself as that knight among persons that know this knight to some degree. Dressing as a specific person can accidentally attract attention if an NPC who has reason to care believes they saw the same person only a moment ago in a place too far removed from where you are now. "Guard, did you see Lady Elaina just now, walking that way? I need you to run ahead and ask her to await my arrival. I shall be right behind you, now move along quickly."
It upgrades to advantage, as explicitly stated in the rules. If you already have advantage, no further benefit, as also explicitly stated.
To clarify a misunderstanding that may be going around: (according to XGtE) tools can give you advantage on skill checks, but don't give you proficiency in checks you are not proficient in.
In the case of disguise kit, you have advantage on Charisma checks related to your disguise.
To clarify a misunderstanding that may be going around: (according to XGtE) tools can give you advantage on skill checks, but don't give you proficiency in checks you are not proficient in.
In the case of disguise kit, you have advantage on Charisma checks related to your disguise.
I think XGtE is expanding on what the PHB provides which you gain advantage if you are both proficient with a skill and tool
XGtE expands on that if you have both skill and tool proficiency that instead doubling up proficiencies (since in all potential cases involving proficiency you aren't allowed to do this) they clarify that you apply advantage instead or get a larger reward for succeeding.
An ability check made with the tool, not an ability check made with a skill. You can make a dexterity (disguise kit) check for example to determine the craftsmanship of the disguise, and that check won't benefit from sleight of hand proficiency.
An ability check made with the tool, not an ability check made with a skill. You can make a dexterity (disguise kit) check for example to determine the craftsmanship of the disguise, and that check won't benefit from sleight of hand proficiency.
I agree with you, but I'm also suggesting that there are overlaps. a simpler example would be like proficiency with performance vs. proficiency with an instrument.
Anybody that knows how to play the guitar knows you can play the same 4 chords over and over again and be able to perform numerous songs. You can be just picking the right songs to really rile the crowd up even though on a technical level they are simple. in this example i would say they applied more of the performance skill rather than any proficiency in the instrument.
Then you have those prodigies on the instrument that knows every nook and cranny of their instrument and all forms of technique involved. They might not know what songs can rile a crowd up but instead just show off their technical prowess. People do enjoy performances like this as well (while others snore at it). Or if you wanna get nitty gritty perhaps they don't know what song to play so you just put sheet music in front of them and they sight read it perfectly. These examples I'd argue has less to do with their skill at general performance and more to do with their proficiency with their instrument.
Either way I believe both examples show an overlap in performing but executed differently.
Also take the example of a smith looking at metal armor. while learning to be a smith they've likely acquired knowledge on different smith techniques and how they came about. So while inspecting a piece of metal armor they may have some insight to the history behind said piece of armor. it is totally plausible the smith is not a history buff EXCEPT when it comes to any metalwork. So I'd argue you'd do an ability check "like" an INT (history) check but using your tool proficiency (even though you aren't using your tools)
I believe XGtE confirms this when they talk about skills under tool proficiencies on page 78
"With respect to skills, the system is mildly abstract in terms of what a tool proficiency represents; essentially, it assumes that a character who has proficiency with a tool also has learned about facets of the trade or profession that are not necessarily associated with the use of the tool."
And without getting "too" caught up with wording, what i'm suggesting is that you aren't doing a "skill check" with your tools as much as substituting that with a "tool check". Skills are just easier to wrap your head around and describe when talking about an action rather than tools (I'm gonna "smith tools" you =P).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I"m just curious on people's interpretation of Xanathar's Guide to Everything and its usage of Disguise Kit. Specifically it lists special uses for Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion checks.
So would you say you can apply your proficiency bonus to those checks if your disguise has passed their inspection so long as you are wearing that disguise for that encounter? (NPC fails investigation check against your DC for the disguise)
No, only for the contexts where it's relevant. It's certainly possible to be wearing an irrelevant disguise. But where it's relevant, I would say Xanathar's is clearly pitching the case that you should be able to use your Disguise Kit proficiency as proficiency in those skills - for example, the listed example of a plague victim disguise for Intimidate. You would roll Intimidate with proficiency if you're proficient in either the kit or the skill, and with advantage if you have both.
Where you'll have difficulty is setting the DC of your disguise, since the PHB contradicts itself telling you what stat to use.
oh yea that makes sense.
I guess an example i'm thinking of is like if you disguised yourself as a Noble and the NPC is say a City Guard, if you pass inspection would you be able to use your tool proficiency bonus for all of those checks. Deception to tell a lie because a city guard may listen blindly, Intimidation because they are scared of your position, Performance because they want to please you, and Persuasion again due to listening blindly.
That should be possible right??? (again assuming you pass their investigation check)
Only when the disguise is relevant. For example, if the lie is "I am Sir Reginald Fontlebottom.", and your disguise matches what a knight would wear, then yes, proficiency/advantage on the Deception check. If the lie is, "My favorite food is yogurt.", then unless Sir Reginald is famous for liking yogurt, no benefit. It's highly context sensitive, is what I'm saying.
So it appears proficiency with a disguise kit allows proficiency in the charisma checks even if you don't have proficiency in those skills.
What if a PC has proficiency in those skills already? Does it upgrade to expertise? And if the PC has expertise, as many Bards would have in Persuasion, does it grant any other bonus?
I have always felt the DM must gage carefully how this should work. It is one thing to say disguise yourself as a knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as a knight. It is another thing to disguise yourself off as a specific knight and then attempt to pass yourself off as that specific knight. And it is still another thing to disguise yourself as a specific knight and then pass yourself as that knight among persons that know this knight to some degree. Dressing as a specific person can accidentally attract attention if an NPC who has reason to care believes they saw the same person only a moment ago in a place too far removed from where you are now. "Guard, did you see Lady Elaina just now, walking that way? I need you to run ahead and ask her to await my arrival. I shall be right behind you, now move along quickly."
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It upgrades to advantage, as explicitly stated in the rules. If you already have advantage, no further benefit, as also explicitly stated.
To clarify a misunderstanding that may be going around: (according to XGtE) tools can give you advantage on skill checks, but don't give you proficiency in checks you are not proficient in.
In the case of disguise kit, you have advantage on Charisma checks related to your disguise.
I think XGtE is expanding on what the PHB provides which you gain advantage if you are both proficient with a skill and tool
But I think (i'm still figuring out a lot of this stuff so forgive me if i'm misreading) in the PHB it says "Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool". Based on that wording I think that does mean you actually add to your roll for a skill check that uses the tool equal to what your proficiency bonus is at your level.
XGtE expands on that if you have both skill and tool proficiency that instead doubling up proficiencies (since in all potential cases involving proficiency you aren't allowed to do this) they clarify that you apply advantage instead or get a larger reward for succeeding.
An ability check made with the tool, not an ability check made with a skill. You can make a dexterity (disguise kit) check for example to determine the craftsmanship of the disguise, and that check won't benefit from sleight of hand proficiency.
I agree with you, but I'm also suggesting that there are overlaps. a simpler example would be like proficiency with performance vs. proficiency with an instrument.
Anybody that knows how to play the guitar knows you can play the same 4 chords over and over again and be able to perform numerous songs. You can be just picking the right songs to really rile the crowd up even though on a technical level they are simple. in this example i would say they applied more of the performance skill rather than any proficiency in the instrument.
Then you have those prodigies on the instrument that knows every nook and cranny of their instrument and all forms of technique involved. They might not know what songs can rile a crowd up but instead just show off their technical prowess. People do enjoy performances like this as well (while others snore at it). Or if you wanna get nitty gritty perhaps they don't know what song to play so you just put sheet music in front of them and they sight read it perfectly. These examples I'd argue has less to do with their skill at general performance and more to do with their proficiency with their instrument.
Either way I believe both examples show an overlap in performing but executed differently.
Also take the example of a smith looking at metal armor. while learning to be a smith they've likely acquired knowledge on different smith techniques and how they came about. So while inspecting a piece of metal armor they may have some insight to the history behind said piece of armor. it is totally plausible the smith is not a history buff EXCEPT when it comes to any metalwork. So I'd argue you'd do an ability check "like" an INT (history) check but using your tool proficiency (even though you aren't using your tools)
I believe XGtE confirms this when they talk about skills under tool proficiencies on page 78
"With respect to skills, the system is mildly abstract in terms of what a tool proficiency represents; essentially, it assumes that a character who has proficiency with a tool also has learned about facets of the trade or profession that are not necessarily associated with the use of the tool."
And without getting "too" caught up with wording, what i'm suggesting is that you aren't doing a "skill check" with your tools as much as substituting that with a "tool check". Skills are just easier to wrap your head around and describe when talking about an action rather than tools (I'm gonna "smith tools" you =P).