Upcoming Change - Cover, Disguise and Examine

[McPunchins]

I don't see any purpose to use cover if you have good bluff/perform. It just raises the level of suspicion (beyond the meta suspicion prevalent from having the tag). A small but reasonable buff to the disguise skill would make sense.

And in a rp context where someone can't pierce your cover or disguise but confronts you (let's say a guard in Cordor) there's no risk to the interloper to not just say, "yah sure I'll remove my cover, sorry about that the sun was in my eyes." Now my disguise score is the same despite having my hood off and no problem for me complying with the guard. If I had a +5-10 bluff/perform boost from cover I'd be a bit more nervous about pulling that hood back when asked because the chance of them now piecing my disguise would increase.

Seems to make sense thematically that cover would "enhance" disguise. I see a pending response that there's risk of overpowering disguise but if it's small (5 pts or so) I don't see a big risk there. Right now dedicated spotters spot out any disguises that aren't dedicated disguisers (if you're below 60-70+ disguise). The ability to boost that spot score by 20 easily or swap out gear in dialogue (happens all the time) leaves a pretty good swing to beat out the equal skill invested PC presently. That's not likely to change much with a buff given from cover but it could add more variance in the "casual investment" range depending on gear/active utilizations for a bit more counterplay.

The other interesting idea would be to have cover remove the disguise tag unless pierced. You still have the baseline suspicion of oh this person is covered.

I would agree this is the better way to do this rather than giving a 2nd check for sure. I like the idea of the cover system as it is definitely a way to enhance disguises that cover a character's body beyond just the normal disguise which doesn't matter for such things. My only issue so far is the decision to hide descriptions when using the system and it is purely from a creativity standpoint. Mechanically it doesn't change the system but it does limit creativity options in favor of laziness which I am never okay with.

[Anachorn]

Hi,

I just want to emphasize that the cover system is not meant to enhance bluff-disguises, it is meant to be an alternative to disguises for people without bluff who only want to hide their race/face so they won't be recognized (rather than masquerade as someone else entirely).

Before the cover system everyone who wanted just to hide their identity for a moment when going through an area with PCs had to be a master of disguise for it and heavily invested in bluff, now these people have an easy alternative with some realistic downsides.

I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that you need to use both -disguise and -cover for identity hiding (name change) to work with -cover. I would like to state that this was done from purely technical reasons and not because a cover is in any way related to bluff-disguise.

Having the -cover function receive a name parameter and do everything -disguise does independently of it such as name changes, tags, etc. is probably the more natural and elegant way of enabling cover. (after receiving your feedback that automatically enabling cover when fully covered will limit dress options and a -cover flag is needed)

However, coding this requires large amounts of changes and carful planning on how it interact with -disguise (for people already under disguise who want to put on a cover and remove it), without giving any additional abilities that the current way of using cover-disguise doesn't other than simplicity.

Rather than postpone the feature a few weeks to code this, and possibly reverting that change afterward if there were issues with the feature itself, the current system of needing to use both to hide your identity was added.

A change to a more intuitive system that isn't connected to -disguise like I stated above or something similar to it is planned and will likely come in the future assuming things go well and after we finalize how we want cover to work.

[Anomandaris]

Hi,

I just want to emphasize that the cover system is not meant to enhance bluff-disguises, it is meant to be an alternative to disguises for people without bluff who only want to hide their race/face so they won't be recognized (rather than masquerade as someone else entirely).

Before the cover system everyone who wanted just to hide their identity for a moment when going through an area with PCs had to be a master of disguise for it and heavily invested in bluff, now these people have an easy alternative with some realistic downsides.

I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that you need to use both -disguise and -cover for identity hiding (name change) to work with -cover. I would like to state that this was done from purely technical reasons and not because a cover is in any way related to bluff-disguise.

Having the -cover function receive a name parameter and do everything -disguise does independently of it such as name changes, tags, etc. is probably the more natural and elegant way of enabling cover. (after receiving your feedback that automatically enabling cover when fully covered will limit dress options and a -cover flag is needed)

However, coding this requires large amounts of changes and carful planning on how it interact with -disguise (for people already under disguise who want to put on a cover and remove it), without giving any additional abilities that the current way of using cover-disguise doesn't other than simplicity.

Rather than postpone the feature a few weeks to code this, and possibly reverting that change afterward if there were issues with the feature itself, the current system of needing to use both to hide your identity was added.

A change to a more intuitive system that isn't connected to -disguise like I stated above or something similar to it is planned and will likely come in the future assuming things go well and after we finalize how we want cover to work.

This makes sense. I think my comment and the following response was kind of exploring the question of whether it should though. Given it has to do with what one is wearing and how it directly conceals one's features, there seems to be at least from an IC and logic perspective a very direct connection. Additionally it adds a bit more spice to things as a disguiser can choose to cover themselves more so but risk the overtly shady nature of their disguise being called out. Just food for thought as the system gets worked out. I'm not sure why it can't both serve as a "new" form of concealment for those without bluff/perform but also have a more meaningful interplay for those that do.

[McPunchins]

This still doesn't explain why we are limiting creativity in favor of laziness. Descriptions are not hard to save and change in short commands, if someone needs to hide their description that should be on them not the system.

[godhand-]

I've been staying out of this one so i could see it in the wild.... before adding my seventeen cents. I'm all for new cool features, and i like the innovation of this one!

My only comment, the viewing range to break through cover is... REALLY small. Admittedly i'm not a spot god, i'm only lvl 20 and i've 35 spot.... But the fact i couldn't see through it until they were what appeared to be 5 feet from me was a little annoying. Even at a range of half a tile i couldn't see through it.

Perhaps higher spot changes that range? But either way it seems really odd for me to walk so close to someone without it seeming like i'm metagaming.

It feels like i'm FORCED to get in stabbing range of that melee guy who wants to KD me to even know who i'm talking to.

[Anachorn]

This still doesn't explain why we are limiting creativity in favor of laziness. Descriptions are not hard to save and change in short commands, if someone needs to hide their description that should be on them not the system.

The main point isn't making sure people don't forget to hide their description, its that we don't want people with cover to have a detailed description. Cover is meant to hide identifying features and having the ability to choose your description gives you the ability to look however you like. You can choose the outfit you wear as long as it covers you entirely, but that's all anyone sees. If you want to have a detailed description while masking your identity that's what bluff-disguise is for.

I've been staying out of this one so i could see it in the wild.... before adding my seventeen cents. I'm all for new cool features, and i like the innovation of this one!

My only comment, the viewing range to break through cover is... REALLY small. Admittedly i'm not a spot god, i'm only lvl 20 and i've 35 spot.... But the fact i couldn't see through it until they were what appeared to be 5 feet from me was a little annoying. Even at a range of half a tile i couldn't see through it.

Perhaps higher spot changes that range? But either way it seems really odd for me to walk so close to someone without it seeming like i'm metagaming.

It feels like i'm FORCED to get in stabbing range of that melee guy who wants to KD me to even know who i'm talking to.

Its not a set range under which you can break the cover, its a DC that gets easier the closer you are, when you'll have higher spot you'll be able to break the cover DC more easily from far away. For now getting closer to see through the cover isn't metagaming, it just makes sense. I would just make sure you RP it so its fun to the other side as well and not just run close to someone, examine, then run away quickly before he can even think about a response.

[McPunchins]

The main point isn't making sure people don't forget to hide their description, its that we don't want people with cover to have a detailed description. Cover is meant to hide identifying features and having the ability to choose your description gives you the ability to look however you like. You can choose the outfit you wear as long as it covers you entirely, but that's all anyone sees. If you want to have a detailed description while masking your identity that's what bluff-disguise is for.

its that we don't want people with cover to have a detailed description. Cover is meant to hide identifying features and having the ability to choose your description gives you the ability to look however you like.
Cover is meant to hide identifying features

I was unaware that if I put on a hood it made me an amorphous blob with zero detail. I'll have to use this technique when I start my career as a bank robber.

Sarcasm Aside:

I'm sorry Anachorn but no, just no. Wearing a hood doesn't make your clothing less detailed it hides your face. If someone is dumb enough to keep their facial description in when they are "covered" then that is on them not the rest of us who want to describe our armor and clothing in detail. This punishes the rest of us who spend time investing in our characters details for other people to read about in favor of people who are literally unwilling to create a blank description.

Why would being covered make my armor any less visible?

Is a hood some kind of magical shield that adds displacement to me making me impossible to identify unless someone is right next to me?

If so why is it allowed that people can treat me suspiciously if I appear as an amorphous blob of nothing to them?

Also what if I want my description to describe my mask or hood?

Is the hood itself suddenly impossible to perceive with the naked eye because it has been placed on my head?

Do I need to go on with the increasingly dumb things this change and your reason suggests?

A hood doesn't make your armor less detailed, the way you walk less detailed, your stance or your general height or build less detailed, it just hides your face. Hell even wearing a full robe would still have some detail to it and these should be things players should be describing. Infact here I'll even add a description for a plain robe with a plain hood below and a description for a person wearing incredibly detailed armor who still falls under being completely covered.


Basic Plain Robes:

Before you stands a hooded figure draped in long cloth robes. The robes are simple, lacking in detail and of a brownish hue, consisting of a hooded shawl and body covering. Around the waist they wear a rope style belt keeping the robes closed but it is worn loosely. The looseness of the robes and belt maintaining their cover makes it difficult to determine anything about this person beneath them.

Detailed Armor:

Age: Unknown
Height: 2'9" (84 cm)
Weight: 28 lbs (13 kg)
Body Type: Slim or Athletic
Eyes: Unknown
Hair: Unknown
Scent: Lavender
Demeanor: Calm and Quiet
Distinguishing Marks: Unknown
Cultural Origin: Unknown

What appears to be a hin stands here, their entire body covered from head to toe in odd garb. To some they might resemble an entertainer, perhaps a jester or actor in some bizarre theater, but they are almost always silent. Quietly looking out from behind the calm neutral expression of the mask that hides their face. Around their belt are attached a few small pouches, a set of small blades across their back and two masks that share different emotions from the one they wear. The two masks appear of similar design, one of happiness and the other of sadness. Around their cloak there are ten darksteel bells that ring hauntingly when they move beyond a walk. Some may understand the significance of the ten bells as they appear to have been reshaped from chain links using Transmutation magic.

Both of these are covered individuals, one is wearing literally just a robe with little to no detail the other just happens to be wearing armor and a hood with a mask that conceals their identity. Why is either not allowed to describe what they look like in this cover?

Neither of these mention anything that would not be visible from just looking at a person regardless of how easily you can see their identity. Unless everyone is suddenly blind if they lack the spot to break cover this reasoning makes zero sense.

Instead of either of these descriptions that are in no way revealing "Identifying characteristics" about the person under the covering armor we now get this:

This creatures body is fully covered.

You can tell almost nothing about it.

Oh I'm so glad I looked, what a great use of the space designed to describe details about what a thing in the engine looks, tastes, smells, or acts like.

This doesn't even bring up the fact that this is unfair to people lacking bluff/perform who want to use the system. Why are they being punished with the inability to use their description for what it is meant to be? I'll save that for another post perhaps though this post has gotten long and I think I've beaten the horse at this point for now so I will /endrant here with a closing note.

I get that people don't want their descriptions meta gamed while they are using this system and I would never encourage someone to do so. But if they are too lazy or forget to remove the details they want to hide that is on them not the people around them. And encouraging them to just be lazy about things is neither good for RP or good for the server. We should be rewarding players who go to extra lengths. In the immortal words of Ron Swanson:

Never half-Snuggybear two things. Whole-Snuggybear one thing.

[Anomandaris]

Frankly this ^ makes a lot of sense. Given cover is really for ppl without disguise skill they do not have the option to "conceal" with rp description flavor like someone using disguise would. Are we making it this way to prevent user error for the "x%" that wouldn't change their description? If so, ok I disagree but that's that. If not, there's no reason narratively not to allow the use of description with cover.

I still think not having any interplay between cover/disguise is odd as well. Cover seems a very cool feature and a nice balance and narrative tool considering some classes/builds can't get perform/bluff. However, there's an opportunity to make it more interesting and useful in multiple ways. Either way, curious to see how it evolves!

[chris a gogo]

It's really really simple.

If you have invested in bluff/perform continue using -disguise to hide who you are when you mugging or murdering other pc's.

If you have invested nothing just use -cover and your totally free to mug and slaughter away without being recognized.

If you want to pretend to be someone else invest in bluff/perform and use -disguise, then you can have a three page essay on how awesome your characters alter ego looks.

If you want to wander about in place where normally you would be killed but have invested zero skill points in bluff/perform use -cover and walk about completely unrecognizable, and generally ignored as no one wants to be the remove the mask or die police.

fin

[Party in the forest at midnight]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

[Nobs]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

thats good enough to break a normal disguise of some one who has 33 points and the +6 bluff gif aswel...

[Exordius]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

Yes but that's only if they get up right next to you... the dc goes down the further away you are from the spotter. If they are smart they will stay far away.

[Nitro]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

thats good enough to break a normal disguise of some one who has 33 points and the +6 bluff gif aswel...

If someone has 33 point investment and uses a valuable gift on it too I'd be shocked if they didn't gear for it as well. Why even bother investing if you're just going to invest to some halfway point?

[Nobs]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

thats good enough to break a normal disguise of some one who has 33 points and the +6 bluff gif aswel...

If someone has 33 point investment and uses a valuable gift on it too I'd be shocked if they didn't gear for it as well. Why even bother investing if you're just going to invest to some halfway point?

just pointing out that you can now cover up and get the same sort of protection as some one who spend a gif and spend 33 points into the bluff skill...

[Nitro]

I'm not a fan of the DC being that high at point blank either, If anything 40 spot should beat a no-investment cover at medium range.

[Nobs]

Agreed

[McPunchins]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

40 spot isn't a minor investment into spot.

[Anomandaris]

You're really exaggerating. The detect score for it is pretty low, I can bust cover with 40ish spot. It's not low risk at all.

40 spot isn't a minor investment into spot.

I mean it's super easy to boost that with a number of consumables by 10-20. 40 is a full stat investment + minimal gearing or an wis synergy. It's no feats. Considering ppl get skills into the 100's it's pretty minimal and low investment.

IMO the "minimum" investment is maxing the skill (or why bother at all). Then you can add gear, feats etc. So yah... 40 is pretty minimal. I'm not a listen build at all and I can boost it to 70 ish super easily with no focus or real investment at all.

[chris a gogo]

Im sorry but 40 is not a minimal investment to counter a free to use feature.

-cover requires the minimal investment of typing -cover.

The character using -cover doesn't have to carry a second set of gear around to enable them to use it neither do they have to drink potions to make it viable for a short duration.

To breach it requires investing into a often cross classed skill and using consumables and gear.
That is not a low investment.

[Nitro]

I think 40 would be a fine breach point at medium-short range, not point-blank.

[Scurvy Cur]

I've been holding off on my own feedback until having the chance to see this in the wild, and now that I have, here it goes:

1) Minor Readability Changes: When cover is broken, the description will read in the following order: a) written description, b) notice of cover, c) notification that cover was pierced. I'd appreciate it if b and c were moved to the top of the description, because lengthier descriptions often necessitate scrolling down through the player description to see that cover was present and broken. Not an issue if you don't break cover because descriptions are blank, though. Also, if we could make the cover notice some color that's not a pretty dark grey, just so it's easier to read/notice, I think that would be good.

2) Cover DC. Right now it seems to be 40ish at point blank range, and 60ish at distance. These numbers feel high, given that "at distance" seems to occur at a distance somewhere between the range of a short range spell (8 m) and a medium range spell (20m). I realize these are imprecise measuring sticks to use, but they're the ones I have to work with at present. So somewhere between 8 and 20m the DC to break cover climbs to something like 60. The point is, you're not all that far from someone by the time their cover DC caps out.

I would suggest dropping the point blank floor by about 10 points, and then either a) dropping the cap to 50 or so, or b) slowing down the rate at which the DC climbs to max. If you're looking for suggestions as to what "short, medium, and long" range ought to be, I actually think the NWN spell range categories are a good place to start: 8m, 20m, and 40m. At 40m, someone really is "way the hell over there", and I'm ok with that sort of cover being hard to break.

3) We probably need to exclude clairaudience/clairvoyance and TS from working for the bluff/spot checks for both cover and disguise. First, there's no corresponding bluff/perform buff. Second, it's now a lot easier to justify popping both these to try and break someone's cover/disguise, since full cover is IC info. I'd rather see the system not have to account for a 25 point swing in spot off of the back of short term buffs.

[Tyrantos]

[*] Some races without dynamic appearance (Gnolls, Minautors, ...) cannot currently be covered, we are working on a solution for that.
[/list]

Any idea how long this will take? Or when it will be possible? Im eagerly awaiting the time for when disguising is actually useful for those without dynamic models!

[ReverentBlade]

How exactly do you hide the silhouette of a massive gnoll or minotaur, with digitigrade legs, forward set heads and horns? That just doesn't seem plausible.

[Dreams]

Can we get -cover to persist across servers/resets in the same way that -disguise does now?

[Skibbles]

Chiming in that for people deeply concerned about not having a description - you can actually use emotes to insert relevant appearance if it's that important to the RP, or to you.

WYSIWYG is still the ultimate law and the cover system seems to illustrate this entirely.

Nobody is required to read your description, or write their own description, especially if it's paragraphs about the thread count of your robes which might seem very important to you but cause the other player to close the window when they see the dauntingly small scroll bar and just go with what they see.

You should be assuming yourself to be nondescript in most interactions and using your role play to define the moment - especially if it's a first impression.