"/c changename"

[Arch Rogue]

Not sure if this is even possible (guessing it isn't!) but I think it would be awesome if PCs were able to change the blue name overhead. Obviously this may be abused by some people, so I was thinking this feature would only become available through the PC first being wanded (or having to app for the feature) so DMs can decide if the PC's concept/Bluff score etc are relevant or not.

In conjunction with a good costume and the 'set description' command this would be amazing for rogues and other shady PCs.

[TakenByVisions]

The character would need to log out and back in for it to take effect after the script used LETO to change the name. Then I believe it would start creating new save files in the server vault with that new name which -might- be an issue for them if someone used a duplicate or whatnot.

I'd love this myself if it is possible to do without any issues.

[lovethesuit]

Made a proposal for a Disguise system based in EFUSS and Disguise Kits (like bard song pages), but really there's no way to change a name outside Leto.

[Seanzie]

YES

[Nightshadow]

Arelith did the same thing with their disguise feature, and they said they were only able to do it due to running the server on Linux. As we seem to be running it on Linux as well (or at least, I read that on a thread about a Whirlwind Attack bug), this would indeed be possible, as an IG thing, not requiring LETO.

It tends to cause a bug with journals, however, in that your journal, which is not a server-side thing, is tied to your name. When your name changes, you get a new journal. There are some bugs associated with this (which are all avoidable by keeping the journal closed while changing names) which result in a complete loss of everything in your journal.

[TakenByVisions]

Journals are saved as text files in your local vault. Even with a name change your old journal would be under the old name.

[Sternhund]

I have seen this done before, but if I recall correctly one of the major issues we've had is making that work with our EFUSL system. I know a DM in the past has looked into it, and last I recall it's not impossible just difficult.

[Arch Rogue]

A challenge for Johannes perhaps! I wonder...will he rise to it? ;)

[Drakill Tannan]

I don't think this would be a revolutionary solution. All the metagamer needs to do is click on the portait of the disguised PC in the chat bar to see the account name. Making the conection is easy after that.

However, i'm all for it.

[Wrexsoul]

There'd have to be a counter to it though, imo; For every skill-based disguise there needs to be a skill-based way to see through it.

[TakenByVisions]

1d20 + Bluff + CHA modifier + level VS 1d10 + Bluff + Wisdom modifier + level

[Egon the Monkey]

Spot, I'd think would be better. And I wouldn't see why an opposed check should be harder for the observer than the disguisee, that goes against the whole idea of opposed rolls. Unless scripted disguises were hard without a huge investment in bluff and risky even then, every single crook and spy PC will be using it as a sort of super-Stealth Mode that only requires a single skill investment, can't be countered by using detection buffs and doesn't break when you use items.

[TakenByVisions]

Why would it break when you use items? lol

[Arch Rogue]

Why is the suggestion forum public again?

[Egon the Monkey]

There's absolutely no reason it should, and that's the point. There's a good argument for using disguises sparingly, but if it's scripted to be something you can just switch on, then it becomes better than sneaking around for many circumstances.

If you suspect a stealther you can respond by using detection consumables, spells, gear. Harder to detect a disguised PC if detection was also off Bluff alone.  Levels don't seem that relevant, if you take the skills you take the skills. For detect, something averaging out Spot, Listen and Bluff would be better. Allow PCs to buff up to detect a spy in their midst, but also even out the effects of such buffs.