Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Disguise Undead
(Spell Compendium, p. 66)

Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Sorcerer 2, Wizard 2, Spellthief 2,
Components: V, S, AF,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: 1 corporeal undead
Duration: 24 hours
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

One cannot just march a ghoul into the Duke's Court. But as the fumes issuing from the cocoon surround the creature, the form of the ghoul is replaced with that of a stately courtier armed with a rapier. Of course, it will have to keep its mouth shut.

You make one undead—including its clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—look different. You can make it seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change the creature's body type. For example, a wight could look human, humanoid, or like any other generally human-shaped bipedal creature. Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature, such as a mole or a beard, or make it look like an entirely different creature.

The spell does not provide the abilities or mannerisms of the chosen form. It does not alter the perceived tactile (touch) or audible (sound) properties of the undead or its equipment. A battleaxe made to look like a dagger still functions as a battleaxe.

This spell also foils magical means of detecting undead. The subject of disguise undead detects as a creature of the type simulated.

Creatures get Will saves to recognize the glamer as an illusion if they interact with the subject (such as by touching the undead and having that not match what they see, in the case of this spell).

Focus: A cocoon of a death's head moth.

---

I think this would be a really beneficial spell to add, especially for those that do with the undead. It would allow for necromancer to actually use their summons in dungeons and other places without too many repercussions in case someone were to pop by while they were there. And it could most certainly lead to some very interesting rp.

yes, though it would still be subject to true seeing which bypasses all magical illusions

Blackman D wrote:yes, though it would still be subject to true seeing which bypasses all magical illusions

True, though non detection would make it harder, as the caster first has to realise something weird is going on, and since non-detection makes any sort of divinations require a dc check against it.

Another thing I think would be good to consider, would be to be able to actually add a mundane disguise to the undead, which certainly could create some truly interesting and seriously memorable situations.

Or to make the job slightly easier, modify the Disguise Other spell to work on summoned creatures. Atm that spell can only target PCs, although some summons can be called in alternate forms (eg. brachina, succubus in human form).

Incarnate wrote:

Blackman D wrote:yes, though it would still be subject to true seeing which bypasses all magical illusions

True, though non detection would make it harder, as the caster first has to realise something weird is going on, and since non-detection makes any sort of divinations require a dc check against it.

I think True Seeing does not currently work this way on bgtscc and is treated as "see through polymorph".

NegInfinity wrote:

Incarnate wrote:

Blackman D wrote:yes, though it would still be subject to true seeing which bypasses all magical illusions

True, though non detection would make it harder, as the caster first has to realise something weird is going on, and since non-detection makes any sort of divinations require a dc check against it.

I think True Seeing does not currently work this way on bgtscc and is treated as "see through polymorph".

So if it doesn't work that way against someone who has non-dection? If this is the case, then it should be corrected, I mean true seeing is powerful, but there is no need to make it so you can't counter it through magical means.

Incarnate wrote: So if it doesn't work that way against someone who has non-dection? If this is the case, then it should be corrected, I mean true seeing is powerful, but there is no need to make it so you can't counter it through magical means.

I do not recall anyone use non-detection on bgtscc.

Currently it only does this:

This spell protects against Alarm, Detect Magic, Analyze Dweomer and any other Divination spells that directly cause DC rolls.

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Non-Detection

It does not protect from true-seeing.

True seeing usually handled via tells anyway.

You may need DM ruling and separate suggestion for this.

NegInfinity wrote:

Incarnate wrote: So if it doesn't work that way against someone who has non-dection? If this is the case, then it should be corrected, I mean true seeing is powerful, but there is no need to make it so you can't counter it through magical means.

I do not recall anyone use non-detection on bgtscc.

Without knowing the specifics as to why that is, to me it seems very obvious why since non-detection normally would make the effects of any divination attempt & spell. The PnP version is basically oppossed caster level dc checks. 1d20+caster level vs. DC11+caster level.
To be fair, its only reasonable that non-detection works as it should, otherwise there is very little reason for it to be there as anyone could just be running around with items that give True Seeing, or pop the spell through a magic item. There should be a way to magically counter True Seeing just as there is in PnP.

NegInfinity wrote:Currently it only does this:

This spell protects against Alarm, Detect Magic, Analyze Dweomer and any other Divination spells that directly cause DC rolls.

https://wiki.bgtscc.net/index.php?title=Non-Detection

It does not protect from true-seeing.

True seeing usually handled via tells anyway.

You may need DM ruling and separate suggestion for this.

The dnd sage actually ruled that Non-detection works against true seeing - the ruling came from Jeremy Crawford who's the lead rules designer of D&D. Of course its the DMs here that has to decide whether they're going to accept the official ruling or not.

Incarnate wrote: The dnd sage actually ruled that Non-detection works against true seeing - the

"D&D Sage" is irrelevant.

The word has to come from DMs HERE. Nobody ever has used non-detection in the manner you suggested.

If you want official ruling either PM the DM team, or try using "Questions for DM" subforum.

The one problem with non-detection spell preventing true seeing is that this should be scripted int othe game mechanically. Otherwise I'd expect small portion of people to lie about having non-detection on.

Meaning someone will have to fix the appraise creature system.

NegInfinity wrote:

Incarnate wrote: The dnd sage actually ruled that Non-detection works against true seeing - the

"D&D Sage" is irrelevant.

The word has to come from DMs HERE. Nobody ever has used non-detection in the manner you suggested.

If you want official ruling either PM the DM team, or try using "Questions for DM" subforum.

The one problem with non-detection spell preventing true seeing is that this should be scripted int othe game mechanically. Otherwise I'd expect small portion of people to lie about having non-detection on.

Meaning someone will have to fix the appraise creature system.

It certainly isn't irrelevant as it comes from the lead rules designer, which means this is how the spell was intended to work in relation to nondetection, making it work otherwise would create imbalances, which is quite obvious that it is imbalanced on the server in relation to this. If the DMs choose to let it remain as they've ruled, then they're knowingly ruling in favor of the imbalances that it creates. But you're right, what DMs says here it was officially goes.

Also, I have made a post in the DM section about it, including the evidence about this.
What has to be made on the technical side of things to correct it, is a completely different matter. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be really tricky and maybe even impossible, but if so then something different has to be worked out.

Incarnate wrote: which means

Which means his word has no weight on bgtscc, because nwn2 is a computer game and not pnp, and last time I checked this dude did not participate in designing this server.

Request official ruling from DM team, by sending them a PM.

On BG: True seeing rolls a secret non-detection check. You never see non-detection rolls because they are kept secret. So no-one knows from the combat-log whether you have non-detect active. This avoids disguise metagaming. (With true seeing you get a roll vs magical disguises)

Rasael wrote:On BG: True seeing rolls a secret non-detection check. You never see non-detection rolls because they are kept secret. So no-one knows from the combat-log whether you have non-detect active. This avoids disguise metagaming. (With true seeing you get a roll vs magical disguises)

So, how does user of true seeing know if they can see the true form or not?

This sounds like it should be working in conjunction with appraise creature system, but it is currently bugged ( viewtopic.php?f=25&t=63852 )

NegInfinity wrote:

Incarnate wrote: which means

Which means his word has no weight on bgtscc, because nwn2 is a computer game and not pnp, and last time I checked this dude did not participate in designing this server.

Request official ruling from DM team, by sending them a PM.

Neverwinter Nights 2 is a role-playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and published by Atari, Inc. It is the sequel to BioWare's Neverwinter Nights, based on the Dungeons & Dragons pencil and paper fantasy role-playing game. Neverwinter Nights 2 utilizes an adaptation of the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition rules.

Source: Neverwinter Nights 2 - Wikipedia

Meaning its an attempt to represent the D&D PnP version as a video game. So this means that the PnP rules should certainly have a lot of weight, and when the statement comes from their lead rules designer, I'd say it matters a lot since he knows how its intended to work. It may be that he has no say here, and he didn't participate setting up the server, but still nonetheless he knows EXACTLY how they're supposed to work.

Also, I have already earlier today made a request to have a ruling on the Nondetection vs True Seeing.

Incarnate wrote: Neverwinter Nights 2 is a role-playing video

Dude, just quit it.

You won't convince anyone this way. There are so many liberties taken with NWN2, so PNP ideas simply do not translate. NWN1 was worse though (discipline skill, anyone?).

You' ve been told many times that this isn't pnp. This is the same thing.

Either way, I'm more interested in Rasael's response right now.