Disguise and voice?

[Jon_Dahl]

Let's imagine that person A hears person B talking. Person A concentrates to recognise his voice.

Later on, person B appears disguised and starts to talk. Person A concentrates and tries recognise him according to his voice.

How should this be handled by the book?

I would say that it's listen vs. disguise (acting) without any bonuses from disguise kit, disguise self and such. Listen gets +4 bonus.

[Hyde]

Voices aren't necessarily as distinctive as sight, and unless Person A has a reason to suspect Person B of actually being in disguise, they're far more likely to just go along with what they see. -2 at most.

If person B is trained in Disguise, they're probably smart enough to mask their voice.

[Alleran]

I'd rule it as a Listen check to concentrate hard enough to distinguish the voice, and then another Listen check to recognise it again, opposed by the Disguise check.

[Hyde]

I'd rule it as a Listen check to concentrate hard enough to distinguish the voice, and then another Listen check to recognise it again, opposed by the Disguise check.

My problem with doing something like this is that it essentially gives the listener two chances to detect the subterfuge, which isn't appropriate, especially if we're talking about two players.

It's worth special consideration that the player thought to listen for his voice specifically, but frankly voices are easy to disguise and it shouldn't be enough to break one. you can use the DM's best friend of a +2 circumstance bonus to the "whatever vs. Disguise" check to bust the disguise, or some other number you deem appropriate (+5 would be the absolute maximum limit).

[Ashtagon]

I rule that the Disguise is purely visual, and generally opposed by Perception (Spot) checks. There are type main kinds of disguise: adopting "types" (eg. soldier, baker) and adopting specific personas (Annabell, Princess Felicia's lady-in-waiting).

Voice, and acting/impersonating in general, is Bluff opposed by Sense Motive.

If both visual and acting cues are involved in a disguise (typical for nearly any impersonation), a single die roll is made, based on the most disadvantageous of the two opposed checks.

----

In the sample given, you're just trying to identify the voice. It is really really hard to identify specific individuals by voice. Actual factors that vary between individuals are:

* average pitch (men have low pitches, typically)
* pitch variance (men tend to talk more monotone that women; some languages use pitch variance for stress or meaning)
* pitch stress vs. volume stress (women tend to use pitch stress, men volume stress)
* speed
* volume (closer people tend to sound louder)
* language and fluency level

Actually saying voice X is the same person as voice Y? I'd place that as DC 25, at least. DC 20 maybe lets you say it has most of the characteristics in common. DC 5 lets you gender the voice (within the norms of your experience). DC 10 let's you say a vague pitch within that gender's range, and whether the person normally talks fast or slow.

[Jon_Dahl]

With bluff vs. sense motive you could sense that he is trying to change his voice.

[Ashtagon]

With bluff vs. sense motive you could sense that he is trying to change his voice.

What if he wasn't trying to change his voice?

With the possible exception of the blind-since-birth, people just don't recognise each other by voice except under the most specific circumstances (eg. close family member whom you have had daily contact with for years).

[Jon_Dahl]

What if he wasn't trying to change his voice?

Then, amusingly, it would more difficult to bust him. Assuming the disguise matches his natural voice.

[Ashtagon]

Then, amusingly, it would more difficult to bust him. Assuming the disguise matches his natural voice.

Google candifla on youtube, then tell me a disguised voice is easy to spot.

Also, if "disguised" voices were easy to spot, the career of voice actor would simply not exist.

[Crake]

My problem with doing something like this is that it essentially gives the listener two chances to detect the subterfuge, which isn't appropriate, especially if we're talking about two players.

It's worth special consideration that the player thought to listen for his voice specifically, but frankly voices are easy to disguise and it shouldn't be enough to break one. you can use the DM's best friend of a +2 circumstance bonus to the "whatever vs. Disguise" check to bust the disguise, or some other number you deem appropriate (+5 would be the absolute maximum limit).

actually, by this ruling the listener gets 1 chance, but 2 points of failure, he needs to pass both checks to pass, but if he fails either one, then he fails the whole thing.

[Razanir]

With the possible exception of the blind-since-birth, people just don't recognise each other by voice except under the most specific circumstances (eg. close family member whom you have had daily contact with for years).

I beg to differ. Several of my friends at college I can identify by voice, and I've not even known them for a year


Google candifla on youtube, then tell me a disguised voice is easy to spot.

I'll find it later, but I saw a video on youtube once where a guy perfectly mimicked a girl's voice

[Madeiner]

I beg to differ. Several of my friends at college I can identify by voice, and I've not even known them for a year


I agree.
I can easily recognize people by voice, i think everyone can. You only just need to hear them at most for a few hours.
After a year in college you should be able to recognize all of your classmates (25+ people) by voice alone.

[Ashtagon]

I agree.
I can easily recognize people by voice, i think everyone can. You only just need to hear them at most for a few hours.
After a year in college you should be able to recognize all of your classmates (25+ people) by voice alone.

There's a difference between "Of the people I know, that is John", and "Of all the people in this city, that is John". Given a suitable voice sample, a guy with talent and a suitable base voice could do a decent impersonation suffici3ent to fool you.

[Razanir]

There's a difference between "Of the people I know, that is John", and "Of all the people in this city, that is John". Given a suitable voice sample, a guy with talent and a suitable base voice could do a decent impersonation suffici3ent to fool you.

What matters more, in my opinion, is getting mannerisms right. Such as I am that person who sends grammatically correct text messages, with the exception of leaving off the period at the end of the last sentence. Or the fact that I'm prone to using more archaic constructions when I speak and write

[Ashtagon]

What matters more, in my opinion, is getting mannerisms right. Such as I am that person who sends grammatically correct text messages, with the exception of leaving off the period at the end of the last sentence. Or the fact that I'm prone to using more archaic constructions when I speak and write

That, too, can be faked by an imposter with talent. In fact, that's probably easier than faking an entirely different voice. This is, in fact, what actors do for a living.