Seppo-87's page

They start evacuating people and inportant items

Which means the item is no longer behind an unavoidable trap door. I view that as a progress.

Or, if I get te legendary thievery feat (and at this point why not LOL) I could just *steal the door* and replace it with an illusion

Ravingdork wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I think we probably wouldn't get along in a gaming group.

I have reasons for why I would place that bell that can't be disabled, but none of them are reasons that arise from within the game world. And chances are it would spoil plot to explain, so I probably wouldn't explain.

If that means that you wouldn't want me as a GM, I think it also means I wouldn't want you as a player.

And that's okay. Not every gaming style has to be for everyone.

Perhaps.

I'm just not a fan of locked doors. If they didn't bother me, I'd still be playing video games where they're all over the place.

A big draw of roleplaying games is to be able to do things and go places you normally couldn't in the video games.

The playstyle you describe strikes me as very rigid, which likely wouldn't be my cup of tea.

And that's okay, as you say.

To be fair, the door isn't locked. It's alarmed, with an alarm you can't defeat. You can get in. But anyone inside will know you're inside.

90% of the time an alarm trap would be able to be defeated. 99% even. But as a GM, I do occasionally put in things that simply can't be beaten by the normal methods.

The door with a bell alarm that can be disarmed.
A locked door* (let's assume it's more like a magic door with a magic portal) but still basically the same thing in terms of barring progress.
Someone that cannot be reasoned or negotiated with via diplomacy.

These kind of out of combat activities can be problematic to certain stories, or the way I'd like certain things to play out.

And to be clear, I wouldn't do it for in combat stuff.

This is a fun situation. This is how I would approach the problem.

I'll go invisible (I prepare 1 daily invisibility sphere, and I do have quiet allies, so we can have fun together) and use mage hand to repeatedly open the door. At some point they'll think it's somehow malfunctioning or stop caring. Then I'll go.

If we get caught, then I guess the barbarian is going to have even more fun

I don't usually go on solo stealth missions anyway.

Seppo-87 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

A door with bells attached to it seems like a pretty good way to be alerted that someone is there, even if you have a hard time seeing them.

Eh. A mechanism that is set in place to activate and cause an adverse effect when someone unknowingly interacts with a concealed trigger - this 100% counts as a trap

And a very rudimentary one, that could be devised by a kid. This deserves a low level DC and shouldn't slow down any proficient adventurer.

I understand everyone's gamist reasons. But a bell attached to a door has no practical way to disable it without opening the door and ringing the bell.

I would allow a perception check to realize it, assuming the player is opening the door slowly and carefully and give them a chance to not go through a particular door.

In my mind, there are sometimes things that can't be disabled (don't use it all the time).

And to someone's earlier point, a magical alarm can't be disabled by your average rogue.

It's not really a gamist concern, at least for me, it's simulationist. Simulating narrative tropes (this is a valid use of the word simulationism, it doesn't have to imitate reality).

I ask myself "would Arsenio Lupin III fall for it? Would Batman? Agebt 007?" My answer is no, they WOULD find a way with a special technique or have a dedicated asspull gadget.

A door with bells attached to it seems like a pretty good way to be alerted that someone is there, even if you have a hard time seeing them.

Eh. A mechanism that is set in place to activate and cause an adverse effect when someone unknowingly interacts with a concealed trigger - this 100% counts as a trap

And a very rudimentary one, that could be devised by a kid. This deserves a low level DC and shouldn't slow down any proficient adventurer.

But on that last part about "knowledge", that is exactly the effect and its a good one for gameplay

Don't worry it's good to have different perspectives and as I already told you I would play at your table with your rules (even tho I would do everything in my power to avoid the problem such as completing the prescient planner chain)

However it kinda feels like a let down if a master at a skill - or in this case a literal Legend - would not automatically be informed of all special senses beforehand, including niche ones such as bloodsense.

Being legendary in my understanding means you're amongst the maximum experts of the world on a subject. And not just in your lifetime - IN GENERAL. You are not just a renown authority, that would be Master. You are a genius worthy of legendary status. There is nothing above that. You can't get any more competent. If a legendary rogue doesn't know how to counter a special sense, then who is even supposed to know?

However, this is just my take on things.

Foil senses doesn't require knowledge, or really means. It's automatic, they are always considered to be taking precautions.

Now, the GM is in their power to declare some senses are just impossible to take precautions against, which is fine (after all, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the sidebar says many special senses can be foiled, not all). But all the ones you can take precautions against, the character with the feat will take precautions against. Even if they don't know they exist. They're just that good at stealth. It's a Master level skill feat, they can do that.

I do agree. I have to say, it's been a real pleasure to discuss in this thread. Lots of reasonable people and good insights. I wish this was how the discussion at my table went (it's not)

So now (assuming I haven't been kicked from the campaign, which admittedly I still don't really know. But at this point this is more of a thought excercise) how would one reasonably foil Bloodsense? The sense doesn't detail HOW the creature senses blood, so there aren't many clues on what one would need to do to cause a distraction. I can't find any arcane spell to change my blood into something else either.

On Reddit people suggested breathing techniques that alter the blood composition so far that it doesn't register as blood anymore (or at least is different enough to give the character *a chance* at hiding). Can we think of anything else?

The party enters a forest each player decides on their exploration activities. the rogue chooses to avoid notice. Thats all the input I received from the...

So you removed the Knowledge need (you don't need to know that creatures are present or what sense they may or may not have) but still keeping the "means" requirement.

In this case now your argument is the same as yellowpete's

However the consumable example isn't really how the feat works. By the rules, if I have the feat, I will automatically use the consumable a soon as I sneak for the first time, and I cannot choose not to. If I have multiple consumables for multiple senses, I will have to use one of all of them whenever I sneak.

Your concession (you only use it when it's actually needed etc) is an attempt to make the idea of introducing consumables sound more reasonable than it actually is but you are bending the rules to do so. I don't think this is how the thing is supposed to work or what the devs had in mind.

Anyway, I would play at a table with your ruling. And I would take the prescient planner chain if I knew in advance that this is how you want to run Foil Senses.

It's heavily implied that not all special senses have possible precautions one can take to avoid them (since the rules only speak of "many" such senses instead of saying all). So with the feat you're always considered to be taking such precautions without having to describe them, but that still does not help you against some senses as they simply have no possible precautions one can take. Other than the examples mentioned (tremorsense and detecting heartbeats), it's up to the GM to decide if a possible precaution exists for a particular sense or not.

I can accept this idea and I would be open to discuss it.

However I want to note that IMHO it seems inconsistent with other skill feats. Characters can find food on a literal empty plane, survive a fall from the orbit, take out a worn armor without the wearer noticing, retroactively affect the narrative by manifesting something in their pockets.

I understand the reasoning but to be fair "impossibility" doesn't in general seem an obstacle when it comes down to master level skill feats and above

Seppo-87 wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them, it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them

I understand where you're coming from, but this is logically inconsistent.

You either are *sometimes* considered in the act of foiling senses when sneaking (i.e. when it "makes sense", which is how it works when you don't have the feat) OR you are *always* considered in the act of foiling senses when sneaking.

You cannot have it both ways.

It's either "always" or it is "sometimes".

If you are "always" foiling senses you don't need the means and knowledge.

**If you have the means and knowledge, you don't need the feat**

Please note that foiling senses "when it makes sense" is already possible without the feat. If you still need the means ans knowledge, there is no difference with having the feat or not.

Theres an unspoken premise in that conclusion though.

1 By foiling senses the feat means it is always actually literally foiling a sense at all times. This is not possible since you can hide and sneak even if nothing with senses is around to actually be foiled.

2. The pc is always doing the things that will potentially foil senses.

I accept the second of these.
And the description still even after answering this begs the other questions I posed.

the feat does say the character is considered to always be taking precautions

My point is that if I have appropriate knowledge and means, I don't need the feat to take those precautions.

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them, it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them

I understand where you're coming from, but this is logically inconsistent.

You either are *sometimes* considered in the act of foiling senses when sneaking (i.e. when it "makes sense", which is how it works when you don't have the feat) OR you are *always* considered in the act of foiling senses when sneaking.

You cannot have it both ways.

It's either "always" or it is "sometimes".

If you are "always" foiling senses you don't need the means and knowledge.

**If you have the means and knowledge, you don't need the feat**

Please note that foiling senses "when it makes sense" is already possible without the feat. If you still need the means ans knowledge, there is no difference with having the feat or not.

Seppo-87 wrote:

And I cannot use it?

I actually don't think it would be fair or consistent of a GM to regularly deny foil senses what its supposed to do. It should work almost all the time, but there can and would be fair for there to be exceptions.

An exception IMO has to be a sense that makes no sense for the pc to be able to foil without special means.

I can understand the reasoning and I would be open to discuss a nerf on those basis

Still, I can't help but think

Why does this specific feat need to make sense when other skill feats allow things like finding food in a literally empty plane -something that cannot be explained, no matter how hard you think about it-, or to retroactively change the past (i.e. with prescient planner chain)

why are we holding this one to a different standard

Clearly you drain all of your blood and replace it with something else

Every single time you sneak, no less

What is an expected way in which something targeting your pc could be legitimate with your current set up?

1) I critically fail a sneak roll (I do have sneak adept)

I cannot avoid the occasional critical failure. This is not an autowin. I still have to roll.

2) I decide to not hide this turn because I have better uses for my actions.

This comes up pretty often TBH because I am a team player and I may choose to take one for the team.

3) I happen to be inside an AOE effect. There's no escaping that. I'll just roll my save and hope it goes for the best.

Please note that when I'm hiding "in plain sight" my allies do not know where I am, so they are expected to not make tactical decisions based on my unknown position. Yes, it is powerful - but! There are drawbacks to this approach.

Still, my point is - this is a specialist character. It was devised and concieved around this specific concept since lv1. It's been 3 years and now my build is finally complete.

And I cannot use it?

If I cannot play his specialty... I'd rather play something else that actually works in this campaign

This character was designed to be uniaque, with a very specific role and playstyle that sets them apart from others in the group. One of the greatest joys in playing a tabletop RPG is creating a character that feels distinct, someone who excels in a particular area and brings something special to the table. For this character, that uniqueness is their mastery of stealth and evasion—being able to avoid notice, slip into places unseen, and strike like a ghost.

This isn’t just about power, it’s about identity. If my character can’t leverage the abilities that make them different, then they stop feeling unique. They just become another combatant, indistinguishable from anyone else. And if that’s the case, I may as well play a more standard, straightforward class that fits better with the challenges of the campaign.

RPGs thrive on the diversity of characters and the different ways they approach problems. My rogue isn’t built to tank hits or charge headfirst into combat, they can't do thay. I need to rely on tactical positioning and action economy. Avoiding retaliation is the only way to play them effectively. And If I can't do that, then I'd be better of playing something else entirely.

It might be the GM in this situation has chosen the creatures that are sensing your pc because they wanted a counter to your abilities to challenge you in combat

I can get that in any d20 game, in any campaign. I have in fact done that several times (I like in-your-face characters like Paladins and barbarians). However,this time I chose the rogue specifically because I wanted to play a character that goes against that. This is allowed by the rules. I am playing the rogue as intended. Avoiding notice while dealing damage unpunished (like a sniper, mosquito, or a MOBA evasive assassin archetype) is the whole point. If I can't do that, I don't want to play a rogue. If I always have to face the consequences of dealing heavy damage, I'd rather just be a targe magus, who is better equipped to deal with the unavoidable retaliation.

Does it break plots that PCs can get somewhere undetected...

Ironically I don't think that's the problem. The thing is - I use these skills in combat. I will attack and stride to hide in plain sight with legendary sneak. And I'm doing it a lot. Maybe the GM just wants to be allowed to freely attack my PC

Seppo-87 wrote:

I just want to roll my sneak checks :/ The fantasy of being able to hide from anything anytime is the whole reason I picked up the Rogue in the first place

Have you told this specifically to your GM? "Hey, I choose this class because of early access/progression to skill feats and wanted to make an incredibly stealthy character. How we're currently running this feat makes this unfun for me playing my character. What are your thoughts on this? Are there any remedies you can think of?"

Try not to be accusatory or inflammatory, as the GM will likely just double down. But if you frame it about having fun with your character and how you understood things to work, you might find an amicable resolution.

It's a bit too late for that. I don't want to turn this into a drama thread, but at this point it is indeed possible this situation won't end well.

Out of curiosity, do they have the same problem with Legendary Sneak? I'd think the ability to straight up disappear from view in broad daylight with zero means of concealing yourself would be a lot more jarring than "I sneak so well I can avoid echolocation".

I could tell he was a bit jarred by it but he then rationalized it by saying it must be something like Killua's step from HxH

From that moment on I kept being spotted by creatures with special senses, eventually this culminated in the bloodsense discussion

I just want to roll my sneak checks :/ The fantasy of being able to hide from anything anytime is the whole reason I picked up the Rogue in the first place

I see two points to a GM needs to resolve in how they are running this feat.

1 - Does the feat provide the means required for the precaution when mundane items not available from the current environment are involved (like perhaps a musk to mask scent) or even magical items for purely supernatural senses (like something to mask the presence of blood in your body for the bloodsense of a bloodhag)?

2 - Does the feat negate the need to be aware of the kinds of precautions foil a particular special sense? This question is second because the first should be yes for this to always also be yes.

For me the answer is yes and yes within reason.
I would draw the line at purely supernatural senses for 1 and 2. Senses the pc has I will assume they know of and are always prepared to foil, adding to the list everytime they learn of knew senses to foil however they learn of them.
This is a more interesting way to play the feat anyway.
It might even be fun for the player to keep a list of special senses they have learned of and tell the GM they are stocking up on those ingredients for Foil senses whenever they come across them. Sort of a built in sidequest for that player.

I understand and I would be open to discuss such a change if this was proposed in the right way (even tho the feat does clearly say the character is safeguarding "at all times" which absolutely does negate the need to be aware of the presence of creatures with special senses)

I just wanted to hear as many people as possible so I did in fact crosspost.

(This is not necessarily a bad thing - it may help people in the future)

Anyway. I feel not listened, yes. And it feels bad. It's not even about being right or wrong at this point.

Seppo-87 wrote:

Question: Foil Senses and Bloodsense

Yesterday my character (a rogue with Foil Senses and Legendary Sneak) was spotted automatically by a creature with Bloodsense without any roll.
The GM argued that my character must be aware of the special sense and describe how they are trying to avoid it.

However, it seems to me that this is actually a basic rule that doesn’t require the feat:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405&Redirected=1
As shown there, any character is allowed to attempt to take precautions against a special sense, provided they know about it and can describe how they are doing so.

Exactly.

Without the Foil Senses feat, anyone who knows that an upcoming or already present enemy has Bloodsense can do something to disguise themselves from that sense and use the Sneak action.

The Foil Senses feat upgrades that so that your character is always assumed to be using such measures all the time against all possible special senses. They no longer need to be aware of the existence of the sense before the Sneak attempt is made.

So the GM is right - if your character does not have Foil Senses and was not previously aware that this enemy has Bloodsense. Then the enemy would automatically spot you. Your character wouldn't know that they needed to mitigate their detection from Bloodsense when they attempted to Sneak around this enemy. Once your Sneak attempt fails the GM should give you the information that the enemy has some special sense. And a Recall Knowledge check would inform you what sense that is and allow you to have the character take the appropriate countermeasures so that their next Sneak attempt isn't automatically futile.

If the character does have Foil Senses, then you don't need to be previously aware.

So it sounds like the GM forgot that your character has Foil Senses.

He knows I have the feat but he believes that what the feat does is to enable the basic rules for hiding from special senses (which are actually available by default)

Foil Senses breaks verisimilitude, and at a relatively low level, so it can be hard to accept the HUGE diversity of senses that it foils. But it does, whether or not one can rationalize it. How does one mask their "life" or "blood" in an offhand way they perform every day? Whether meditation/chakra/chi/zen practices or herbs/body modification/mundane balms and lotions, it can be whatever one wants. And it works.

(Funnily enough, I'm writing stories for a high-level Rogue in Golarion where I have to justify such things, mostly via lowering their "presence" via breathing and diet. But in the game itself, explanations can be handwaved away.)

Right, but I believe the crux of the matter is that, if you don't allow "foil senses" to always work [even when the basic rule wouldn't, such as when you don't know that a creature has a special sense] then the feat would be mechanically empty, as you are *already* allowed to try to take precautions against a sense you are aware of, without needing the feat.

Is this reasoning correct?

Question: Foil Senses and Bloodsense
Yesterday my character (a rogue with Foil Senses and Legendary Sneak) was spotted automatically by a creature with Bloodsense without any roll.
The GM argued that my character must be aware of the special sense and describe how they are trying to avoid it.

However, it seems to me that this is actually a basic rule that doesn’t require the feat:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405&Redirected=1
As shown there, any character is allowed to attempt to take precautions against a special sense, provided they know about it and can describe how they are doing so.

That said, the feat clearly states that the character is "ALWAYS" considered to be taking precautions:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5151&Redirected=1
"Always" means they are doing so regardless of whether they are aware of creatures with special senses or not.

My position is that, if this weren't the case, the feat would have no mechanical effect. The procedure for avoiding special senses by describing how and why is already available to everyone, even without the feat. Therefore, if the feat does anything at all, that "something" must be allowing Stealth rolls always, even when the basic procedure (the one that is available without cthe feat) wouldn't apply.

What do you think?