Question: Foil Senses and Blood Sense

[Seppo-87]

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?

[Castilliano]

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.)

[Seppo-87]

Castilliano wrote:

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?

[Claxon]

I think your logic is correct Seppo, and your GM has made a bad call because they didn't expect the feat to work so well.

But honestly my argument wouldn't even about the base rules, it's about that feat says your always doing it against all senses. How does one negate bloodsense when you have blood, or temorsense when you're walking on the ground? I have no clue, but I don't have to. There is something that does it, and your character is doing it all the time.

That said, I suggest you try not to be adversarial with your GM. Foil Senses is the kind of feat that really screws up some GMs and some adventure designs because you weren't supposed to be able to get past a creature. Find a way to amicable guide them to the correct conclusion.

[NorrKnekten]

The feat does say you are always considered to be taking precautions against special senses. It is when you don't have the feat which you would need to be aware of it and also have a narrative explanation as to how you foil it. Remember, Walk without rythm and you don't attract the worms.

That said I do believe the GM could have argued that you would need to use another attribute modifier for that creature specifically as is supported in the sidebar, Its not a hard calculation either just the same result +- the difference in attribute modifier.

[Finoan]

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.

[Seppo-87]

Finoan wrote:

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)

[Errenor]

Seppo-87 wrote:

He knows I have the feat but he believes that what the feat does is to enable the basic rules for hiding from special...

Well, you've got the answers (and I suppose on reddit too) and I suspect nobody can help you with more, all that remains is for your GM to listen.

[Seppo-87]

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.

[Bluemagetim]

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.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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)

[Claxon]

One thing you may consider asking the GM is "Hey GM, does this feat kind of ruin things you have planned? Would you like me not take it and take something else?"

There is a chance your GM knows it works, but really hates the feat. It is incredibly powerful from a narrative perspective and is relatively low level. For any character investing in Stealth it's basically a required feat.

Although, it might help if you remind the GM it does require you to be a Master in Stealth. And you might remind them that Legendary Sneak feat literally lets you hide and sneak without cover or concealment (basically what Hide in Plain Sight was in PF1). Honestly the feats are pretty damn powerful, and if your GM isn't used to it, it can be rather jarring.

[TheFinish]

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.

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?

You are 100% in the right in this situation, though this seems more like your GM knows this perfectly well, they just don't like it. Which is fine, but then you really need to talk about it or it'll just get worse.

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".

[Errenor]

Claxon wrote:

It is incredibly powerful from a narrative perspective and is relatively low level.

Nah. Feat that allows you to hide from very rare subset of creatures that otherwise detect everyone (unless you were ready for them)? That's just so niche. And then GM must put a lot into that impossibility to hide from these specific creatures. Would it really break the narrative? Should it? Why? Why can't you base the narrative on something else? I just don't see the real issue.

[Baarogue]

Yeah this is just a bad GM. Even if they relent be wary of retaliation

[Seppo-87]

TheFinish wrote:

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

[Claxon]

Errenor wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It is incredibly powerful from a narrative perspective and is relatively low level.

Nah. Feat that allows you to hide from very rare subset of creatures that otherwise detect everyone (unless you were ready for them)? That's just so niche. And then GM must put a lot into that impossibility to hide from these specific creatures. Would it really break the narrative? Should it? Why? Why can't you base the narrative on something else? I just don't see the real issue.

You think "can't defeat stealth with special sense" is a niche situation? When I GM'd PF1 I'd typically have some creatures with non-visual senses to defeat stealth, at least in cases of strongholds or other places where someone would put thought into defending a place. To me it always made sense that the enemy should be prepared to deal with an invisible and non-visible intruders, especially in ways that didn't employ short lived magic or relied or being aware of the intruder to make happen. Creatures with passive senses that didn't rely on vision made a ton since to me. Again, not everywhere, but in appropriate places.

And there are absolutely ways to work around the issue, but some GMs....just don't want to.

[Claxon]

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.

Ideally, the GM would simply let the feat work as intended. But if that is a problem perhaps you can alter your character in a way that still results in you having fun, albeit with a different character concept.

Also, the GM should be aware that while you might be able to avoid detection, the rest of your party can't. So you can either go alone which has it's own risks. Or go with your party, who will be detected anyways.

If you go alone, it only takes one bad stealth roll to cause yourself issues. Heck, opening a door with someone inside would be a problem. They'll likely notice the door is open, even if you do it stealthily when you come inside. They might not notice you, but they'll suspect something is wrong. There's many ways to catch a lone sneak, even one who is very good at stealth.

[Seppo-87]

Claxon wrote:

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.

[Errenor]

Claxon wrote:

Also, the GM should be aware that while you might be able to avoid detection, the rest of your party can't. So you can either go alone which has it's own risks. Or go with your party, who will be detected anyways.

If you go alone, it only takes one bad stealth roll to cause yourself issues. ... There's many ways to catch a lone sneak, even one who is very good at stealth.

Ah, you've wrote this yourself. Exactly. So even if the niche at high levels is wider than I implied, does it change anything? You still can employ these interesting creatures in secure places, but do you put a lot weight narratively in nobody at all being able to sneak undetected? You also still can just fail. I define 'incredibly powerful narratively' as 'breaks plots' or 'takes terrible lot from GM to incorporate'. So does it really? Do you need absolute impenetrability in plots? Which is also physically available at the same time for some reason? Does it break plots that PCs can get somewhere undetected... but they also just can't because of your quote above (unless you have super ninja party which is unlikely or at least known beforehand). But even if they could is it hard to incorporate into a plot?

Also, traps just don't care.
Maybe if GMs were a bit less invested in this issue we wouldn't have the problem Seppo-87 has...

[Seppo-87]

Errenor wrote:

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

[Claxon]

Seppo-87 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

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.

Sorry to hear that.

Still, I would suggest that you try to find a diplomatic way to resolve things (as I assume your GM is a friend).

[Claxon]

Errenor wrote:

]Ah, you've wrote this yourself. Exactly. So even if the niche at high levels is wider than I implied, does it change anything? You still can employ these interesting creatures in secure places, but do you put a lot weight narratively in nobody at all being able to sneak undetected? You also still can just fail. I define 'incredibly powerful narratively' as 'breaks plots' or 'takes terrible lot from GM to incorporate'. So does it really? Do you need absolute impenetrability in plots? Which is also physically available at the same time for some reason? Does it break plots that PCs can get somewhere undetected... but they also just can't because of your quote above (unless you have super ninja party which is unlikely or at least known beforehand). But even if they could is it hard to incorporate into a plot?

Also, traps just don't care.
Maybe if GMs were a bit less invested in this issue we wouldn't have the problem Seppo-87 has...

I never thought about it much before, but I suppose I do put a lot of weight on the narrative possibilities. The idea of being able sneak into an enemy army camp unnoticed and poison their general is a big deal. Especially if that general has a retinue of advanced sensory creatures to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

To clarify I'm not against it. That's the whole reason such feats as Legendary Sneak and Foil Senses exist. But there are definitely GMs who resent those kinds of abilities, because they think something should be out of reach and the game gives them a tool that allows it.

[Bluemagetim]

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.
That creates an incentive to think tactically about how your pc engages rather than doing the same thing every turn if that's what is happening. Its not necessarily a bad thing if its being done for the right reasons.

There's no feat in the game the GM can't simply create an overriding circumstance for.

I will take from this thread though the idea to have a conversation with my rogue about how I will run the feat if they take it later on. Thats seems to be the right thing to do, to lay down expectations and offer a respec if its not being run how they expected.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

[Bluemagetim]

Seppo-87 wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

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

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

[Guntermench]

Castilliano wrote:

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.)

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

This feat has always been stupid. There's a number off special senses there's no reasonable way for you to prevent being seen by without dying.

[Seppo-87]

Guntermench wrote:

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

Every single time you sneak, no less

[Bluemagetim]

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.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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

[Bluemagetim]

I wouldn't use the term nerf. The ability doesn't answer the two questions I originally posted in the rules text, I see GM adjudication in terms of the abilities scope as required.

PC pg 256 Foil Senses wrote:

You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and
cautious enough to safeguard against them at all times.
Whenever you use the Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak actions,
you are always considered to be taking precautions against
special senses (see the Detecting with Other Senses sidebar
on page 433).

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them (meaning there is an assumed stance that the pc always has the means if they do), it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them(another assumed stance the pc knows all methods for all senses, even ones they've never encountered or heard of before if they do) Those are questions left to the player to figure out and the GM to adjudicate.

Based on the responses from others in the thread it seems they have already assumed these to be automatic from the text so I may be in the minority in seeing it more nuanced leaving room for the pc to run into a sense they didn't know about and may not have the means on them to foil until then next time they encounter it.

[Seppo-87]

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.

[Errenor]

Claxon wrote:

I never thought about it much before, but I suppose I do put a lot of weight on the narrative possibilities. The idea of being able sneak into an enemy army camp unnoticed and poison their general is a big deal. Especially if that general has a retinue of advanced sensory creatures to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

Yes, it is bigger than some vague 'thing'. But then: it's now a solo stealth mission. One fail - and PC is probably not dead, but very likely still failed as the camp is in high alert.

Ok, PC succeeded! Firstly, isn't it actually nice? But then: ok, the general is immune to poison. Ok, that's probably too dirty. (Or not if he is secretly undead or an aberration or something else immune to poison)
The general succeeded on his save as he is a boss-level creature!
Well, or he failed. And survived. And is furious!
Ok, ok. He died. A pity it was a body double! Another dirty trick, but still possible in some circumstances.
Ok, it was really him and he really died. But then he was raised as undead. And very angry!
Ok, ok, he wasn't raised. But he has a lot of next rank officers. And some of them are even competent!
Or... He died, officers fight each other, army is in complete disorder and disperses. Happy end! Isn't it nice?
Or... Well, the evil has another army!
Or... No, the evil is vanquished! But now you should deal with an army of good! They are going to cause immeasurable good and well-being for everyone! Even ones that don't want it!
Are any of the scenarios too much? Well, probably some are, creating army from completely different place and of different composition is probably too hard. But you could stop before that in deciding the outcome. I think most are acceptable for GMs.
There are games which give advice for masters to not be too attached to their creations: NPCs, organizations, places and so on. Not given for PF2 maybe (or was it?), but I still think it's a good advice.
Probably the combat use of these abilities could be a bigger deal. But then high-level gameplay is probably full of other high-impact abilities.

[Bluemagetim]

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.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

[yellowpete]

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.

[Seppo-87]

yellowpete wrote:

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

[Bluemagetim]

Seppo-87 wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

Actually Lets do a quick thought experiment each way. With the feat and without because i think you have a point in that there can be situations where the feat is not actually providing any additional benefit.

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 rogue. As the party progresses into the forest they are unexpectedly beset by a pair of bandersnatch. These have a precise scent at 120 ft.

Now if the rogue has Feat I am going to consider them as having taken precautions for scent.
If they dont have the feat i am not going to assume they are taking precautions becasue the player didn't say beforehand they are taking precautions for foiling scent.

If the party walks unknowingly walks into the lair of a bloodhag and the rogue says they are avoiding notice and taking precausions against bloodsense I have to ask them what precaution are they taking. I'm not giving that one to the player if it can;t make any sense in game. (they might say I have that magic item or special ointment I bought that messes with a bloodhag's bloodsense. (Good enough for me. means and knowledge met)

You re point holds in this example if the magic item or special ointment or whatever it is, is a consumable. If you need a consumable to foil a bloodsense per GM discretion then you cannot meet the condition of always foiling bloodsense (even if you are meeting the condition of the feat by always foiling scent and tremor sense and every other special sense you don't need a consumable or special knowledge to foil.)
In this example the feat might not do anything. Although if the players do know they are walking into a bloodhag lair and they know bloodhag's have bloodsense and have the means on them i will consider the rogue avoiding notice as using their consumable whenever it matters (and to their benefit I will even allow this as a retroactive choice for the player since they have the feat.) Without the feat they need actually declare using the consumable and hope they did so when it mattered.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

[TheFinish]

Bluemagetim wrote:

I wouldn't use the term nerf. The ability doesn't answer the two questions I originally posted in the rules text, I see GM adjudication in terms of the abilities scope as required.

PC pg 256 Foil Senses wrote:

You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and
cautious enough to safeguard against them at all times.
Whenever you use the Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak actions,
you are always considered to be taking precautions against
special senses (see the Detecting with Other Senses sidebar
on page 433).

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them (meaning there is an assumed stance that the pc always has the means if they do), it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them(another assumed stance the pc knows all methods for all senses, even ones they've never encountered or heard of before if they do) Those are questions left to the player to figure out and the GM to adjudicate.

Based on the responses from others in the thread it seems they have already assumed these to be automatic from the text so I may be in the minority in seeing it more nuanced leaving room for the pc to run into a sense they didn't know about and may not have the means on them to foil until then next time they encounter it.

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 bring up Legendary Sneak again. Why do we need to justify how/why/when we're taking precautions vs X but not the fact we can literally disappear into thin air, in broad daylight, without actual magic or any other help?

Plus, trying to put "knowledge" as a stopgap works...once, per sense. After that, the PC knows that sense exists and will therefore take precautions against it. And that's assuming they don't learn of it from a book or something.

[Seppo-87]

TheFinish wrote:

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?

[Errenor]

Seppo-87 wrote:

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?

Good old 'it's magic' always works. Though in this case it's subtle and not great enough to exist in the game as a magical item or a spell. Minor ritual, weak but specific alchemy (which is not magic but the same for this case) or potion, obscure Qi technique, gift from nature spirits, small occult ritual that conceals your blood. And so on.

[Bluemagetim]

TheFinish wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

I wouldn't use the term nerf. The ability doesn't answer the two questions I originally posted in the rules text, I see GM adjudication in terms of the abilities scope as required.

PC pg 256 Foil Senses wrote:

You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and
cautious enough to safeguard against them at all times.
Whenever you use the Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak actions,
you are always considered to be taking precautions against
special senses (see the Detecting with Other Senses sidebar
on page 433).

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them (meaning there is an assumed stance that the pc always has the means if they do), it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them(another assumed stance the pc knows all methods for all senses, even ones they've never encountered or heard of before if they do) Those are questions left to the player to figure out and the GM to adjudicate.

Based on the responses from others in the thread it seems they have already assumed these to be automatic from the text so I may be in the minority in seeing it more nuanced leaving room for the pc to run into a sense they didn't know about and may not have the means on them to foil until then next time they encounter it.

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

-------
Clipped
-------
Plus, trying to put "knowledge" as a stopgap works...once, per sense. After that, the PC knows that sense exists and will therefore take precautions against it. And that's assuming they don't learn of it from a book or something.

I realize my take on it isn't how everyone sees it.

But on that last part about "knowledge", that is exactly the effect and its a good one for gameplay. Players are surprised by something once, then they can prepare for it (maybe a sidequest for something as obscure as bloodsense), or better yet they took actions that gained them knowledge ahead of time and feel great about having been prepared for it because of their own efforts.

[Seppo-87]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

[Luke Styer]

Seppo-87 wrote:

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?

I think Foil Senses is overpowered, but that it functions as you say.

And to be fair, I'm not sure I have given it enough thought for my opinion that Foil Senses is overpowered to amount to much more than "This seems weird," and I have no real thoughts on how I'd alter it if I decided to.

[Bluemagetim]

Seppo-87 wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

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.

I would disagree with one point at the end there. In a game with powerful creatures, gods there is always going to be something out there wether it be by stat bonuses or narratively thats better than the legendary status a pc can gain.

[pH unbalanced]

Foil Senses only works on "senses" not other countermeasures that can be used to figure out where someone is like Blind Fight or Revealing Light or Following Tracks.

I could come up with situations where I might not allow you to actually employ your countermeasurers at all times (because you are stranded on a desert island and don't have normal access to resources) but those should be rare story-based things. Under normal circumstances it should just work.

[Claxon]

Bluemagetim wrote:

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 agree with this.

Foil Senses should work most of the time, but having a few enemies (I'm thinking along the lines of 1 enemy per AP book) that can foil these kinds of abilities makes sense.

Of course, the easiest way to do that is with an enemy with a high perception. If you have an enemy that is above the party level, and has a high perception that rogue will have a higher chance of critically failing (I assume such a rogue would have sneak adept). Beyond that you can also give the enemy the blind-fight feat.

Don't do it often, because making a character that expects to be great at sneaking only to get countered all the time isn't fun. But occasionally running into an enemy that counters your abilities should happen.

Heck special senses don't need to be involved at this point. Just having a high perception human fighter type* with blind fight and a high perception is probably going to be a hard target for the rogue to deal with.

*Reminder that NPCs shouldn't be built using PC rules, but describing the character as a fighter type helps get the point across of what it should be able to do.

[Claxon]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Foil Senses only works on "senses" not other countermeasures that can be used to figure out where someone is like Blind Fight or Revealing Light or Following Tracks.

Another thought along this line. Dungeons and other places you want to protect usually have doors. 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. And personally I don't think that counts as a trap or something that could be disabled.