(psionics) - Conceal Thoughts: problematic?

[Boci]

I'm looking at the conceal thoughts power in pathfinder, and it seems good, like problematically so. At first I wasn't sure what the line "the subject gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks against those attempting to discern its true intentions with Sense Motive." meant. I thought maybe it protected again reading you for a hunch, but that doesn't involve the bluff skill. So this power in fact gives you +10 to lying. The is insanely good for a cantrip/talent. You can use it at will, from level 1, and its not limited to just you, so the whole party can be buffed up with it. Factor in the hour/level duration and it basically becomes "You and your party now have +10 to bluff checks....forever!".

I am over reacting? That seems too good for a 0 level power. And if I'm not over reacting, what should be covered by the: ""the subject gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks against those attempting to discern its true intentions with Sense Motive."?

Here's the talent in question:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/c/conceal-thoughts

[Feint's End]

Detecting a lie is not like discerning the true intention. So this bonus doesn't apply to telling lies but if the guy with sense motive tries to figure out more via sense motive (like getting a feeling you actually want to steal something).

In short it doesn't help you get away with lies but others will have a hard time understanding why you lie or what your true intent is.

[Boci]

That makes sense balance-wise, but then what use of the sense motive and bluff skill is relevant here? How do you use sense motive to know someone is about to steal something?

[Psyren]

You can use it at will, from level 1, and its not limited to just you, so the whole party can be buffed up with it.

Actually the PFSRD is incorrect - the talent/0th-level/at-will version of this is self-only, that's what separates it from the version that costs PP. They have the correct version under the Telepathy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/telepathy) discipline. In addition, you can only manifest one talent with a duration other than instantaneous at a time, otherwise the first one will expire immediately. And finally, Bluff was nerfed in PF, so this isn't quite "psionic glibness."

[Boci]

Actually the PFSRD is incorrect - the talent/0th-level/at-will version of this is self-only, that's what separates it from the version that costs PP. They have the correct version under the Telepathy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/psion/psionic-disciplines/telepathy) discipline.

Okay, that's good to know. Thank you.


In addition, you can only manifest one talent with a duration other than instantaneous at a time, otherwise the first one will expire immediately.

That's a fairly significant limitation. Do you have a link for that in the PFSRD?


And finally, Bluff was nerfed in PF, so this isn't quite "psionic glibness."

Maybe not, but glibness gives +20, self only, for 10 minutes/level as a third level spell. This gives half the bonus, but for 6 times the duration, and its 3 levels lower. Even with the above considerations, it seems conceal thought is still rather powerful.

Glibness does also have a superior secondary affect, but I'm not too sure how much those factor in.

[Psyren]

That's a fairly significant limitation. Do you have a link for that in the PFSRD?

Second paragraph (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/psionic-talents)


Maybe not, but glibness gives +20, self only, for 10 minutes/level as a third level spell. This gives half the bonus, but for 6 times the duration, and its 3 levels lower. Even with the above considerations, it seems conceal thought is still rather powerful.

Oh definitely. But PF Bluff includes a clause specifically allowing the GM to throw out any "improbable" lies, so while you can get a lot of mileage out of this, you're not going to tell any guards they can't see or hear you, or that they are really yellow-footed rock wallabies.

[Sacrieur]

Oh my god yes.

It is a problem. A huge one. DSP didn't even change it from 3.5e (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/concealThoughts.htm).

No one bloody knows how it's supposed to work. I've picked it apart and tried to reason with it, but honestly it just needs rewritten. I strongly recommend houseruling.

[Boci]

Okay, so far if I correctly understand we have:

1 vote for "powerful, but not enough to warrant changing" (Psyren)

1 vote for "it doesn't help you lie, merely prevents others from understanding why you are lying/what else you are planning" (Feint's End) - although I am still a bit unclear as to how this meshes with the mechanics of the two skills

and

1 vote for "burn it to the ground, maybe the ashes will nurture something actually usable" (Sacrieur)

[Ssalarn]

I'm looking at the conceal thoughts power in pathfinder, and it seems good, like problematically so. At first I wasn't sure what the line "the subject gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks against those attempting to discern its true intentions with Sense Motive." meant. I thought maybe it protected again reading you for a hunch, but that doesn't involve the bluff skill. So this power in fact gives you +10 to lying. The is insanely good for a cantrip/talent. You can use it at will, from level 1, and its not limited to just you, so the whole party can be buffed up with it. Factor in the hour/level duration and it basically becomes "You and your party now have +10 to bluff checks....forever!".

I am over reacting? That seems too good for a 0 level power. And if I'm not over reacting, what should be covered by the: ""the subject gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks against those attempting to discern its true intentions with Sense Motive."?

Here's the talent in question:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers/c/conceal-thoughts

The Sense motive skill allows you to " avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness." (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/senseMotive.html#sense-motive)

It's that last function that conceal thoughts works for. So if Joe the Fighter says "Yo, cleric Steve, is this gal trustworthy?", then psion Jenny can use conceal thoughts to seem completely trustworthy, even if she's actually planning on murdering everyone down the road. What conceal thoughts doesn't do, is provide Jenny a +10 on a check to actively say "Yeah guys, I'm totally trustworthy and won't be murdering you later". It's a passive boost, not an active one.

It's fairly similar to the 1st level spell innocence (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/innocence.html#innocence), though innocence does a better job of explaining what the bonus doesn't apply to.

Alternatively, you could interpret it as applying specifically to the "Secret Messages" portion of Bluff which has the most similar verbage: " You can use Bluff to pass hidden messages along to another character without others understanding your true meaning by using innuendo to cloak your actual message. " In which case it would apply in a situation where Jenny is telling Joe to go "check on the horses" but really means "go get the rest of the party right now because this guy is the killer we've been looking for".

[Boci]

The Sense motive skill allows you to " avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone's trustworthiness." (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/senseMotive.html#sense-motive)

It's that last function that conceal thoughts works for. So if Joe the Fighter says "Yo, cleric Steve, is this gal trustworthy?", then psion Jenny can use conceal thoughts to seem completely trustworthy, even if she's actually planning on murdering everyone down the road. What conceal thoughts doesn't do, is provide Jenny a +10 on a check to actively say "Yeah guys, I'm totally trustworthy and won't be murdering you later". It's a passive boost, not an active one.

It's fairly similar to the 1st level spell innocence (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/innocence.html#innocence), though innocence does a better job of explaining what the bonus doesn't apply to.

Alternatively, you could interpret it as applying specifically to the "Secret Messages" portion of Bluff which has the most similar verbage: " You can use Bluff to pass hidden messages along to another character without others understanding your true meaning by using innuendo to cloak your actual message. " In which case it would apply in a situation where Jenny is telling Joe to go "check on the horses" but really means "go get the rest of the party right now because this guy is the killer we've been looking for".

Yeah, this is the problem, what exactly is it meant to provide a bonus on. The spell doesn't seem to be about preventing secret messages being discerned, and the whole "measuring someones trustworthiness" doesn't appear to be opposed by bluff. It needs to be reworded to be more clear, or the bonus be cut to +5 and then have to work on all uses of the bluff skill (or make it a -5 penalty to all uses of sense motive against you).

Or maybe it doesn't need to be reworked, but I still feel +10 to a skill for a cantrip/talent.

[Psyren]

I think making it a penalty on (specific) Sense Motive checks used against you is both mechanically and thematically superior to what the power actually does.

I also think aligning it to the Innocence spell is the best as far as its scope. Which is amusing given that Innocence was likely based on this power.

[AzraelX]

Anyone can tell you whatever they want to tell you about what it means, but be aware: it's their interpretation. There is no official ruling on this, and it's been a problem since 3.5 (which is where DSP got it from). This was brought up on numerous occasions at DSP's forums before they were wiped, and the closest thing to an official ruling was when the CEO and/or Lead Developer at DSP replied to these concerns with "Yep! The +10 circumstance bonus is just for lying!" (paraphrased; the thread was at this location (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3430.html#42002)).

But again, this was ported verbatim from 3.5, so this developer had no more knowledge of its intended mechanics than you or I (and regardless, "just for lying" only really means "not for anything other than lying", which doesn't mean it would work for all lies).

Make no mistake: this power is broken if you take it to mean "all lies". That's an imbalanced effect, especially for a permanent Level 0 ability. It's the equivalent of a cantrip. There is no way that the original creators of this ability meant that, assuming they were even remotely reasonable individuals. If I played a psion, I would not allow the ability to function that way, for my own personal enjoyment.

Not to mention, the ability is called "Conceal Thoughts", and says it applies when someone is trying to determine your motives; doesn't everything about this power scream "THIS IS A DEFENSIVE POWER TO PROTECT YOU FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO READ YOUR THOUGHTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT METHOD THEY USE"?

Walking up to some merchant and saying "hey dude, this chunk of glass is actually an awesome expensive diamond!" is not an attempt to conceal your thoughts. It's using Bluff offensively, to trick someone into believing something that has literally nothing to do with you.

You should thus use the strictest RAW interpretation here: +10 circumstance bonus to Bluff checks that are attempting to conceal a motive, intention, or thought.

Basically, it needs to hide your thoughts about something you have done, are going to do, or are doing.

Ask: "Would telling the truth give away my intent?"

And, "Does the lie conceal my intent in some way?"

The lie should generally not contradict reality; it should only be hiding your internal thinking (aka, concealing your thoughts).

EXAMPLES! For fun!


1) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. A guard sees this and attempts to arrest you. You say "I didn't do it!"

Result: NO BONUS - You are lying to convince them that something they witnessed (or otherwise know to be true) didn't actually happen. This is an attempt to alter their thoughts, not to conceal your own.

2) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and tells a guard about it, who then comes to arrest you. You say "I didn't do it!" or maybe "That man must have been mistaken!"

Result: NO BONUS - You are lying about real things that are objectively true, not just something subjective that you thought. It is a fact that you DID do it, and that the man is NOT mistaken; both of these things are statements which are provably true. You cannot say the man is mistaken; even if he based his accusation on false information, his accusation is not mistaken. This is an objective fact.

(However, it should be noted that the DC for this will be a lot more favorable than the previous example, since it's some random person's word against yours.)

3) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and tells a guard about it, who then comes to arrest you. You say "I know that I didn't do it!" or maybe "I think that man must have been mistaken!"

Result: +10 BONUS - You are not attempting to make them believe your lie, you are attempting to make them believe your thoughts about the lie. No one can tell what you actually know or think. Succeeding at this kind of Bluff check (telling someone you "know" or "think" something that is provably untrue) is not reliable or recommended, and may not make the target believe you are innocent.

In this circumstance, the guard already thought you were guilty, and your lie only referred to your mental state: thus, he would likely still think you're guilty, and would also start thinking that you're hysterical/delirious/in denial/confused/in shock/whatever - in a worst case scenario, someone may even draw the conclusion that your memories have been altered somehow, so you're incapable of knowing that you are, in fact, the murderer. If someone already believes something true is true, you bluffing them by saying *you believe* it isn't true will not do much to sway them, unless they hold your opinion in especially high regard for some reason.

4) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and tells a guard about it, who then comes to arrest you. You say "I'm sorry, I tripped! It was an accident!"

Result: +10 BONUS - No one can know if you stabbed the man intentionally, or if you did it unintentionally. This is a clear attempt to conceal your intention to kill.

5) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and tells a guard about it, who then comes to arrest you. You say "I'm sorry, I was under the influence of some compelling force! I tried to resist, but it was simply too strong!"

Result: +10 BONUS - No one can know if you actually felt a compelling force or not. This is a clear attempt to conceal your intention to kill.

6) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and is about to run and tell a guard about it. However, you immediately yell to them "You there! Don't misunderstand! I'm a guard!"

Result: NO BONUS - You are objectively not a guard. This is specifically the name of an occupation, which people are hired to fill. But what if you *are* a guard? (Maybe you went to a nearby shop and convinced the owner to hire you to guard the store for the day; he was delighted since you just wanted one of his tasty muffins as payment! Of course, you used your lunch break to go stab someone in the throat.) Then you are objectively a guard, and don't need a Bluff check anyways. The bonus does not help you convince anyone of anything that (outside your own mind) is objectively true or false.

7) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. Someone sees this, and is about to run and tell a guard about it. However, you immediately yell to them "You there! Don't misunderstand! I'm guarding this area!"

Result: +10 BONUS - No one can know whether you killed the man because you intended to guard the area from *whoever* (maybe just that guy?) or if you intended to murder that dude in cold blood because you hated his guts. This is a clear attempt to conceal your personal reason for killing.

8) You walk up to someone you hate, and stab them in the throat. No one sees it, but immediately afterward a guard runs over to the body. He looks at you and says "Did you see who did this?" or "Do you know who did this?", and you say "No!"

Result: +10 BONUS - No one can know what you've seen or what you know; your vision might go black sometimes, you might lose memories at random, you might have been sleepwalking, maybe you failed your Perception check, etc etc. In fact, if you kept your eyes closed the whole time you killed the guy, you could tell the guard "I didn't see anything!" and not even need a Bluff check.

Note: Your own knowledge/sensory perceptions are strictly within the domain of your thoughts, so denying them would always receive a bonus. However, there is a massive difference between claiming you never observed something that happened (this is strictly thought-based, receiving a bonus) and claiming you did observe something that never happened (this is largely reality-based, but could receive the bonus if the statement is so vague that it's totally meaningless; an example would be "I heard somewhere that...", which is just a generic opening for sharing potentially unreliable information which you don't remember the source of).

The first one does not claim that X didn't happen; only that you did not observe it happen (if it even did, who knows). The second one *does* make a claim that X happened, because it must have happened for you to have observed it; you are literally saying "this event happened, and photons hit the event as it happened, and those photons went into my eyeballs". You don't get a bonus for that.

Consider the diamond example mentioned before: there's a huge difference between "this glass chunk is a diamond worth a million dollars" (no bonus) and "I've appraised this glass chunk to be a diamond worth a million dollars" (yes bonus). The first is a bluff to make them believe the diamond is valuable, while the latter is a bluff to make them believe that *you think* the diamond is valuable. It's still entirely possible you're just very bad at appraising things, and have wildly overestimated the value. You would also gain the bonus if you followed up by saying "I consider myself one of the best appraisers I've ever met!", assuming you don't actually hold your appraisal ability in such high regards (in which case you wouldn't need a Bluff check anyways).
Alright, hopefully this series of examples clearly defines what I imagine the restrictions of the ability to be :smalltongue:

Just keep in mind that these are all examples, and not additional rules. This is merely to clarify what the singular rule of "the Bluff must be to conceal your thoughts" actually entails.

And again, no matter what anyone says, there's no way to say that anyone else's interpretation is wrong. Strictly speaking, the rules as stated mean nothing by RAW: they do not use official terminology to explain the mechanics of the ability. Thus it's entirely up to RAI to decide how it functions.


In addition, you can only manifest one talent with a duration other than instantaneous at a time, otherwise the first one will expire immediately.
This is not entirely correct. The page you link to on d20PFSRD merges much of the information from the various systems together.

The restriction of "one talent at a time" does not apply to the Psionics Unleashed system; the discipline-specific talents were extremely limited (choose 2 of 4), and balanced to work together. It is only in the later systems, like Psionics Expanded and Ultimate Psionics, where the restriction of "one talent at a time" applies (as they increase the number of talents you can select, as well as the number you can select from).

So if you're choosing "Conceal Thoughts" as one of your two Telepathy discipline talents, and the other one you choose is also non-instantaneous, they do work alongside each other.


I also think aligning it to the Innocence spell is the best as far as its scope. Which is amusing given that Innocence was likely based on this power.
Looked it up: Innocence (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/innocence)

Yeah, that's something much closer to how this power was meant to be worded. I'm not certain the effect is intended to be identical, but this is certainly much closer in meaning and scope than what the actual power appears to indicate at first glance.

[Psyren]

This is not entirely correct. The page you link to on d20PFSRD merges much of the information from the various systems together.

The restriction of "one talent at a time" does not apply to the Psionics Unleashed system; the discipline-specific talents were extremely limited (choose 2 of 4), and balanced to work together. It is only in the later systems, like Psionics Expanded and Ultimate Psionics, where the restriction of "one talent at a time" applies (as they increase the number of talents you can select, as well as the number you can select from).

So if you're choosing "Conceal Thoughts" as one of your two Telepathy discipline talents, and the other one you choose is also non-instantaneous, they do work alongside each other.

I know that - I was specifically referring to the Talents system (0th-level powers available to multiple classes), not to Discipline Talents (at-will psi-like abilities designed for psions only.)

[AzraelX]

I know that - I was specifically referring to the Talents system (0th-level powers available to multiple classes), not to Discipline Talents (at-will psi-like abilities designed for psions only.)
Ah yeah, just making sure to clarify since the various systems are sometimes confused, and it's not clear which system the OP is using (unless I missed something :smalltongue:).