jhuns's page

I still wish the part about going from Hidden to Observed would be moved out of the Hide action. Or even if it remains there, it feels like a more fundamental rule than a specific rule for the Hide action. Afterall, there are other ways to become Hidden that don't require Hide, and basically all of those would also be rendered moot if cover/concealment is lost.

---------------------

1: "Anything in plain view is observed by you."

While this doesn't point to anything in specific it does circle back to what Precise Sense says since that defines both plain view and what happens to hidden creatures. Which is that a creature automatically observes another if the observee is not hiding or obscured. If you are being stealthy you are using the stealth skill, which does state that you become observed if you lose concealment or cover even independently of hide or sneak as you don't need to have done either to have become hidden.

---------------

What our Thaum argued is that they were indeed hiding, and therefore not in plain view. This is why I wish the rule about becoming Observed when losing cover should not be hidden (heh) in the Hide action.

It is relevant when a creature loses its hidden status by nature of removing cover between the creatures, as a creature might realize the hidden creature is now present, and thus alter the course of their movement.

Yeah, I think this is relevant too. It also started to make me wonder if there were any weird edge cases with some of the activities that have Stride as a sub-action where you might not know where an opponent is, but think you do. So you stride and then...can you redirect mid activity toward the now Observed enemy?

TLDR: Wall of text doing a deep dive on a minor issue of nuance. I think the other posters here have the correct ruling, but I disagree on how they came to that conclusion.

Let me take a step back and try to clarify my own position here. I agree with the sentiment that it is intended that if Creature A is undetected by Creature B, but Creature B strides to a position in which Creature A no longer has cover/concealment from Creature B, then Creature A should no longer be Undetected and is now Observed. But I also don't think that intended effect is well supported by the rules. For most of the rest of this discussion, I'll refer to Creature A as the "observee" and Creature B as the "observer."

First, the perception and detection rules are pretty clear to me that the Sneak action involves a different form of hiding than the Hide action:

The Stealth skill is designed to use Hide for avoiding visual detection and Avoid Notice and Sneak to avoid being both seen and heard.

This is highly consistent with how precise and imprecise senses work. If Sneak only ever avoided observation from the precise visual sense like Hide, it could never let the creature be Undetected since they would always have been observed by the imprecise sense of hearing. For this discussion, I'm only considering the default case of all observers and observees having the standard senses of precise sight, imprecise hearing, and vague sense of smell. There are obviously other combinations of senses, but the rules are awesome here too, describing how you might use the Hide and Sneak actions differently depending on the precise or imprecise senses you want to avoid.

This leads me to conclude that Sneak and Hide are fundamentally different types of actions. This is backed up by how the descriptions for Hide and Sneak are also written very differently.

Furthermore, Undetected is a different condition than Hidden. Hidden is not a sub condition of Undetected. No definition of Undetected says that the creature is also Hidden.

When can an observer observe an observee? Also from the Perception and Detection section:

In most circumstances, you can sense creatures without difficulty and target them normally. Creatures in this state are observed. Observing requires a precise sense

Awesome. Most circumstances are covered. My character can see things they can see without much hassle.

However, I am not sure that when an observee is Sneaking, actively trying to avoid detection, counts as "most circumstances." So we need to dig a little deeper. How can an observer detect an Undetected Observee?

If a creature is undetected, you don't know what space it occupies, you're off-guard to it, and you can't easily target it. Using the Seek basic action can help you find an undetected creature, usually making it hidden from you instead of undetected.

Only Seek action is specified here as a way for an observer to change the degree of detection of an Undetected creature. The Undetected condition also only specifies Seek.

Finally, we look to the Sneak action, which I showed above also only has Seek as a way for an observer to change the observee's degree of detection from Undetected.

At no point in the scenario in question was the Hide action taken. So I don't understand why its conditions and rules would apply here. I only pointed it out in my original post because I was showing how its rules contrasted with the rules of Sneak.

It is from this that I think the rules imply the only way (feats/spells/abilities notwithstanding) for an observer to change the degree of detection of an observee is the Seek action.

Now for the case against this conclusion

Now, are there possible holes to this? I've seen a couple potentials, but they are scattered and less definite than I would prefer.

1. The Observed condition's opening line in the conditions index.

Anything in plain view is observed by you.

This is actually probably the strongest case for a previously Undetected creature becoming Observed. However, I'm not completely convinced that a creature whose last action was Sneak is going to be in Plain View. After all, that creature has taken "measures to avoid detection, such as by using Stealth to Hide" which is in the very next line. Additionally, is this the only condition written from this perspective? It's written from the Observer point of view instead of the Observee. That's the opposite of all the other degrees of detection conditions, and the opposite of all the other conditions I've read so far.

2. I am misreading the opening line of the Undetected condition

When you are undetected by a creature, that creature can't see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can't target you

I am wondering if the list "can't see you, no idea space, can't target" is a list or requirements rather than a descriptor of state. I don't think I've misread this, since the Undetected by a creature is the clause this is preceded by "when", not the list that follows.

3. Unobservable Stealth, an exception that proves the rule?

In some cases, it can be impossible for a creature to fully observe you. Typically this happens if you're invisible, the observer is blinded, or you're in darkness and the creature can't see in darkness. In such cases, any critical failure you roll on a check to Sneak is a failure instead. You also continue to be undetected if you lose cover or greater cover against or are no longer concealed from such a creature.

Okay, I lied with the Observed condition, this is actually probably the best case for reading the rules toward the original intention as I stated at the beginning. I'm not sure why they would need to specify the final, bolded sentence, unless as an observee you would normally become Observed when you lose cover/concealment. I don't like interpreting rules based on exceptions without something written that it is excepting, but the implication is strongest here.

Final thoughts
I think I'm ultimately just frustrated. PF2 typically has very tight, concise, and consistent rules for so many scenarios. I enjoy that I don't have to "just intuit" how something should work most of the time. And so by contrast, the situations where you do need to do that are all the more noticeable.

Really, it's a tiny nitpick for an otherwise fun system of stealth. I have other issues with some of the design choices for stealth in this game, but they feel more like preference than this particular issue I found. I wanted to post about it because I like this game and want to talk about its peculiarities. I think carefully designed, well-crafted rules deserve careful reading.

And don't read Hide too closely, or you'll notice there's a whole sentence in there that does nothing.

I'm not to sure on what it is exactly that want clarification.

But yes, Creatures automatically observe something in plain sight. That is a creature that lacks atleast standard cover or concealment. It is covered under senses under Perception and Detection

Player Core pg. 433 2.0 "Precise Sense" wrote:

Average vision is a precise sense—a sense that can be used to perceive the world in nuanced detail. The only way to target a creature without having drawbacks is to use a precise sense. You can usually detect a creature automatically with a precise sense unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment

This remains rather symmetrical with

Player Core pg. 244 2.0 "Stealth/Hide" wrote:

If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again.

So yeah, if you open a door and 20 orcs are hiding in the room, then those 20 orcs all need their own hiding spot. Barring any purple ones with Legendary Sneak.

I think the clarification I want is why is that rule there for Hide but not for Sneak? To me, that implies that Undetected has a higher threshold for detection than Hidden does.

Maybe Hide in particular is just a poorly written action? Perhaps the verbiage that says if you lose your concealment/cover is superfluous? To me, it seems to be put there with a purpose, and then it is purposely different in the Sneak rules.

There is a segment in the GM core in regards to how you set up the encounter and marching order to accompany characters attempting to be stealthy, but this does not seem like the issue here.

Yeah, not the issue here. That's also confusing and difficult to get through all the rules on it, but it is there and consistent. We may not have run it exactly correct here, but that wasn't really the issue.

I would like some clarification on a scenario that affected our party a few weeks ago. Our group has hashed it out internally to a solution that works for us, but I'd love to hear some wider feedback on the situation.

As background to the scenario in question, our party was attempting to sneak up on a potential enemy in a cave. We rolled initiative with our stealth. A couple of characters rolled well and beat the enemy perception DC, but several others did not. And to complicate it further, the enemy rolled their initiative well and went before any of the player characters.

Having been alerted to our party's presence, it is the first enemy's turn. It knows there are at least some enemies outside the cave entrance. So it uses its first two actions to stride just outside the entrance of the cave.

Here is where things got contentious in our group. The enemy used its third action to strike the Wayang Thaumaturge that had been one of the few to remain undetected at the start of combat. The GM argued (and several of us supported) that since there was no reasonable cover or concealment for the Thaumaturge, the Thaumaturge should be Observed, and therefore attackable. The Thaumaturge assented but also asked for a deeper dive post session.

At first, I too believed that since there was no longer cover between the undetected Thaum and the enemy, they should no longer be Undetected and instead be Observed. But on closer inspection of the rules, that does not seem to be the case.

First, the rules for Undetected condition itself don't list any scenarios for removing Undetected other than the Seek action.

We were using Avoid Notice, whose rules seem to be sparse, but do seem to point to Sneak action as a way to adjudicate here:

If you're Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

And while the Hide action has a bit of text that clearly addresses this:

If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again.

The correlated rule in the Sneak is not so symmetrical, only automatically becoming observed as a result of Sneak action, not just for losing Cover/Concealment

You don't get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature.

Success You're undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.

You become observed as soon as you do anything other than Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check. If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become hidden instead of undetected.

If a creature uses Seek and you become hidden to it as a result, you must Sneak if you want to become undetected by that creature again.

All these ways of becoming Observed require actions by the Undetected character, other than Seek for a potential observer.

This caused a bit of stir in our group as we debated things like 20 Orcs avoiding notice in a room behind a closed door that no one can see once you open the door. Ultimately, we came to a compromise that an Undetected character would become Observed if they lose their cover/concealment and have no reasonable way to say they are still "hiding". It's not really RAW, but at least makes us happy and allows some verisimilitude we think.

But I'm also curious what the broader community thinks here. I did a lot of research before I wrote this, and I couldn't find any community discussions on this particular scenario. Lots of great discussions on how to use the various stealth rules, but nothing from the perspective of a potential Observer who uses Stride to a position where an Undetected Creature no longer has Cover or Concealment.