Can you take the Hide action against an observer that is suffering from the Dazzled condition, provided you have no other source of concealment or cover?
Hide says YOU must have the cover or concealment status, but in the case of a dazzled enemy, YOU don't have concealment, the ENEMY has a condition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
all creatures and objects are concealed from you.
So you are concealed relative to that enemy and can hide or sneak against them.
Similar to if you have cover to only some enemies you can still use hide and sneak, but the benefits only apply to the enemies you have cover against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The stealth rules are all subjective, in that you could be observed by one opponent, hidden to another, and undetected by a third all at the same time.
This is one of the ways that a group of PCs has a significant advantage against a solo opponent- if you dazzle them, the entire party gets to hide.
|
Counterpoint: Blur
The target's form appears blurry. It becomes concealed. As the nature of this effect still leaves the target's location obvious, the target can't use this concealment to Hide or Sneak.
I'm seeing this kind of phrasing more and more in new abilities that grant you concealment due to looking different, rather than due to having something to hide behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, Blur is quite compelling evidence that any concealment has to be qualified for it to not provide an opportunity for Hide and Sneak, is it not?!
There's no qualification for Dazzled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: Blur
The target's form appears blurry. It becomes concealed. As the nature of this effect still leaves the target's location obvious, the target can't use this concealment to Hide or Sneak.I'm seeing this kind of phrasing more and more in new abilities that grant you concealment due to looking different, rather than due to having something to hide behind.
This feels like the opposite of a counter. If you make yourself blurry, then yeah everyone will see where the blur is at. But if everything is blurry then the target's location is not obvious. When you're dazzled it's like everyone is in a fog cloud.
The diference is the area.
Blur is focused in a char so it's don't help to hide due the fact that it's still there and "As the nature of this effect still leaves the target's location obvious, the target can't use this concealment to Hide or Sneak."
The Dazzled is more closer to someone hiding in the shadows against a human. Due the difficult of a human character to easily see in a low-light area, it's difficult to know when someone tries to hide using dark clothes or using a camouflage and is moving avoiding it's figure to be noticed and making sounds.
The dazzled condition put a char in a simular condition to a human in a low-light area. That's what's allow a creature to hide against it.
The fact of the matter though is that the rogue in the example doesn't have concealment at all. The dazzled victim only treats him as though he does. Since the rogue doesn't have concealment or cover, he can't take the Hide action.
Or is there some other rule somewhere that I'm missing?
(I'm pretty sure you're right; I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate so that we can clarify the matter for others.)
This feels like the opposite of a counter. If you make yourself blurry, then yeah everyone will see where the blur is at. But if everything is blurry then the target's location is not obvious. When you're dazzled it's like everyone is in a fog cloud.
I liken it to being hit in the eyes by a bright camera flash unexpectedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment isn't a condition of the rogue it's a condition to the observer. If not a creature that hide in darkness was undetected by a creature that has dark-vision for example. That's why is possible to hide against a dazzled creature because you are concealed against it.
With the exception of invisible, these conditions are relative to the viewer—it's possible for a creature to be observed to you but hidden from your ally. When you're trying to target a creature that's hard to see or otherwise sense, various drawbacks apply. Most of these rules apply to objects you're trying to detect as well as creatures.
Typically, the GM tracks how well creatures detect each other, since neither party has perfect information. For example, you might think a creature is in the last place you sensed it, but it was able to Sneak away. Or you might think a creature can't see you in the dark, but it has darkvision.
You can attempt to avoid detection by using the Stealth skill to Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak, or by using Deception to Create a Diversion.
To a character use Hide against a dazzled creature he only need to know or think that knows that that's creature is currently having difficult to see it due the dazzled condition. It's perfectly acceptable to a "ninja" rogue thrown a Dwarven Daisy against a creature then try to hide in next action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dazzled doesn‘t say: „Treat all creatures as though they were concealed from you.“
But: „[…] all creatures and objects ARE CONCEALED from you.“ So they do have Concealment regarding you.
Now, that you have opened this can, how about this hypothesis:
You can Hide and Sneak even from low-light and darkvision in dim light because
„ Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the SEEKER has darkvision or low-light vision […]“ does imply the Seek action necessary to invalidate Concealment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Passive seeking (using their Perception DC) is still seeking.
Clearly you don't need to use the Seek action to invalidate concealment due to dim light, since you could just move the light source closer to the concealed entity making them no longer "in dim light."
Like "creatures within 20 feet of a torch" lose concealment due to dim light.
It's similar to hide behind an object (something that you can use to cover). If the "seeker" moves to a position that it has a clear sight of you, you aren't hidden from it anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for hide are pretty straight forward about this. You can always try to hide, but can only become hidden against targets against which you have cover, or are concealed from.
Concealment that can not be used for hiding is explicitly called out in the effect that grants concealment. If dazzled was such a condition, it would be explicitly stated. Mechanically, this is a pretty straight forward situation.
Now, Passive Seeking is not a rules term I‘m familiar with, to split some hair. Just saying.
Now, that you have opened this can, how about this hypothesis:
You can Hide and Sneak even from low-light and darkvision in dim light because
„ Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the SEEKER has darkvision or low-light vision […]“ does imply the Seek action necessary to invalidate Concealment.
Just to make it totally clear: This cavilling of mine was to show the absurdity of the being Concealed is different to having the Concealed Condition or having Concealment, respectively, argument, for what it‘s worth.
There's no "passive seeking" term it's just order of the things. Those who uses Hide or Sneak actions need to secret check against opponents Perception DCs to GM know who is able to see who. This make perception a "passive" check.
At same time there's an "active seeking" using Seek action that invert the test and is used during the "seeker" test, when some one is actively searching for hidden things in this case this char who is searching that checks against Stealth DC of those who are hiding.
So those who are using the action is who make the test.
Furthermore if you loose the hide "requisite" of if it's invalid for a char/situation you automatically become observed due "requisite" break. For example if you are hidding in a dimm light and someone enlighten the place you are you are know observed. If someone is able to see in dimm light or has darkvision you are observed to this char. No tests are needed in this situation you simply looses the required condition to keep hiding.
Anyway also seeker term doesn't have rule effect it's just a way to refer what char is talking about. The valid rules term are defined here:
The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules.
If a word or a phrase is italicized, it is describing a spell or a magic item. This way, when you see the statement “the door is sealed by lock,” you know that in this case the word denotes the lock spell, rather than a physical item.
Pathfinder also uses many terms that are typically expressed as abbreviations, like AC for Armor Class, DC for Difficulty Class, and HP for Hit Points. If you’re ever confused about a game term or an abbreviation, you can always turn to the Glossary and Index, beginning on page 628, and look it up.
So the term "seeker" aren't capitalized it's just a char reference.
|
|
Concealment that can not be used for hiding is explicitly called out in the effect that grants concealment. If dazzled was such a condition, it would be explicitly stated. Mechanically, this is a pretty straight forward situation.
I don't think they've always consistently done that, but it's definitely a trend in newer books. For example in Dark Archive:
Your flights of imagination spill into the real world, causing you
to become indistinct, hazy, or cloaked in figments. You become
concealed until the start of your next turn. This concealment
can’t be used to Hide, as normal for concealing effects that
leave your location obvious.
Reinforcing your mirror lets it play tricks on your enemy’s
senses as it bends light this way or that. You become
concealed to the target of your Exploit Vulnerability
as your mirror warps its perceptions. As normal for
concealment where your overall location is still obvious,
you can’t use this concealment to Hide or Sneak.
When you stop being hidden due to your own actions (not due
to someone successfully finding you), you gain concealment until
the start of your next turn as people’s eyes find it oddly hard to
focus on you. As usual for concealment involving an obvious
visual manifestation, you can’t use this concealment to Hide.
Notice the "as is usual"; is there actually an original rule in the CRB to point to for this? I believe it's a typical case where Paizo insinuates a new rule by "reminding" you of it.
So then the question is, are you supposed to take that back to older books? If you're dazzled and someone is standing right in front of you, is that kind of concealment not also the kind where peoples' locations are still obvious?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're dazzled and someone is standing right in front of you, is that kind of concealment not also the kind where peoples' locations are still obvious?
I have never read it as such.
Dazzled just causes all other creatures and objects to gain the Concealed condition in regards to the Dazzled creature.
Concealed, by itself, still means that the creature is observed. But it does also qualify them to make Hide checks. Except in cases like the Blur spell that specifically calls out that it works differently.
I think you are right that the later books have tried to generalize the mechanic. Introducing this idea of 'concealed but position is still always known' that allows for the miss chance, but not the Hide action. That wasn't fully spelled out in the CRB, but the concept was already there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then the question is, are you supposed to take that back to older books? If you're dazzled and someone is standing right in front of you, is that kind of concealment not also the kind where peoples' locations are still obvious?
All of these examples have an individual go blurry, you are hard to see but since you're the only thing blurry you can't hide.
For one it even says "As usual for concealment involving an obvious
visual manifestation" which is what all these examples evolve.
Dazzled is no different than fog cloud, everything is a bit hazy and it is hard to see anything, a person being dazzled has the same vision as someone standing in a fog cloud.
|
|
A fog cloud is matter in between you and the person, so they do have something to hide in/behind.
I think it makes more sense to compare dazzled to low light conditions for someone without low light vision.
I'm not sure if that should not allow stealth. Just going by the CRB, I thought it did. The later books trending more towards there being something to hide behind, now I'm not so sure anymore.
So yeah, I saw the OP as a question of "is there an argument why..." and I think there's definitely such an argument. You don't have to be swayed by the argument but I think it's at least good enough to consider. If one GM ruled yes and the other ruled no, I couldn't say one of them was definitely more right than the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fog cloud is matter in between you and the person, so they do have something to hide in/behind.
I think it makes more sense to compare dazzled to low light conditions for someone without low light vision.
I'm not sure if that should not allow stealth.
It does. Dim Light also causes the concealed condition.
I am really confused as to how this has become an issue of confusion. Yes, it is subject to GM arbitration, and there may be specific situations where it might seem to break the narrative for a character to use a specific source of concealment to momentarily hide in, but that has nothing to do with the dazzled condition.
The dazzled condition makes creatures concealed to you. If those creatures take the hide action, and succeed at their check, they should hidden from you until they take an action that breaks their hiding, or if you lose the dazzled condition. There is nothing special about the dazzled condition that makes it work like blur. Magical effects that do not let creatures hide expressly call that out.
I think the initial OP confusion stems from thinking of "concealed" as a condition that a character either has or does not have. This confusion is understandable, since concealed is listed as a condition, but even in that description, it is made clear that it is a subjective condition based upon another creature's perception of you. There are lots of conditions like this in PF2 and you will quickly lead yourself into a minefield of confusing logic if you try to codify conditions as needing to be an objective state of a character. Flatfooted, fascinated, the whole gambit of perception based conditions, NPC disposition conditions like friendly or hostile, there are many conditions that are dependent upon your situational relationship to other characters.