Smoke / Fog and Concealment and Sensed and Unseen

[Quandary]

The rules here feel a bit vague and confusing to me, although the basic approach feels valid.

First, some smoke effects seem inconsistently described, with smoke stick described as "opaque" despite just applying Concealment.
Perception rules themselves indicate being within "deep fogbank" (which isn't given objective measure) can result in "Sensed", although none of effects creating >5' smoke/fog effects explicitly note that, only referencing Concealment which as presented has nothing to do with "Sensed".

IMHO the Sensed condition should just be re-named as 'Full Concealment' and presented as sub-set of Concealment condition, because it's totally separate status right now is confusing. In addition to Concealment/Sensed ambiguity, "Sensed" gives ME the impression of term more appropriate to "Unseen" condition (which we apply to characters whose general presence on battlefield is known, just with no details on location). If "Sensed" is to be a term, I would rather have it replace "Unseen", or else just not use it (in favor of Concealment + Full Concealment + Unseen).

The rules for Fog allow for total vision blockage but don't give tactically useful guidelines for this. Fog/mist/haze is given vision distance cut offs in (partial) miles, although fog says "potentially much less" with no relevant rules to apply that (IMHO a big enough area of Smoke should entirely block sight given enough squares, but currently AT MOST can result in "Sensed"/Full Concealment). It states -1 to -4 Penalty penalty "depending on thickness" while giving no guidelines on what number to use - Is this thickness of condition (which seems apparent context)? Does distance / number of squares play a role? AFAIK that penalty only is relevant to Stealthing characters, you don't need Perception otherwise right? (and Seek action vs Stealth seems to only apply within 30' cone so I don't know how much distance is relevant to this either)

Overall the fog rules (Perception penalties, distance cut-offs) seem like they should apply to smoke (and Dim Light concealment) also, but don't seem to by RAW (nor does smoke appear in environment section despite being natural part of forest fires, volcanos, etc).

There doesn't seem to be any distance modifiers to Perception or even assumed checks vs. non-Stealthing targets, suggesting... you can pinpoint absolutely every object/creature in line of sight to horizon? (as well as Stealthing in light mist not being obviously more difficult at 15' than at 100' never mind 1/2 mile) The rules pretty much state that with "You can usually see a creature automatically with a precise sense unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment". Maybe an urge to reduce rolls is behind that, but I feel like this is removing too much detail. I'd also like rules to distinguish between "seeing an object/person" exist and being able to make out close details (relevant for long ranges primarily), that can interface with distance cut-offs which can also be influenced by Perception score.

I don't think the fundamental problem with 3.x/P1E was that these things were managed by rules, but that the rules were spread in various locations with various non-obvious interactions between them, so improving them for clarity and ease of use doesn't necessitate just getting rid of these rolls / modifiers completely, it means working on their details & organization to make them simpler & clearer. I'm honestly surprised that nothing was done with "level of detail" (distinguishing Man wearing Eye Patch and Striped Vest from "figure standing atop far hill"), given the over-all development of degrees of Perception/Sensing. That isn't even something that req's lots of rolls in most encounters which will already be at close distance, it is more of a thresh-hold thing, which may indicate upgrade of awareness at one point and that is it (although IMHO concealment in fog etc is just as valid for this as distance, and sets up interesting dynamic in weak fog/smoke where you can see location of targets but not distinguish them from each other).

OK, that's long enough.

[shroudb]

i have no problem personally with how "sensed" and "unseen" are atm.

sensed is "knows in which 5ft square you are but can't directly pinpoint you inside this square" and unseen is "has no effing clue where you are in the world"

as far as density of a fog, i feel that was left intentionally free, because fog is not a duadic "there is fog/there isn't fog" and so it's left to GM.,

BUT

spell effects that create artificial fog should have rules for it's density. I mean, I can see natural fog not having set density, since it actually differs. But a "smoke bomb" or a "fog spell" should always summon fog of a specific density that carries specific penalties and bonuses.

gradual decrease of sight in fog, as what you're implying by the size of a fog bank, would be grat, but really a nighmare to actually plan with/make rules for, since naturally, thick fog also has steeper decreases as well as initial lower visibility ranges.

so, although it would be good to have it, i don't see it as realistic to expect rules for that.

[Quandary]

Not sure how this could be seen as unrealistic... Given 3.x and P1E did it.
(Obscuring Mist et al made distinction of Concealment in adjacent squares vs. Full Concealment beyond 5')

If they CAN give discrete Perception modifiers for 3 types of fog, why can't they give discrete "Concealment Tier" escalation rules along with that? The rules go out of their way to mention special "Concealment Tier escalation from "deep fogbanks", but nobody actually needs metric to know how to apply that? Or getting specific: Can combat spells achieve "deep fogbank" effect? Using Widen Spell Metamagic? These distinctions of "Concealment Tier" are hugely tactically relevant, and I'd rather see them in play, especially since not doing so is regression vs previous editions.

Anyways, I posted this to raise the dev's awareness of the issue, and there is many small details you didn't even argue about that can clearly be improved, like better tying fog/smoke and even Dim Light Concealment rules including "Concealment Tier" escalation/hard limit. ...Actually, it's strange that the fog vision limit rule only goes directly to hard limit, when logically it would escalate first to "Sensed"/Full Concealment before "Unseen" (which it actually doesn't explicitly reference, just 'cut[ting] off all vision'). Which relates back to my musings on 'quality of detail' at distance (or in Concealment), in that a range band of "Sensed"/FullConcealment is basically that level of info "I see there is figure over there, but can't tell who/what it is, + can't target them as easily". (a level of detail I speculated could also apply in non-Concealed conditions at very far distances, as well as Concealment @ shorter distances) Such a mechanic could also be relevant in managing very long distance combat, like the Fireball tactics being discussed.

Quality of Life Quibble: Stuff like vision distance cut-offs that are stated in terms of miles (including half-mile) should also state the feet equivalent in parentheses... I'm sure much of non-US player base would appreciate that (although translated rulebooks generally convert that AFAIK) but even US players (like me) are often not so comfortable with casualt foot-mile conversions. Especially half-mile distance cut-off is well within scope of tactical relevance IMHO.

[shroudb]

Quandary wrote:

Not sure how this could be seen as unrealistic... Given 3.x and P1E did it.

(Obscuring Mist et al made distinction of Concealment in adjacent squares vs. Full Concealment beyond 5')

If they CAN give discrete Perception modifiers for 3 types of fog, why can't they give discrete "Concealment Tier" escalation rules along with that? The rules go out of their way to mention special "Concealment Tier escalation from "deep fogbanks", but nobody actually needs metric to know how to apply that? Or getting specific: Can combat spells achieve "deep fogbank" effect? Using Widen Spell Metamagic? These distinctions of "Concealment Tier" are hugely tactically relevant, and I'd rather see them in play, especially since not doing so is regression vs previous editions.

Anyways, I posted this to raise the dev's awareness of the issue, and there is many small details you didn't even argue about that can clearly be improved, like better tying fog/smoke and even Dim Light Concealment rules including "Concealment Tier" escalation/hard limit. ...Actually, it's strange that the fog vision limit rule only goes directly to hard limit, when logically it would escalate first to "Sensed"/Full Concealment before "Unseen" (which it actually doesn't explicitly reference, just 'cut[ting] off all vision'). Which relates back to my musings on 'quality of detail' at distance (or in Concealment), in that a range band of "Sensed"/FullConcealment is basically that level info "I see there is figure over there, but can't tell who/what it is". (a level of detail I speculated could also apply in non-Concealed conditions at very far distances, as well as shorter distances in Concealment)

Quality of Life Quibble: Stuff like vision distance cut-offs that are stated in terms of miles (including half-mile) should also state the feet equivalent in parentheses... I'm sure much of non-US player base would appreciate that (although translated rulebooks generally convert that AFAIK) but even US players (like me) are often not so comfortable with casualt...

i already mentioned that spells should definately mention what density fog they make, only because they are standard.

but pf1 rules making the 5ft distinction was actually quite unrealistic.

a dense fog could do that, but a thin fog shouldn't in no way, scale on 5ft increments. And pf1 didn't make such distinctions, it blankets everything under "it's fog, doesn't matter how thin or thick" which is (imo) worse.

for 4 stages of density, as implied from a gradual -1 to -4 mod, you would need 4 different scaling effects as well.

and that seems excessive imo, for non 0/1 effects, like "how dense is a normal fog in the mountains" you have the GM. For 0/1 effects like spells, it should be in their descriptions.

[Quandary]

Okay... But I wasn't addressing "realism" of 3.x/P1E 5' fog rule, but your statement it is "[not] realistic to expect rules for that".
With "that" being a "gradual decrease of sight", or more fundamentally... ANY role of distance in reducing vision quality (gradual or not).
Which 3.x/P1E 5' rule DID address, even if non-subtly and non-realistically, thus leaving room for potential improvements,
but I don't think anybody thought that 'non-subtle' 5' rule was actually so bad it needed to be entirely removed with no replacement.
I'm not demanding every single degree of fog have totally distinct rules for this, although they could...
I just think not having a distance/concealment correlation is more un-realistic for game than simplifying levels of fog.
(if you wanted differing levels, but think 4 is too many, 4 is easily divisible by 2 obviously)
Anyways, I am not in a position to demand anything, but the playtest rules simply were huge simplification and reduction of dynamics here,
and I thought it was valuable to acknowledge this and ask what functionality is truly valuable to have,
part of this even being the apparently non-controversial things like not-quite-100% formally aligned fog & smoke rules etc.

I feel like too much posting here is fixated on "character build options" from people who take player character "operation" perspective, which is legitimate but the bigger system are hugely important part of game too, so I took the opportunity to address this sub-system (or sub-sub-system, really).

[shroudb]

Reading the fog rules again, I'm more concerned that fog grants concealment to those inside, but does nothing vs the ones outside.

Somehow, if I'm reading this correctly, a creature within fog can see perfectly clear outside of the fog.

I could have always missed something though.

[Quandary]

Yeah, that is really good point on the wording that needs to be cleaned up.
And it's not just the VIEWER being in fog looking at target in the clear (that should suffer Concealment for intervening fog)
If I'm at one end of corridor in clear air, and you're at other end also in clear air, but there if fog cloud in middle of corridor, there SHOULD be Concealment penalty on all attack between you and me, despite NEITHER of us ourselves being in a fog square... But rules don't handle that well now.
(an approach that DOES address intervening distance, and not just target/viewer square condition, is obviously inherently more suited to addressing things like how distance effects levels of Concealment as up-thread)

AFAIK the 1.x/P1E 5' rule for Full Concealment in Fog actually had similar problem it didn't care if there was 5-10'+ of fog between viewer/target, so merely being on edge of fog cloud meant attackers from 50' away (thru clear air except target's own square) would have full concealment (when partial concealment would make sense).

[Starfox]

The mist and smoke generated by spells and alchemy is very beneficial to be in, but quite odd as a simulation. You gain Concealment, and with a 1-action Stealth action, you can become sensed, giving you a 50% chance to be missed. You do NOT suffer concealment when acting against anyone outside the mist/smoke.