Fog, Smoke, Perception Tiers and Good Times

[Quandary]

So this is the new rules for Fog (and Smoke, which has additional rules for inhalation):

Quote:

Fog imposes a circumstance penalty to visual Perception checks, depending on the thickness; it causes creatures viewed through significant amounts of fog to be concealed

So there is NO indication of what 'significant' means here, and this only specifies Concealment not lesser degrees of awareness.

Actually, the tiers of Perception rules specifically mention Fog in passing ("Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall") as potentially causing Hidden Condition, which is analogous to Full Concealment. Yet somehow the Fog/Smoke rules not only don't specify range conditions for normal Concealment, they don't even mention that Fog can also further escalate to Hidden Condition. Even when aware of those two rules detailed in different sections, the distinction between them is totally unclear with normal Concealment resulting from "significant amount of fog" and Hidden Condition resulting from "deep fogbank". What is the distinction or discriminating factor between those?

The fact the Fog applies variable penalty to Perception based on "thickness" (density or depth or both?) might reasonably translate to different distance thresholds for Concealment and Hidden Condition based on Fog Density/Depth, but nothing like that is even "sketched out" in general terms, never mind specific stats or even an example so it's hard to say what the rules actually expect as baseline functionality.

I'm also slightly confused about how Concealment intersects the Perception Tiers: Perception has been PARTIALLY disentangled from these, but it seems like some of the details have been lost in the translation. Observed now says "Even if a creature is observed, it might still be concealed" so Concealment is not itself discrete Perception Tier nor inherently related to Observed Condition. But Hidden is directly equated with mechanic for "Full Concealment" Miss Chance (10+ Flat Check) which doesn't seem to be independently substantiated i.e. if you want Full Concealment you need Hidden Condition, there isn't distinct Full Concealment Condition. Critically, this isn't presented as directly related to Concealment since Hidden and Observed are Perception Tiers while Concealment is independent effect, so there is no inherent idea of Full Concealment (Hidden) being stronger version of Concealment (that don't stack etc).

But since it isn't independently substantiated and framed as superior version of Concealment, it begs the question: If somebody is Hidden AND in area with Fog Concealment, do attackers need to roll TWO Flat checks, one at 5+ one at 10+? Invisibility can count as Hidden (rather than Unobserved/Unaware) in certain conditions.

[Quandary]

Just re-upping this, after another thread reminded me of it,
with RAW not actually clear on what minimum quantity of fog to apply Concealment is...

Does just 1 square count? That is minimum real game unit, but does "significant" mean "alot" or "minimum to actually count"?

Obscuring Mist states Concealment applies to all it's squares, but is that specific or just restating general rule?

The fog rules themselves consider varying degress of Fog density applying different circumstance Perception penalties,
which is another angle to consider for "significant" amount triggering Concealment, so it's more than plausible
Obscuring Mist has single-square Concealment because it is higher than typical fog density
(by which logic, it should also suffer higher Perception penalty, although that's not clearly stated despite being core fog mechanic)

Fog rules state "Fog imposes a circumstance penalty to visual Perception checks, depending on the thickness"
with "thickness" being unclear whether in reference to "density", distance, or potentially some combination of both.
Given Obscuring Mist is specific spell, it seems reasonable it's specific circumstance penalty for Perception thru fog should be stated, and other fog type spells may have different (higher) ones than Obscuring Mist since that is a common variable of fog.

[Quandary]

(quoting from other thread where this was brought up tangential to thread topic)

shroudb wrote:

i think all mentions for fog from spells/items only reference giving concelment (not being "thick enough" to actually hide/stealth in them).

??? Concealment seems to work just fine to Stealth with:

Quote:

You huddle behind cover or greater cover or deeper into concealment to become hidden, rather than observed. The GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you’re observed by but that you have cover or greater cover against or are concealed from. You gain the circumstance bonus from cover or greater cover to your check.

Cover gives bonus that Concealment doesn't inherently, although the Fog rules also explicitly state they apply circumstance penalty to Perception.

Cover applies +1(Lesser)/+2(Standard)/+4(Greater), while Fog's aren't specified, but since Enviro Damage comes in 4 Tiers it seems reasonable Fog could range from -1 to -4.

Quote:

tbf, it needs to be some really really thick fog, to be able to disappear in just 10-20 feet of it.

To be clear, Obscuring Mist applies Concealment from just one square, so 8 squares (40' diameter of Obscuring Mist) might be plausible to start considering this. I mean, AFAIK nobody found 3.x/1E's 5' = Concealment / further = Full Concealment to be at all implausible. (the exact same vision rules apply to Smoke in both 1E and 2E, if that matters) Again, the base fog rules themselves don't clearly assume that one 5' square of Fog always applies Concealment: lesser degrees of fog can plausibly require many more just for base Concealment, and presumably the distance/depth needed for Hidden would be proportionately larger.

And of course these spells can also be cast adjacent to each other, or adjacent/overlapping with natural fog, quickly creating larger distances which might qualify for Hidden even if it's considered just 40' does not. (40' is maximal distance thru Obscuring Mist at it's diameter, most line of sights thru it will be less)

[Quandary]

(quoting from other thread where this was brought up tangential to thread topic)

ikemook wrote:

As a GM, if I were running a home game and someone pulled this tactic in an area that was *already* misty or foggy, I would be strongly inclined to rule it as creating thicker conditions. RAW, that probably wouldn't work, but I'd strongly consider pulling some GM perogative there.

Actually, I believe that would be ENTIRELY plausible by RAW. The RAW specifically states these effects are contingent on "thickness" and "deepness". It doesn't give objective numeric specifications for these, but you are still following RAW if you went with that, just because RAW is written in non-specific way doesn't make it less valid, although I certainly would welcome more specificity because I think the potential conditions for higher Concealment/Hidden are actually reasonably common. And either 'chaining together' multiple adjacent fog spells (or even ONE spell's full diameter) as well as casting fog spell "atop" natural fog (creating more thickness-density) is very plausible and could be "ideal condition" for stronger penalty, just like Bullrush works great next to a cliff.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I have to question if this has been left vague so as to allow flexibility on the GMs side.

Increasing the difficulty of DC perception checks and or setting concealment if it is deep enough or far away targets.

[Quandary]

I mean... OK, but "flexibility" doesn't seem to describe when people seem UNAWARE that fog even conceptually COULD apply Hidden condition, I quoted responces from thread where people literally believed fog could ONLY apply Concealed (well, that's all that fog rules say, you have to look at Perception Tiers to know otherwise). When brought up, people start rationalizing 40' of fog (Obscuring Mist max diameter) is implausible to block sight (Hidden Condition), ignoring that was fully accepted in 1E. I mean, "flexibly" deciding it doesn't based on particular scenario is one thing, but people seemed to react like the idea was implausible in first place, despite precedent... and of course, ignoring that Fog rules themselves explicitly consider MANY densities of fog, and we don't really know where Obscuring Mist fits on that scale. Since base fog rules don't clearly treat 5' as automatic Concealment, it stands to reason Obscuring Mist is on high end of fog density (appropriate for a magic spell, I'd say), but that's still not solid basis of any judgement.

[ikemook]

I can't speak for the other poster, but plausability seems largely irrelevant to me. Obscuring Mist clearly states that it conveys concealment, nothing more.

From the text:

"You call forth a cloud of mist. All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it. You can Dismiss the cloud."

If that's not enough, there's clear (to me, at any rate) rules precedent for this. First, P2E clearly distinguishes between different types of fog (which is what I assume you've been referring to?). Fog limits visibility to half a mile, mist to one mile, and haze to three miles (pp. 517, under "Fog"). So, that establishes that mist is separate from fog and haze.

That mist is concealing is corroborated by an earlier entry under Perception, under the entry for Concealment and Invisibility: "Concealment: This condition protects a creature if its in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures light but does not provide a barrier to effects. An effect or type of terrain that describes an area of concealment makes all creatures within it concealed." (pp. 467, emphasis added]

Note the language: all creatures within an area of concealment gain concealment. There are no modifiers for location within that area; concealment is a mechanical effect applied to everyone who qualifies for it within an area that grants it. So the rules for concealment are perfectly consistent with Obscuring Mist.

You're absolutely right that the text of "Fog" suggests that fog penalties might be additive, based upon the amount of fog and distance between people. There's certainly some confusion there (1). But I'm having a hard time seeing the validity of applying that reasoning to Obscuring Mist in particular, when the rules are much more clear about how concealment from such sources work and said rules are consistent with the text of Obscuring Mist.

P2E isn't P1E, and physics in Pathfinder in general do not (thankfully!) operate like real life ^_~ My whole point in bringing up P1E's Obscuring Mist description on the other thread was precisely to note that this time, Paizo left such text out. Given the rules noted above, this further suggests that OM applies a blanket concealment effect, and nothing more, to people in it.

(1) Though note that the book says that such effects can provide cumulative penalties to checks. At best, you could argue that such effects impact attack roles within a mist or fog, but seems to me that it would have no effect on changes on the condition of concealment.

[Edited for grammar. Whoops!]

[Quandary]

Yeah, maybe Hidden "deep fogbank" is supposed to literally be a half-mile (or more depending on type), although it also states "and it cuts off all visibility at half a mile or less—possibly much less.".

Certainly it would help if Fog while mentioning Concealed condition could also mention Hidden explicitly if that is what is intended, no use in game terms if the rules don't use them IMHO.

I think considering even multiple Obscuring Mist (etc) strung in a row as not triggering Hidden by themselves is fine by current RAW, although the issue of what happens when cast in already foggy/misty/hazy area (or multiple Obscuring Mists cast "atop"/overlapping each other) seems legitimate question, with that plausibly triggering "possibly much less" visibility i.e. Hidden. Glad to see the details of this discussed, though.