|
The Concealed condition (CRB, pg. 618) indicates that you can still be observed [seen] but are harder to target. To do so requires a DC 5 Flat Check.
The condition does not indicate that Precision damage is affected one way or another and this leads me to think it works normally - other than have a Flat Check to see if you hit them at all or not.
Thoughts?
Nifty
1. Opacity isn't all-or-nothing then it's still possible to see through the smoke, just less clearly. Then the smokestick wouldn't block line of sight but probably still give concealment to creatures on opposite sides of it, affecting ranged attacks. Blocking line of sight is an important strategic effect and would be mentioned explicitly.
2. The rules about concealment don't mention precision damage, and there is nothing the other way around either, then I suppose there is no interaction between concealment and precision damage: if you hit your target in spite of the concealment and meet the requirements to deal precision damage with an ability, you can do it.
On number 1 it depends, because if the creature is concealed, it requires you use the Seek action to see them, if they fail that seek action, they do not have line of sight.
This is covered under the perception rules and line of sight. It doesn’t have to be mentioned specifically because it’s covered under the standard rules for detecting concealed creatures with a Precise Sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Opacity isn't all-or-nothing then it's still possible to see through the smoke, just less clearly. Then the smokestick wouldn't block line of sight but probably still give concealment to creatures on opposite sides of it, affecting ranged attacks. Blocking line of sight is an important strategic effect and would be mentioned explicitly.
2. The rules about concealment don't mention precision damage, and there is nothing the other way around either, then I suppose there is no interaction between concealment and precision damage: if you hit your target in spite of the concealment and meet the requirements to deal precision damage with an ability, you can do it.
On number 1 it depends, because if the creature is concealed, it requires you use the Seek action to see them, if they fail that seek action, they do not have line of sight.
This is covered under the perception rules and line of sight. It doesn’t have to be mentioned specifically because it’s covered under the standard rules for detecting concealed creatures with a Precise Sense.
Incorrect. Concealed does not indicate that you cannot see a creature. It imposes a dc 5 flat check to effect a creature, but otherwise if you would normally observe a concealed creature you do so.
No need to attempt a seek action unless the target would normally be hidden or better from you.
This condition protects a creature if it’s in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures sight but does not provide a physical barrier to effects. An effect or type of terrain that describes an area of concealment makes all creatures within it concealed.
When you target a creature that’s concealed from you, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check before you roll to determine your effect. If you fail, you don’t affect the target. The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it’s concealed.
Incorrect. Concealed does not indicate that you cannot see a creature. It imposes a dc 5 flat check to effect a creature, but otherwise if you would normally observe a concealed creature you do so.No need to attempt a seek action unless the target would normally be hidden or better from you.
...This condition protects a creature if it’s in mist, within dim light, or amid something else that obscures sight but does not provide a physical barrier to effects. An effect or type of terrain that describes an area of concealment makes all creatures within it concealed.
When you target a creature that’s concealed from you, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check before you roll to determine your effect. If you fail, you don’t affect the target. The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog
As I mentioned before, the rules for this aren't actually under concealed, which is classified as a "type" of visibility, it's covered under Perception, Precise Senses, and Visibility rules.
The visibility and perception rules cover that.
Line of sight reads:
Some effects require you to have line of sight to your target. As long as you can precisely sense the area (as described in Perception on page 464) and it is not blocked by a solid barrier (as described in Cover on pages 476–477), you have line of sight. An area of darkness prevents line of sight if you don’t have darkvision, but portcullises and other obstacles that aren’t totally solid do not. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough to block line of sight, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain line of sight, though the GM makes the final call.
And then on 464:
The rules for rolling a Perception check are found on page 448. The rules below describe the effects of light and visibility on your specific senses to perceive the world, as well as the rules for sensing and locating creatures with Perception.
And then finally under Precise Senses:
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, in which case you can use the Seek basic action to better detect the creature.
Directly under the text you quoted it uses the word "obscured", so it qualifies.
Unless the creature is already observed, they must become observed while in the smoke cloud. Even if the DC for not using stealth is extremely low, it still requires you to actually make the effort to see them.
Now if they are already observed in the smoke, you of course don't have to roll Seek again until they attempt a Stealth check, but the initial concealed condition does trigger this.
Bits from your quotes:
"and it is not blocked by a solid barrier"
"unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment"
If you could already clearly see a creature before they pop a smokestick, you can still see them. The simply become Concealed.
Being obscured and being obscured by the environment are not the same thing. By the environment tells me that this is in reference to physical objects within that environment; bushes and shrubs in forest, tables and curtains indoors etc...
But if an alchemist were standing in a field and dropped a smokestick at his feet, an archer would only have to pass a DC 5 flat check to shoot him.
If an invisible creature were to drop that same smokestick, then you would have to seek them, possibly with a bonus to your perception since they would be disturbing the smoke with their motion.
The relevant lines that you are flat ignoring is this:
" The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it’s concealed."
Now unless you are arguing that the smoke produced by a smokestick is thicker than the referenced Fog Bank, fair dues, that is yours to judge. But based on the description of the Smokestick I would heartily disagree.
With a sharp twist of this item, you
instantly create a screen of thick, opaque
smoke in a burst centered on one corner of
your space. All creatures within that area are
concealed, and all other creatures are concealed to
them. The smoke lasts for 1 minute or until dispersed by
a strong wind.
No where in the description is the smoke described as completely blocking line of sight, or doing anything more than is described: Providing concealment.
What exact category of detection are you arguing effected creatures have?
Bits from your quotes:
"and it is not blocked by a solid barrier"
"unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment"
The "and it is not blocked by a solid barrier" is preceeded by:
As long as you can precisely sense the area
You cannot precisely sense the area. "And" dictates both conditions must be met.
Smoke is part of the environment, as is clouds of Fog. Not really sure what you're trying to argue.
If you could already clearly see a creature before they pop a smokestick, you can still see them. The simply become Concealed.
No you cannot, because they just broke the standards for Precise Sense, which you no longer qualify for without a Basic Seek Action.
Being obscured and being obscured by the environment are not the same thing. By the environment tells me that this is in reference to physical objects within that environment; bushes and shrubs in forest, tables and curtains indoors etc...
This assertion has literally no backing. I don't really see how foliage and fog are any different in terms of "environment".
Please find the citation that says "fog is not the environment", and I'll retract my statement.
But if an alchemist were standing in a field and dropped a smokestick at his feet, an archer would only have to pass a DC 5 flat check to shoot him.
After his Basic Seek Action to maintain his Precise Sense of the creature that is now concealed by smoke.
The relevant lines that you are flat ignoring is this:
" The concealed condition doesn’t change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. A creature in a light fog bank is still observed even though it’s concealed."
That only states that no tiers of visibility are off limits, I.E. you can still be observed, hidden, unnoticed, unobserved.
Which is not like Darkness, which specifically classifies those without Darkvision as treated as blind and such.
The line you're quoting doesn't mean everyone that was unnoticed in a light fog suddenly becomes observed, it states that you can still become observed inside of a light fog and that "doesn't change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature", all of them apply.
No where in the description is the smoke described as completely blocking line of sight, or doing anything more than is described: Providing concealment.
It states it by saying they become concealed. It doesn't have to state it again, and since LoS can be applied to those inside the smoke if they become observed it would be incorrect to specifically state that it blocks LoS, since that is not always the case.
What exact category of detection are you arguing effected creatures have?
Whatever their Basic Seek Action provides them after the change in their visibility to their Precise Sense, Hidden on fail, Observed on success.
I simply do not agree with the idea that a lvl 1 alchemical item can do more than is specifically noted in its description. I do not believe that is the intention of the item, nor the rules.
What would the point be of the smokestick specifically making you concealed if it also made you hidden?
Hidden imposes a dc 11 flat check after all.
That is my main disagreement. Perhaps I rambled a bit previously, probably should catch some shut eye.
The main point is balance. A lvl 1 (or indeed lvl 7 greater version) smokestick makes a character twice as hard to target with any effect under your interpretation. That is far stronger than its cost justifies.
If smokestick stated in clear terms that the smoke it produces is thick enough or dark enough to hinder line of sight entirely I would agree with you. But the fact that you can still perceive targets from within it sort of torpedoes that argument. After all, seeking a creature still usually uses a precise sense, which would end up with the creature remaining hidden under your interpretation.
A creature you detect might remain hidden, rather than becoming observed, if you’re using an imprecise sense or if an effect (such as invisibility) prevents the subject from being observed.
So again, what would be the point of the smokestick specifically making you concealed if it also made you hidden?
I simply do not agree with the idea that a lvl 1 alchemical item can do more than is specifically noted in its description. I do not believe that is the intention of the item, nor the rules.
This doesn't add anything to Smokesticks, concealment does this in general.
If a spell tells you that you become invisible, that comes with all the territory of Invisbility.
The territory of Concealed is that you are obscured, and therefore must be seen with a Perception check since Precise Sense requires that they not be obscured to "automatically" see them.
What would the point be of the smokestick specifically making you concealed if it also made you hidden?
Because it doesn't make you hidden automatically, only if the Perception check is failed.
The main point is balance. A lvl 1 (or indeed lvl 7 greater version) smokestick makes a character twice as hard to target with any effect under your interpretation. That is far stronger than its cost justifies.
Perhaps this is where the disconnect is, to me, the check to find someone that is not actively using Stealth inside of a Smokestick's area will have a relatively low Perception DC (but nonetheless, not automatically visible).
This really isn't any different than someone moving behind a tree, foliage, fog, etc. They have moved to an area where your Precise Sense no longer operates as normal.
If smokestick stated in clear terms that the smoke it produces is thick enough or dark enough to hinder line of sight entirely I would agree with you.
This would be wrong and stronger than what you think I'm saying.
If it specifically stated that it blocked line of sight, then Perception checks wouldn't even matter, they would permanently retain lack of LoS.
What the rules say is when someone uses a Smokestick, you must then roll a Perception check to observe them, at which point, they remain observed and can continue to be observed until they attempt to use Stealth.
But the fact that you can still perceive targets from within it sort of torpedoes that argument. After all, seeking a creature still usually uses a precise sense, which would end up with the creature remaining hidden under your interpretation.
No it wouldn't. Specifically, if they become concealed, the environment has obscured them, and they require a Perception check. Once observed, they do not "remain hidden", they are now observed.
A creature you detect might remain hidden, rather than becoming observed, if you’re using an imprecise sense or if an effect (such as invisibility) prevents the subject from being observed.
This is overriden by the specificity of Precise Sense being compromised, which is more specific than the Seek action that Precise sense specifically references.
So again, what would be the point of the smokestick specifically making you concealed if it also made you hidden?
The part that says you become Concealed, and then Precise Sense covers the rest.
Alchemist is visible.
Alchemist uses Smokestick, and is now "obscured by the environment".
Enemy uses Seek, Alchemist is observed until they use Stealth.
The only part of the rules that even remotely changes from your interpretation is the initial change in visibility which affects the Precise Sense you were using to Observe them.
Personally how I'd run it:
If we're being honest, I think the Perception check should occur exactly when the change in visibility comes, thus if you succeed on that check, they remain Observed if they were before, and if you fail that check they move to Hidden. This first check would be instant and not cost an action.
Then on that creatures turn, they could use Seek to see the enemy, where they would remain Hidden if failed, or move to Observed if succeeded and remain Observed until Smokestick Alchemist uses Stealth.
You make a pretty good argument Midnightoker, but I think there's one thing you failed to consider.
You can usually detect a creature automatically with a precise sense unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment, in which case you can use the Seek basic action to better detect the creature.This is the crux of your argument, but I think the disconnect is that this applies to creatures who have not yet been detected by you. Remember, obscured is not a condition or a "rules term" as it were, so it cannot be interpreted quite as rigorously as observed et al.
Concealed specifically states that it does not change your visibility. If you are observed, you remain observed. When you are observed, no seek action is necessary.
This means that if I pop a smokestick in the middle of a battle, I do not force my opponents to "redetect" me. I stay observed. But I now have concealement, which allows me to use Stealth to Hide, which would indeed change my condition from observed to hidded.
If I pop it before I have been detected, however, your point stands and a perception check is required.
edit: One last thing: Keep in mind that the game doesn't require constant checks to perceive creatures unless the state of the system has changed. The continuous state of detection is adjudicated by the conditions: observed, hidden, or undetected. Concealment goes out of its way to clarify that that status is unchanged by gaining it. It seems to be logically bending over backwards to reference three other rules to claim that gaining it actually does change it.
I guess it depends on your point of view in that case, because the "usually automatically" applies in the circumstance of pure visibility.
For instance, I don't automatically see people 1000 feet away, even if there is nothing but vast flat plains in front of me, I still need to roll to see them.
If they were observed and they dimension door 400ft away, do they still remain observed? I would argue no.
I think maybe the rules are a little ambiguous here on purpose.
For instance, drop a smoke cloud but holding a Light stone? Probably would just rule you remain observed, as the DC to perceive you would be astronomically low anyways.
Drop a smoke cloud in dim light? I'm not sure you can be perceived at all unless you have Dark/Low Light vision.
And then there's this from Smoke:
Wind can carry smoke far in front of the wildfire itself. Smoke imposes a circumstance penalty to visual Perception checks, depending on the thickness.
Which implies that there are varying thickness of Smoke that can have varying degrees of effect on Perception. What about if the Alchemist drops two Smokesticks, surely the "thickness" would increase, but by RAW they can't "double concealed".
AKA it's kinda GM call on thickness in this case.
If a fog rolls in out of nowhere, the visibility has changed, no different than any other immediate affect that triggers changes in visibility (such as Invisibility).
The initial perception check people typically get "for free" as part of Initiative is more or less how I view this interaction, though the rules in this case don't seem to account for that.
"Person throws smoke bomb" trick is a staple across a lot of pop culture, and while I'm sure in a lot of those cases they quickly follow with a Stealth check, the initial Smokebomb does in fact do something other than strictly make them a little fuzzy.
I don't think beowulf's reasoning/reading is wrong, just to me, the rules kinda conflict with each other (Precise Sense seems to contradict Concealed even though both reference each other).
Obscured by the environment isn't a strict term, but the language does have meaning. The fact that both Precise Sense and Concealed use the specific "Obscured" term is enough evidence for me to say that they are related.
ultimately though, if you're dropping a Smokestick and not using a Stealth Check after that, it's not going to be that effective anyways (DC 10 IMO at best without it, depending on distance).
Except under your interpretation you are requiring an action to "re-detect" the now Concealed creature, which is a larger issue than I think you believe it is. And not just a single action either, since point out is an action.
So to stop your entire party from losing an action to a 3gp smokestick, you would have to spend 2 actions.
RE: Your "How I would run it"
This is unlike any other skill check in the game. There are no free lunches unless they are specifically free. In this case, you are allowing creatures to use an action, seek to be exact, without spending an action when they should be able to automatically sense that creature unless something more drastic has occurred to change their perception of the target.
If a rogue steps behind a tree and successfully goes into stealth, you don't automatically get a perception check to see if you can see them, you have to Seek. If a deep fog bank rolls in and blankets the battlefield so deeply that you can only see a foot in front of your face, you don't automatically get a Perception check to try to see your opponents, you have to use the seek action.
There are no Perception saves.
This is unlike any other skill check in the game.
Good thing a Perception check isn't a Skill Check then ;) and is unlike any other "Skill" in the game intentionally.
There are no free lunches unless they are specifically free.
Initiative is quite literally a "free lunch", as no additional checks determine whether someone is seen or not seen outside the initial checks against Perception DCs.
In this case, you are allowing creatures to use an action, seek to be exact, without spending an action when they should be able to automatically sense that creature unless something more drastic has occurred to change their perception of the target.
Perception already does this when it gives you the "automatically see" in plain view scenario, you just don't roll for it.
To your proposed ruling, you see any and all creatures always that are not directly behind a door, including people miles away. That's not realistic at all.
It also means that there's no nuance to visibility, which under the Smoke rules for the game, is quite clear that there needs to be some amount of adjudication on the GM side for visibility.
If a rogue steps behind a tree and successfully goes into stealth, you don't automatically get a perception check to see if you can see them, you have to Seek.
Yes you do. They specifically roll against your Perception DC.
If a deep fog bank rolls in and blankets the battlefield so deeply that you can only see a foot in front of your face, you don't automatically get a Perception check to try to see your opponents, you have to use the seek action.
Agreed.
There are no Perception saves.
That's why it uses Perception DC.
This is unlike any other skill check in the game.Good thing a Perception check isn't a Skill Check then ;).
There are no free lunches unless they are specifically free.Initiative is quite literally a "free lunch", as no additional checks determine whether someone is seen or not seen outside the initial checks against Perception DCs.
In this case, you are allowing creatures to use an action, seek to be exact, without spending an action when they should be able to automatically sense that creature unless something more drastic has occurred to change their perception of the target.Perception already does this when it gives you the "automatically see" in plain view scenario, you just don't roll for it.
To your proposed ruling, you see any and all creatures always that are not directly behind a door, including people miles away. That's not realistic at all.
It also means that there's no nuance to visibility, which under the Smoke rules for the game, is quite clear that there needs to be some amount of adjudication on the GM side for visibility.
If a rogue steps behind a tree and successfully goes into stealth, you don't automatically get a perception check to see if you can see them, you have to Seek.Yes you do. They specifically roll against your Perception DC.
If a deep fog bank rolls in and blankets the battlefield so deeply that you can only see a foot in front of your face, you don't automatically get a Perception check to try to see your opponents, you have to use the seek action.Agreed.
There are no Perception saves.That's why it uses Perception DC.
As I've noted in another thread, Initiative is not the same as a skill check for the used skill. Using Perception for initiative does not allow you to detect undetected creatures.
If it did using Intimidate would allow you to demoralize every creature in the combat that you "beat" in initiative.
If you are trying to say that the creature popping the smokestick gets a free "Hide" action, that is also untrue. That is the only circumstance under which a creatures Perception DC comes into play.
In fact now that I am looking at it from that angle, that is exactly what you are doing: Giving creatures in Concealment a free "Hide" action. Which again no free lunches. If you pop a smokestick, you still need to take a "Hide" action to become Hidden.
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.
So if you want to provide free "hide" actions to anyone entering a smokesticks area, feel free. Just remember to roll them to set the DC that others have to beat with their "Seek" actions that are also free and unnecessary.
My ultimate question is, why would you want to bog down combat like this for a 3gp item?
The line you're quoting doesn't mean everyone that was unnoticed in a light fog suddenly becomes observed, it states that you can still become observed inside of a light fog and that "doesn't change which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature"
I need to disagree with you here.
An effect that takes a creature that was Observed and makes them Hidden is, by definition, changing which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. It's changed from Observed to Hidden. So an effect that says it can't change which category applies to the creature... can't do that, because that's what that is.
Let me clarify:
- I am not saying every time someone gets the Concealed condition they automatically become hidden. I said "It depends".
- There is no condition for "double concealed". Dim Light + Smoke obviously is harder to see. So would two sets of Smokesticks, especially given the Smoke rules where it outright states that.
- Distance always matters for Perception, just as much as any other thing.
- GM's have to rule on visibility, as is indicated in several places
A more apt way to handle this might just be to compare Stealth DC vs. Perception DC, which 9/10 would just remain with the person being observed (outside of a particularly Stealthy individual or proper circumstances like "double concealed"). This doesn't bog combat down at all, and comes up only when necessary.
I do not think that concealed == automatic hidden, which seems to be how you're interpreting my position.
Your ruling applies to far more than just "Smokesticks", as you are making a judgement call about all applications of the Concealed condition with your ruling.
And "3GP" is the new 30GP which is a non-trivial cost.
which of the main categories of detection apply to the creature. It's changed from Observed to Hidden. So an effect that says it can't change which category applies to the creature... can't do that, because that's what that is.
"Apply" is the keyword. If it was referencing the current application of the condition it should say "that are Applied to" not "Apply".
In the second, a creature goes from observed to undetected. Teleporting to a completely different physical location dictates that one.
Not by the reading that is applied. If you rule "state of observation does not change once observed and without a stealth check" then you remain observed in this scenario as long as there is nothing obstructing your view.
Nope. Never in this game do you compare 2 dc's explicitly to each other. The closest you get is using assurance with a skill. Notably this still costs an action.
You are simply adding elements to perception that are not there. Instead of creatures automatically detecting each other, you are saying that there are various gray areas of perception where they may or may not be slightly less visible than other times. This is not a mechanic.
Perception is modal in this edition. If you are observed, you are observed until something drastically changes that. You hide. You become invisible. You teleport 3 miles away.
Dropping a smokestick is not drastic enough to change your perception state. The Perception rules don't say it is. The smokesticks description doesn't say it is.
The only thing saying that it is is you. And that is fine if that is how you want to do things. But it is exactly as unnecessary as you are alluding to.
What is the Stealth DC of a person who just happened to walk into a Smokestick? Is it their Stealth DC? Why, they didn't hide. They aren't actively using their Stealth skill, so why would that DC matter?
Why create a situation where the GM has to pull a DC out of their hat, when the rules indicate that that situation is handled automatically?
I quoted several places in the book that arrive at this position, mainly Precise Sense, which directly calls out "Obscured by the environment".
Under Concealed it states "they become Obscured".
Your reading says everyone is visible at all times they are not actively using Stealth. I'd hate to play in a campaign where everyone has omni-vision.
Rule whatever you please, the rules under Smoke clearly indicate Perception is affected by smoke by stating penalties get greater.
If you want to say that Dim Light + Smoke has absolutely no effect on anything, go ahead. I'd rather be realistic.
I quoted several places in the book that arrive at this position, mainly Precise Sense, which directly calls out "Obscured by the environment".
Under Concealed it states "they become Obscured".
Your reading says everyone is visible at all times they are not actively using Stealth. I'd hate to play in a campaign where everyone has omni-vision.
Rule whatever you please, the rules under Smoke clearly indicate Perception is affected by smoke by stating penalties get greater.
If you want to say that Dim Light + Smoke has absolutely no effect on anything, go ahead. I'd rather be realistic.
So what you are saying is, if a bunch of guys are standing in a field, they shouldn't all be able to see each other because the grass could be occluding their vision?
Being visible is the most obvious symptom of not using stealth.
When a creature is Concealed, they are Obscured. That is handled by the DC 5 flat check you now have to make to effect them with, well anything.
Under your interpretation, when does the DC 5 flat check matter? If they are hidden, then they have a DC 11 flat check. If they are just observed by you through the smoke after you pass your dc vs. dc free action seek, then are they even still Concealed?
Be realistic then. Require a character to try to use the smoke with a Hide action.
To the Dim Light + Smoke deal, that is a case by case basis situation. But it is also not what we were discussing.
A smokestick on it's own is definitely not enough to justify changing a perception state. Perhaps I could see the argument that multiple sources of concealment doing so, similar to how a deep fog is treated differently than a light fog. But that is a matter of degree. Joe Alchemist in the middle of a field dropping a smokestick is just as "observed" as he ever was. He just has that DC 5 flat check now.
A rogue doing so and spending an action to Hide is hidden. With all the benefits that entails.
Under your interpretation, when does the DC 5 flat check matter? If they are hidden, then they have a DC 11 flat check. If they are just observed by you through the smoke after you pass your dc vs. dc free action seek, then are they even still Concealed?
If Schroedingers' Cat is the check in this case, saying that just because the cat "could be dead" it is "always dead" would be silly.
I am saying it depends.
Be realistic then. Require a character to try to use the smoke with a Hide action.
To the Dim Light + Smoke deal, that is a case by case basis situation. But it is also not what we were discussing.
It 100% is what we're discussing, because my initial response to you was not "Concealed == Hidden and you are 100% wrong"
I said "it depends".
A smokestick on it's own is definitely not enough to justify changing a perception state.
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Which is why I said "It depends".
That is, to specifically say that your status doesn't change and then have a three point rules reference interpretation that allows it to change just doesn't make sense to me (short of extenuating circumstances that might change the default calculus, like adding dim light to the equation).
The "three point rules contention" are the fundamental vision rules for the game, that interact specifically with Concealment.
To your point, dim light+smokestick is qualitatively different, and I don't think anyone would object if a GM adjusted the numbers a bit or added an extra hiding benefir in that situation.
ahem, so what you're saying is "it depends".
Then we don't disagree.
The original line was:
"On number 1 it depends, because if the creature is concealed, it requires you use the Seek action to see them, if they fail that seek action, they do not have line of sight."
Which is true if the creature was not already Observed.
If they were already Observed + Concealed and then they become "super concealed" or whatever, I would probably ask for checks.
The vision rules are clearly written with some amount of adjudication being required, because as you said distance isn't even measured (in PF1 it was -1 per 10ft) and "Total Concealment" doesn't exist.
That is, to specifically say that your status doesn't change and then have a three point rules reference interpretation that allows it to change just doesn't make sense to me (short of extenuating circumstances that might change the default calculus, like adding dim light to the equation).The "three point rules contention" are the fundamental vision rules for the game, that interact specifically with Concealment.
To your point, dim light+smokestick is qualitatively different, and I don't think anyone would object if a GM adjusted the numbers a bit or added an extra hiding benefir in that situation.ahem, so what you're saying is "it depends".
Then we don't disagree.
Me and you disagree, by degree. Dim Light + Smoke will apply Concealment. That I doubt you would dispute.
What it does not do is specifically make a creature invisible, or hidden. So mechanically, I can see the argument going either way depending on the GM. However, I would caution any GM in throwing around changes to perception states as they drastically change the battle space.
In my current campaign, this would be a non-issue: only one party member does not have at least Low-Light vision, and most have Darkvision. Meaning that the Dim light issue is largely a non-issue.
For that last human party member, I may increase the Flat Check DC of the concealment to 8 or so. As a GM that would be my call and it doesn't make a creature suddenly hidden despite them not taking the Hide action, or using some other ability, like say invisibility, to change that state.
"Apply" is the keyword. If it was referencing the current application of the condition it should say "that are Applied to" not "Apply".
Not at all. "is applied" and "apply" would both read the same here. Either way the rule says concealed doesn't change which category applies. There is no possible way to argue that changing which category of detection applies doesn't change which category of detection applies.
Normally I agree with you on a lot of things but the rule is incredibly explicit here and I think you need to take a step back and re-examine what you're reading, because I don't see how the text could possibly be worded any more clearly. The way you're trying to read it is contradictory to what the words themselves say and would render that entire sentence meaningless.
The concealed condition doesn't change which categories apply. That is explicitly stated within the text. Therefore, any ruling that says the concealed condition does change which category applies is invalid by definition (or, more appropriately just a house rule, which of course is fine if that's how you want to run it).
As I’m reading it, concealed prevents automatic undetected/hidden -> observed without a perception check which would normally be automatically seen. (I.e. smoke in a scenario where you were hidden, walk into a technically viewable area that has concealment without a stealth check). In that scenario I still think you’d have to roll to see the person because the space has been obscured from your precise sense and therefore you don’t automatically see them and must roll a Seek Basic Action.
Think swat team throws a smoke grenade and then walks through the smoke, the people in the room don’t automatically see them, they have to roll to see them in that smoke and then if they succeed or fail it affects the vision.
Which that would support with that line, as the change in visibility from hidden to observed doesn’t occur until after either one the concealment is gone or the opposer has rolled to seek them.
Aka it can extend your hidden status because you could be hidden, and move into a concealed area that you would normally not be hidden in. Since that area is obscured, opposers still have to seek in order to change your status, and therefore concealed gave you hidden until they act. Now if you’re not actively stealthing that’s going to last most likely until they act, which amounts to a single turn if you roll better than them on initiative (or were hidden again mid combat for whatever reason and then moved hit a concealed area without a stealth check) but nonetheless.
You can be hidden while Concealed. As long as you hide.
Look, it sounds to me like you are confusing Concealed with Hidden conceptually.
A target that is concealed is basically a silhouette, the proportions are about right and you can tell where they are generally, but details are washed out by the smoke/dim light/what have you. Hence the relatively easy flat check.
Being Hidden means that you aren't 100% sure that the person is even there. You are looking for Waldo, who may or may not be behind that red and white vase with the potted plant. But you know they are in that general area. Hence the 50/50 shot at even effecting them.
If they move away while still hidden, they can then become undetected.
Scenario:
- Person A hidden behind a wall
- Person B aiming cross bow at that wall and the open door that Person A would walk through (which is clear and visible)
- Person A acts, is currently hidden, throws smokestick down in doorway while remaining hidden behind wall, walks into smoke without a stealth check.
- Person B still treats Person A as hidden because they are obscured by the smoke, and therefore the Precise Sense of vision does not grant him automatic vision of Person A, and must Seek on his turn to see Person A (negligible DC if not using stealth or Person A becomes visible on their turn).
By the rules I see, this is correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That scenario is correct. But not because the smoke specifically makes them hidden. Because they were already hidden when they entered it.
Flip of the coin, the alchemist in the open field. Drops a smokestick. He is still observed, regardless of standing in the smoke until and unless he uses the Hide action to try to become hidden.
Edit: There are no free hide or seek actions. Those are actions that can be done on your turn, not when circumstances change.
That is a PF1 mindset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that scenario is correct then we’ve reached an amicable conclusion :)
Thanks for all the discussion folks! Sorry if I seemed aggressive at any point!