Let's say that a rogue is Hidden and is adjacent to a Fighter, so the Fighter knows that the rogue is there. The rogue tries to Sneak away.
Normally, if the rogue tries to Stride away, the Fighter gets an Attack of Opportunity against the rogue, while rolling a DC 11 flat check to target the rogue, as I've seen in a number of threads.
The Sneak action says that on a successful check that "you're undetected." The first sentence you "move to another place while becoming or staying undetected."
Let's say the rogue Sneaks away successfully. Does it avoid Attack of Opportunity?
I think the rogue doesn't, because the Fighter knows what square you're in and will try to attack it.
What do other people think?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actions are active, the Fighter can't make an attack of opportunity if they don't know they can make one. If the Rogue succeeds at his Sneak check, the Fighter doesn't know the Rogue moves and won't make an attack of opportunity even if they technically can.
Now, you can say that the Fighter is aware of the Sneak action (which has the Move tag), as Sneak only says that the Rogue is Undetected during the movement. But I think it's a bit of a stretch, for me the intention seems to be that you are unaware of what is happening, even if you can hint at the Rogue sneaking away at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actions are active, the Fighter can't make an attack of opportunity if they don't know they can make one. If the Rogue succeeds at his Sneak check, the Fighter doesn't know the Rogue moves and won't make an attack of opportunity even if they technically can.
Now, you can say that the Fighter is aware of the Sneak action (which has the Move tag), as Sneak only says that the Rogue is Undetected during the movement. But I think it's a bit of a stretch, for me the intention seems to be that you are unaware of what is happening, even if you can hint at the Rogue sneaking away at some point.
That's how I'd rule it. If the rogue succeeds on the stealth check, no AoO. If they fail, then the fighter knows they are moving and can AoO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if a creature is undetected, you can still attempt to attack it. The rules are clear on that.
So, in the example above, the Rogue would still provoke the AoO, and if the fighter wanted to take that AoO, they would just follow the rules for attacking an undetected character.
Not exactly. What the Fighter doesn't know is that the Rogue is provoking an AoO. If the GM is not telling the Fighter player that the Rogue sneaks (because the Fighter doesn't know what the Rogue is doing) then the Fighter player will never say "I make an attack of opportunity" and as such they won't make an attack of opportunity even if they could potentially.
Reactions are actions, you make them voluntarily. The trigger is not enough, you also need the character to know about the trigger. Fighters are not randomly striking around them at moskitos and flies.
Hmm, this is an interesting one, because once the sneak happens it's already 100% too late for the fighter to identify where the rogue is, but at the same time at one point it knew where they were (hidden, but detected) and then all of a sudden it no longer was confident that the rogue was where they thought it was (undetected). I can see an argument for that change to be enough for the fighter to attempt an attack on that square and hope they're still there at that point.
Although, the more that I think about it that really shouldn't work because the fighter would have no way of knowing that a move action happened, and so it couldn't actively trigger the reaction. For all the fighter knows they could have lost the rogue for a number of reasons, some of which don't involve moving.
All in all I'd definitely say on a successful check they get away with no AoO, as the AoO trigger may have happened, but it wasn't noticed, and therefore it can't be used.
Ah. The “cannot target you” part of the undetected condition makes my original post incorrect. Given that, then no, you could not make an AoO against an undetected creature beachside you can’t target it.
I suppose if you have a reaction that lets you hit an area, that would work.
I'm with Humble Gamer on this, if you allow a reaction even if you are not aware of the trigger, then it means that Counterspell would work even if you don't know that someone is casting a spell (Counterspell has no range, so you can potentially Counterspell miles away).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The technical answer is difficult as the rules are a bit vague. Lets face it this scenario is common sense and Paizo have rightly not laboured on it.
The targetting rules say Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.
Attack of Opportunity has a target, and also Strike has a target.
Then there are the rules on responding to a trigger and setting triggers for spells which imply triggers are sensory things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from metagame knowledge, what would cause the Fighter to decide to use their reaction on AoO?
|
This comes down to the question, does the attack of opportunity occur before the action that triggered it, or not. It would seem that it does, since a critical hit will disrupt said action. In that case, I would say the moment the rogue declares an action with the move trait, they provoke the attack. It is only after that, that they can attempt the Stealth check to become undetected.
That's how I understand the order of operations, but I admit I am not confident enough to argue the point if another GM rules otherwise. It is just how I would rule it at my table. YMMV
|
...
Reason why Blind Fight and see invisibility are a must ( no more stealth with concealed condition ).
Please note that See Invisibility still leaves your foes with concealment so Stealth checks still work 'normally' in most cases:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 367 2.0
Traditions arcane, divine, occult
Bloodline Phoenix
Cast somatic, verbal
Duration 10 minutes
You can see invisible creatures and objects. They appear to you as translucent shapes, and they are concealed to you.
Heightened (5th) The spell has a duration of 8 hours.
It really only helps if your foe is either relying entirely on being Invisible without attempting stealth checks or if they critically fail their stealth checks, in which case they become Observed rather than Hidden.
It really only helps if your foe is either relying entirely on being Invisible without attempting stealth checks or if they critically fail their stealth checks, in which case they become Observed rather than Hidden....
Reason why Blind Fight and see invisibility are a must ( no more stealth with concealed condition ).
Please note that See Invisibility still leaves your foes with concealment so Stealth checks still work 'normally' in most cases:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 367 2.0
Traditions arcane, divine, occult
Bloodline Phoenix
Cast somatic, verbal
Duration 10 minutesYou can see invisible creatures and objects. They appear to you as translucent shapes, and they are concealed to you.
Heightened (5th) The spell has a duration of 8 hours.
Be careful, there are many effects giving the concealed condition without allowing you to Sneak thanks to it (like Blur). It's in general the case when your concealment doesn't come from something outside yourself (dim light, fog) but by a modification of your appearance (mistform elixir, blur).
In that case, as you appear as a translucent shape, the GM is in their full right to forbid you to Sneak. I agree that it's not technically RAW, but it's definitely RAI.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This comes down to the question, does the attack of opportunity occur before the action that triggered it, or not. It would seem that it does, since a critical hit will disrupt said action. In that case, I would say the moment the rogue declares an action with the move trait, they provoke the attack. It is only after that, that they can attempt the Stealth check to become undetected.
That's how I understand the order of operations, but I admit I am not confident enough to argue the point if another GM rules otherwise. It is just how I would rule it at my table. YMMV
The act of performing the triggering action creates an opportunity against which a character with AOO may take advantage and make an extra strike.
Concentrating in order to focus for spell casting creates an opportunity.
Hustling away at full speed rather than stepping away creates an opportunity.
Drawing your blade from its sheath or picking a weapon off of the ground creates an opportunity.
The action must have begun for the AOOing character to recognize the opportunity created by the action not merely the target contemplating performing the action. Spells are disrupted because the concentration is broken before the spell can complete on a critical hit. If the AOO occurred when the action was declared but before the action took place, then the target had not yet started the spell and could just continue on casting the spell after the critical hit resolved.
Sneak interacts oddly with this because on the board, the hidden target moves then, at the end of that movement, rolls the Stealth check to retroactively see how well that movement was.
I can understand the argument, "He moved first then rolled, so his movement triggered the AOO." However, I also see that--assuming the conditions to perform Sneak were met--a success on the roll means that all of the movement was undetected.
So the AOOing character would not have detected the target leaving the concealed square.
The other thing to consider is that an observer may not be aware a sneaking creature has moved from hidden to unobserved. I don't think anything in the rules specifically says that you know when a creature changes from one to the other. In the case of an invisible creature, unless you can hear their breathing or something there'd be no evidence they stayed in the position you last spotted them in.
The Sneak action says you're "undetected during your movement and undetected after." If the movement triggers the AoO, but you're undetected during said movement, you can't really be targeted.
Aside from metagame knowledge, what would cause the Fighter to decide to use their reaction on AoO?
In the threads where a hidden creature Striding away is discussed, the general assumption is that the creature is not trying to quietly move away. This would also apply to standing up, and all manner of actions that trigger an AoO.
(Interestingly, an invisible spellcaster who uses only a verbal action does not trigger an Attack of Opportunity, even though the Fighter arguably can hear words being spoken better than it can perceive an invisible person moving their hands and what-not. The triggers for Attack of Opportunity adhere to balancing considerations that rise above common sense in a number of cases.)
I'd argue that the Fighter attacking the Rogue moving away is not completely strange lore-wise, since the Fighter is trained for battle and actually knows the person is there with hostile intent, and so if they can get in a free hit they will.
All that said, common sense in this case says that "Sneaking" involves deliberate effort to avoid notice from the Fighter, so that it would not trigger. Because this seems to match the expectation of what a "Sneaking" creature is doing, I'm now inclined to have it not trigger an AoO.
The Sneak action says you're "undetected during your movement and undetected after." If the movement triggers the AoO, but you're undetected during said movement, you can't really be targeted.
I do think that language settles it, and adheres to the "common sense" in my post above.
Success You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.
I feel a little silly being a lawyer and not rereading the first sentence of the Success result!
|
|
The Sneak action is mechanically awkward because you need to meet the requirements at both the start and the end of your action: By putting the actual check at the end, they firmly established that you don't get a check at all if you didn't meet all the necessary criteria (so no 'I was undetected when I moved but observed when I got stuck in an unexpected bear trap before I could reach cover' arguments), but this in turn creates a 'retroactive check' that can be a bit confusing...
The other thing to consider is that an observer may not be aware a sneaking creature has moved from hidden to unobserved. I don't think anything in the rules specifically says that you know when a creature changes from one to the other.
As a side note, the players can base their judment on the number of actions the creature had to determine if it acted and as such if it used Hide or Sneak.
But once you successfully Hide or Sneak once, you can just Step to remain Undetected always, as such at that moment there's little information left about your actions and position.
I'm of the opinion that the 'order of operation' argument is the deciding part here. The Rogue broke stealth by attacking, so is at this point no longer undetected.
BY RAW, the Rogue's mere attempt to regain stealth triggers the Fighter's AoO, which happens before the Rogue even has a chance to regain undetected status. So strike with flat check it is.
Just goes to show that Attack of Opportunity is a useful class feature and why few monsters or PCs have it.
I'm of the opinion that the 'order of operation' argument is the deciding part here. The Rogue broke stealth by attacking, so is at this point no longer undetected.
BY RAW, the Rogue's mere attempt to regain stealth triggers the Fighter's AoO, which happens before the Rogue even has a chance to regain undetected status. So strike with flat check it is.
Just goes to show that Attack of Opportunity is a useful class feature and why few monsters or PCs have it.
RAW is dumb here though. I'd never use it.
RAW is dumb here though. I'd never use it.I'm of the opinion that the 'order of operation' argument is the deciding part here. The Rogue broke stealth by attacking, so is at this point no longer undetected.
BY RAW, the Rogue's mere attempt to regain stealth triggers the Fighter's AoO, which happens before the Rogue even has a chance to regain undetected status. So strike with flat check it is.
Just goes to show that Attack of Opportunity is a useful class feature and why few monsters or PCs have it.
I'd prefer not to see words like dumb in a discussion as they can be taken personally.
Also, I don't find that it's that dumb. AoO prevents anyone from moving away from the Fighter and before taking the Sneak action the Rogue is Hidden. As such it's a perfectly sound interpretation to consider that the Fighter prevents the Rogue from moving away thanks to AoO.
Off course, once the Rogue is Undetected, the Fighter no more has this chance if the Rogue decides to continue using Sneak actions inside the Fighter reach.
I'm mostly just not convinced the fighter is aware the rogue is moving from their space at all. That's part of why we have the GM rolling secret checks for attack rolls and such.
I apologize for the use of the word dumb and did not mean offense by it.
|
It really only helps if your foe is either relying entirely on being Invisible without attempting stealth checks or if they critically fail their stealth checks, in which case they become Observed rather than Hidden....
Reason why Blind Fight and see invisibility are a must ( no more stealth with concealed condition ).
Please note that See Invisibility still leaves your foes with concealment so Stealth checks still work 'normally' in most cases:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 367 2.0
Traditions arcane, divine, occult
Bloodline Phoenix
Cast somatic, verbal
Duration 10 minutesYou can see invisible creatures and objects. They appear to you as translucent shapes, and they are concealed to you.
Heightened (5th) The spell has a duration of 8 hours.
Be careful, there are many effects giving the concealed condition without allowing you to Sneak thanks to it (like Blur). It's in general the case when your concealment doesn't come from something outside yourself (dim light, fog) but by a modification of your appearance (mistform elixir, blur).
In that case, as you appear as a translucent shape, the GM is in their full right to forbid you to Sneak. I agree that it's not technically RAW, but it's definitely RAI.I think if it was RAI, it would be specifically mentioned, like in all the effects that actually say so, like Blur does.
I think if it was RAI, it would be specifically mentioned, like in all the effects that actually say so, like Blur does.
If it was RAW, it would be written.
Glitterdust states: "Creatures in the area are outlined by glittering dust."
Faerie Fire states: "All creatures in the area when you cast the spell are limned in colorful, heatless fire of a color of your choice for the duration."
So I clearly see a lot of GMs forbidding you to Sneak with these conditions and I think it's 100% RAI.
See Invisibility states that you are translucent, which is a bit more open to interpretation, but you have to expect some GMs forbidding you to Sneak.
I'm mostly just not convinced the fighter is aware the rogue is moving from their space at all. That's part of why we have the GM rolling secret checks for attack rolls and such.
'Awareness' doesn't figure into it.
By strict RAW,
- the Rogue is not undetected, and thus a legal target
" If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed."
Even if the Rogue is invisible, he will still be merely hidden, and the rules are clear on the Hidden condition:
"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in..."
- he does attempt a move action, which triggers an AoO
"Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."
- an AoO does get resolved before the triggering action
"You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs."
Therefore, once the Rogue breaks stealth, he is vulnerable to AoOs.
I would have to ask why you hate Fighters so much that you try to steal their Attack of Opportunity from them.
It's the +2 isn't it...
Seriously, AoOs are rare in this edition, they are supposed to be something special. In this particular case, it gives a PC a chance to retaliate against an invisible attacker even without magic.
PF2 tries to do away with caster supremacy, and part of that effort is giving martial classes non-magical counters vs. things they were absolutely helpless against without magic in previous editions. Take 'Felling Strike' for dealing with flyers without having access to a Fly spell, or 'Revealing Stab' to have a non-magical means for dealing with invisible foes for example.
Have to agree with Lycar here.
AoOs disrupt the action triggering them and the rogue is an eligible target at the time they initiate the triggering action (unless there's some rule on hidden creatures and AoOs I'm missing). Unless I guess you want to argue that the act of being Hidden itself deprives the Fighter of necessary knowledge, but that doesn't seem to be the argument being made here.
Allowing triggering actions to invalidate AoOs themselves basically breaks their mechanics entirely and is inconsistent with how they work in other situations. You can't dimension door 30 feet away and be out of an AoO's reach, so why would a completed sneak action do that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By strict RAW
That's the point, RAW isn't strict because it just hasn't tightly defined the sequencing of the stealth check. You have to apply a fair bit of interpretation just to get it to work.
Seriously, AoOs are rare in this edition, they are supposed to be something special.
Rare is a significant exaggeration. Special is just wrong.
AoOs show up on most martials that have the option Rangers, Barbarians, Swashbucklers, Monks, and its even reasonable value on Champions. Plus of course all Fighters. 90% of my builds consider it compulsory where it is available. It is on something like 15% of all monsters. Someone will have the exact number. If anything it is still too common for Paizo's design goal of free flowing movement.
Have to agree with Lycar here.
AoOs disrupt the action triggering them and the rogue is an eligible target at the time they initiate the triggering action (unless there's some rule on hidden creatures and AoOs I'm missing). Unless I guess you want to argue that the act of being Hidden itself deprives the Fighter of necessary knowledge, but that doesn't seem to be the argument being made here.
Allowing triggering actions to invalidate AoOs themselves basically breaks their mechanics entirely and is inconsistent with how they work in other situations. You can't dimension door 30 feet away and be out of an AoO's reach, so why would a completed sneak action do that?
I would say that it is because the result of a successful Stealth check is that all of the movement from beginning to end of the action is undetected. The check takes place at the end of the movement but the result is applied retroactively.
Success You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.
It's not a spell like Dimension door where you need to concentrate, thus creating the opportunity to be attacked, for 1 action's worth of time before you move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Awareness' doesn't figure into it.
By strict RAW,
- the Rogue is not undetected, and thus a legal target
" If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed."
Even if the Rogue is invisible, he will still be merely hidden, and the rules are clear on the Hidden condition:
"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in..."- he does attempt a move action, which triggers an AoO
"Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."- an AoO does get resolved before the triggering action
"You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs."Therefore, once the Rogue breaks stealth, he is vulnerable to AoOs.
Your reasoning is good. But you forget that without 'awareness', the Fighter won't make an AoO because you'll never tell the player he has an occasion to make one.
It's the same with Steal or Palm an Object, they trigger AoOs, but if you're not aware someone stole from you you won't be able to react to the trigger.AoO can't be used as a Stealth/Thievery detector.
I'm mostly just not convinced the fighter is aware the rogue is moving from their space at all. That's part of why we have the GM rolling secret checks for attack rolls and such.'Awareness' doesn't figure into it.
By strict RAW,
- the Rogue is not undetected, and thus a legal target
" If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and you then become observed."
Even if the Rogue is invisible, he will still be merely hidden, and the rules are clear on the Hidden condition:
"While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in..."- he does attempt a move action, which triggers an AoO
"Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."- an AoO does get resolved before the triggering action
"You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs."
Movement in Encounters says an AoO can trigger "Each time you exit a square" (once per move action), and "If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability." Nothing mentions triggering at the start of a move action. Only in the middle, or at the end if you didn't move.
So the first trigger would actually be moving out of the square, not when they "attempt a move action", at which point the target is already undetected since you're undetected "during your movement" on a success.
If AoOs did trigger at the start of an attempted move then I would 100% agree with you, and just reading the AoO rules makes it look like they do, so I understand that interpretation. I just happened to look this up before due to questions about interrupting standing up from prone, so I knew this specific exception about move actions exists.
Movement in Encounters
This has been quite the back-and-forth but I think the that might be the the definitive answer for me. I did not realize that the 'move action' trigger didn't happen until the end of the action (or leaving a square which is already covered elsewhere). All that remains is quibbling and arguing about the precise line when you inform the player that the creature that was Hidden is can no longer be detected.
One thing which I think has been somewhat overlooked here, is that we're imagining the Hidden condition to be for all intents and purposes, "Invisible but Known", which is not quite true. Absolutely, being invisible but detected in a square is an easy example of being Hidden, but the description of Hidden on p466 suggests that you might actually be able to see--just barely--a Hidden creature in other circumstances.
A creature that’s hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space a hidden creature occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can’t determine an exact location.
I only bring this up because I wish to argue that it is reasonable for a GM to inform the player "You no longer detect the hidden creature in the square next to you" at the conclusion of the Sneak, so that the player doesn't need to spend their actions attempting to attack an invalid target (at minimum, it would be a bit rude to allow the player to say "I attack the Hidden creature" when you are actually forcing them to target the square, as previously discussed, since an Undetected creature is not a valid target for most abilities). To me it's as simple as "You barely perceive something in the square next to you" while Hidden, and "The subtle signs of a creature being there are no longer there/You no longer detect motion/sound from the square next to you."
That is not to say that the Fighter gets an AoO in this circumstance. It seems clear to me that by the time the Sneaking creature leaves their square, they are definitely 'undetected throughout their movement' assuming they succeeded v. said AoO-haver. Should they have failed, well there is no doubt about hidden creatures identifiably leaving their square and being targetable, so swing away at your traditional miss chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only bring this up because I wish to argue that it is reasonable for a GM to inform the player "You no longer detect the hidden creature in the square next to you" at the conclusion of the Sneak, so that the player doesn't need to spend their actions attempting to attack an invalid target
I mean I don't just think that's reasonable, that's how the rules are presented. You know where a hidden creature is. You don't know where an undetected creature is.
So if a creature goes from Hidden to Undetected, you go from knowing what square they're in to not knowing.
Absolutely, being invisible but detected in a square is an easy example of being Hidden, but the description of Hidden on p466 suggests that you might actually be able to see--just barely--a Hidden creature in other circumstances.
A creature that’s hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space a hidden creature occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can’t determine an exact location.
Bolded by me for emphasis.
I disagree that this is the default assumption: that you can "just barely see" the Hidden creature.
Here is the definition of the Hidden condition:
While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are.
So all you know is that you believe your senses indicate a creature is in a given 5 ft cube, be it sound, shadows, an occasional clearing of the clouds lets moonlight reflect off of a belt buckle, or you saw a creature walk into the bush but not out of the bush. That doesn't mean you know where the Hidden creature is within that 5 ft cube or what it's doing, which is why you have a DC 11 Flat Check to target it. There's a lot of different places that a Medium creature can be within a 5 ft cube at any given moment, let alone a Small or smaller creature.
The Concealed condition allows you to be obscured but still Observed. You cannot be Hidden and Observed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I would run this as a GM:
1. Rogue declares they want to sneak from their hidden position.
2. I roll their Stealth check (remember, it is a secret check) and compare it to the perception DC of the Fighter.
3. If the Rogues stealth results in a failure or critical failure, the Fighter makes their AoO as the rogue begins to move, with the Rogue being hidden on a failure and fully observed on a critical failure.
If the Rogue instead succeeds on the check, they make their full sneak movement without being pestered. They were sneaky enough that the Fighter never realized they moved.
Bonus: In this case, the fighter still believes that the Rogue is in their last known square, unless they become observed or hidden in their new location. So the Fighter may waste an action or two striking or seeking the space next to them.
Reasoning: On a success, Sneak says that:
You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.
So really the answer is entirely based on the result of the secret check imo. Just declaring an action as a player isn't itself a trigger. Triggers are things that happen. If a player or enemy isn't aware of an action that is occurring, they can't reasonably be said to react to that action, right?
Absolutely, being invisible but detected in a square is an easy example of being Hidden, but the description of Hidden on p466 suggests that you might actually be able to see--just barely--a Hidden creature in other circumstances.
A creature that’s hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space a hidden creature occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can’t determine an exact location.Bolded by me for emphasis.
I disagree that this is the default assumption: that you can "just barely see" the Hidden creature.
So all you know is that you believe your senses indicate a creature is in a given 5 ft cube, be it sound, shadows, an occasional clearing of the clouds lets moonlight reflect off of a belt buckle, or you saw a creature walk into the bush but not out of the bush. That doesn't mean you know where the Hidden creature is within that 5 ft cube or what it's doing, which is why you have a DC 11 Flat Check to target it. There's a lot of different places that a Medium creature can be within a 5 ft cube at any given moment, let alone a Small or smaller creature.
The Concealed condition allows you to be obscured but still Observed. You cannot be Hidden and Observed.
My choice of wording was perhaps a bit of an overstatement. I meant more to imply that the senses you use to locate a hidden creature can include visual feedback, even if you can't actually see the creature better than their general location. Also I want to draw attention to your excellent example--being able to detect a creature only by the shine off their buckle is a great image to illustrate visual senses re: Hidden.
I would argue that I don't think the description of Hidden in the conditions section is more definitional than the description from the rules section, but we seem to be in agreement about what Hidden means either way, leaving aside my poor verb choice in the primer.
|
|
Given that you're able to perceive a creature well enough while it is fully Hidden from you (with it having the Hidden Condition) to be able to target it with spells and make attacks against it, albeit with a flat check to hit/miss, I see absolutely no reason why the Fighter shouldn't be able to trigger the AoO when it leaves the Square that the Figher knows for a FACT they're in under any circumstances other than something happening before the attempt to Sneak that would make them fully Undetected. Additionally, should they remain Hidden even after the move into another Square, unless they "upgrade" to a better Condition beyond Hidden the Fighter would, again, still know exactly what Square the opponent resides for literally every Square of movement that is made until the Hidden Condition is replaced with something more impactful.
So, in my opinion, yes the Fighter should absolutely get the AoO, they'd need to make the Flat Check as part of that but it's legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . unless they "upgrade" to a better Condition beyond Hidden the Fighter would, again, still know exactly what Square the opponent resides . . .
So upgrading to Undetected "during your movement" does not meet your standard?
Is there something visible and obvious that a character must do while already Hidden to begin the Sneaking process that creates an opening to be attacked prior to obtaining the Undetected condition that you feel is occuring?
This conclusion that the Fighter can make an AOO against a Hidden target who Sneaks away leads to this situation being valid:
A human with normal vision in a dungeon room without illumination of any sort is attacked by an orc. He Seeks, succeeds, and makes the orc Hidden to him using his imprecise sense (hearing). The orc now chooses to Sneak to a different location to avoid beign attacked. Because he is Hidden by virtue of the human who can't see him having heard his breathing and the create of his leather armor, can make an AOO against the orc if he (successfully) tries to be even more quiet yet as he moves away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You dont even know the direction someone moved on a successful sneak. So what exactly is the fighter reaction to?
Given that you're able to perceive a creature well enough while it is fully Hidden from you (with it having the Hidden Condition) to be able to target it with spells and make attacks against it, albeit with a flat check to hit/miss, I see absolutely no reason why the Fighter shouldn't be able to trigger the AoO when it leaves the Square that the Figher knows for a FACT they're in under any circumstances other than something happening before the attempt to Sneak that would make them fully Undetected.
The trick is, that you often aren't able to directly perceive a hidden creature at all. You just "know" that the square they are in is where they "are". The best example I can give is an invisible opponent who became hidden because they failed to sneak or were subject to a Seek action.
You aren't targeting the hidden person with spells and attacks at all, you are targeting the space and hoping to get lucky. That is why there is a flat check.
Additionally, should they remain Hidden even after the move into another Square, unless they "upgrade" to a better Condition beyond Hidden the Fighter would, again, still know exactly what Square the opponent resides for literally every Square of movement that is made until the Hidden Condition is replaced with something more impactful.
So, in my opinion, yes the Fighter should absolutely get the AoO, they'd need to make the Flat Check as part of that but it's legit.
Funny you should say that, since that is exactly what Sneak does. If you succeed on your Sneak, "You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it."
So in essence, sneaking away from the fighter Does "upgrade" hidden to a better condition, Undetected in this case, which would stop the fighter from being able to target the rogue with a sneak attack Attack of Opportunity.
Bonus: In this case, the fighter still believes that the Rogue is in their last known square, unless they become observed or hidden in their new location. So the Fighter may waste an action or two striking or seeking the space next to them.
I'm not sure I agree with this part of your conclusion. When a creature is hidden you know what square they're in. When a creature is undetected, you have no idea where they are.
Going from being definitely sure to not knowing at all is definitely something the Fighter should be aware of. They might assume the character is still in the same square. Or assume otherwise, but withholding that information is completely inconsistent with how Hidden works.
Bonus: In this case, the fighter still believes that the Rogue is in their last known square, unless they become observed or hidden in their new location. So the Fighter may waste an action or two striking or seeking the space next to them.I'm not sure I agree with this part of your conclusion. When a creature is hidden you know what square they're in. When a creature is undetected, you have no idea where they are.
Going from being definitely sure to not knowing at all is definitely something the Fighter should be aware of. They might assume the character is still in the same square. Or assume otherwise, but withholding that information is completely inconsistent with how Hidden works.
Is it? What happens when an invisible creature successfully sneaks away from you? Do you "know" that they snuck away, or are you left holding the bag so to speak, only knowing their last known position?
If the Rogue is successful at sneaking away then realistically the Fighter wouldn't know anything about the situation has changed. They haven't done anything to provide themselves with more information. They couldn't clearly see the Rogue in the first place so from their perspective nothing has changed.
If the opposite is true, then the Rogue could not actually sneak away, and the fighter would get their AoO since they KNOW that the Rogue moved/ is moving away despite their successful sneak.
Though I suppose that the example given in the "Undetected" section probably align more with your way of thinking.
For instance, suppose an enemy elf wizard cast invisibility and then Sneaked away. You suspect that with the elf’s Speed of 30 feet, they probably moved 15 feet toward an open door. You move up and attack a space 15 feet from where the elf started and directly on the path to the door. The GM secretly rolls an attack roll and flat check, but they know that you were not quite correct—the elf was actually in the adjacent space! The GM tells you that you missed, so you decide to make your next attack on the adjacent space, just in case. This time, it’s the right space, and the GM’s secret attack roll and flat check both succeed, so you hit!
In the example, it's fairly clear that the player is not aware that the enemy elf wizard snuck away, but instead used what amounts to OOC knowledge in a way that is a little too.. gamey to me. I mean, would you know that an Elf Wizard has a likely land speed of 30 feet, and be able to surmise where they may have moved in > 6 or so seconds? Or would you run up to the space where your enemy was, check there, then begin searching out from there?
I'd hold the player to knowing that last "known" square until they do something to reveal the targets new location. Like Seek. Likewise I would try to hold NPC's to the same.
That is the thing about Perception. It's all about what information is reasonably available to a given character based on their senses and knowledge of where things are around them. If you are Undetected while moving out of the space you were just "hidden" in, I see no reason why the person you were hidden against would immediately know that you moved away. They could just as likely assume that you are preparing to spring out of whatever concealment/cover/magical effect you are hidden in to attack.
It makes much more sense to me at least, that the duped party would have to begin their search at square one (literally) rather than just immediately knowing that the person moved away, unless there are some other mitigating circumstances. Like the sneaking party was successful at sneak, but moved through snow without covering their tracks, making them hidden again, giving the other party new information to work with.
TLDR: If you can't see someone, and they move away from where you couldn't see them with no real trace, then why would you know the moved at all?
Is it? What happens when an invisible creature successfully sneaks away from you? Do you "know" that they snuck away, or are you left holding the bag so to speak, only knowing their last known position?
You don't know that they snuck away per se, but you know that you no longer know their location.
They couldn't clearly see the Rogue in the first place so from their perspective nothing has changed.
This is not consistent with how the Hidden condition works. You don't know the precise location of a hidden creature, but you do know what square they are in.
When the creature becomes undetected instead, the things that make them hidden (and therefore still perceptible to some degree) go away.
Is it? What happens when an invisible creature successfully sneaks away from you? Do you "know" that they snuck away, or are you left holding the bag so to speak, only knowing their last known position?You don't know that they snuck away per se, but you know that you no longer know their location.
They couldn't clearly see the Rogue in the first place so from their perspective nothing has changed.This is not consistent with how the Hidden condition works. You don't know the precise location of a hidden creature, but you do know what square they are in.
When the creature becomes undetected instead, the things that make them hidden (and therefore still perceptible to some degree) go away.
I suppose I could see that line of reasoning. It just seems weird to me that the fighter would gain any new information from the rogue sneaking away, especially depending on what was making them hidden in the first place. I mean, hidden doesn't mean the target is Currently making noise/is partially visible. It's perfectly possible to be silent and still but still hidden due to other factors.
I mean, if an opponent moves behind a boulder to hide then sneak away, do you have any reason to believe they aren't still behind that wall? Do you have any recourse but to check behind the wall before assuming they are elsewhere?
My instinct would be to rule in favor of whoever the PC is in this situation.
If the rogue is the PC, no AoO. If the fighter is the PC, then they get an AoO. If both are NPCs, no need to roll for stuff. If both are PCs, I let them know PVP isn't okay at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it may be useful to remember that Perception is both passive and active. If a creature you didn't know was there attempts to sneak up on you and fails, you detect their presence through no action of your own when they become Hidden. Conversely, when a creature you did know was there sneaks away, you eventually notice that the subtle signs of their presence are no longer visible/audible/etc. You may assume that they moved away owing to the fact that you haven't detected their Hidden presence in a few moments--for all you know they're still there, but you can reasonably assume they've moved away based on context clues (were they injured and trying to escape? Is there an open door nearby? They probably snuck toward the open door. Has it only been a second since you last noticed their presence? Well, you'd have to be legendary to run that quietly, so they've probably only made it a couple yards.
In our boulder example, if the creature fled behind the boulder, we heard their footsteps (tracking their Hidden location) until they stopped running to Sneak, at which point we stopped hearing them. We know they became Undetected to us because we stopped detecting them. Maybe they are still back there, maybe they've found another place of cover. While our players may be counting enemy actions or not, that only simulates an experience our players cannot use--the judgment of how much time has passed since the person went behind the boulder. If we heard them less than a second ago, we have no reason to believe they have snuck away, but if it's been a couple seconds of not hearing them move, it's just as reasonable to say we realise they are intentionally concealing their movements--we might still assume they're behind the boulder if there's nowhere else to hide, but if there's a shed a few yards away, it would be fair to guess that they could have tried to slip into such a hiding place--or maybe they're actually under the bush next to the boulder, hoping you thought they'd go for the shed. It's not meta knowledge to say you don't know where they've gone, you already know that you haven't picked up a signal from them in a moment, which is potentially significant given the magnified timescale of adrenaline.
Personally, I would find it unusually punishing on the players (whether I were GM or player in the circumstances) not to inform a player that the enemy they know is there thanks to the Hidden condition is actually not there. It shouldn't take a Seek action to realize that they can't tell where an enemy is when as far as the mechanics and circumstances are concerned, they did have visual or audio confirmation of their location and that circumstance changed without telling them--to do otherwise forces players to spend 1 action every turn just Seeking to be sure that they can still hear what they were already aware of. Informing them that the enemy is now Undetected doesn't give them a wealth of information--just that they've lost the target, which seems to me the way this usually happens IRL, just before you start spending actions to seek around to look for another sign or trace of their presence.
(As for why not give the warrior their AoO even if they supposedly 'know' that the Sneaking creature must have moved, numerous reasons have already been fielded in this debate already, but suffice to say from a narrative logic perspective, telling the warrior that the foe has become undetected only tells them that they don't know where the foe is, which doesn't present an opportunity to strike a distracted foe you didn't see leave. From a mechanical standpoint, many have argued that the warrior can't take a reaction against a trigger they didn't see being met, but even if we want to argue "I can assume the reason why the foe is Undetected is that they took the Sneak action, and therefore would have had to move, therefore triggering AoO", we technically only know the foe became Undetected, not by what means, and while undetected, they stopped being a valid target for AoO because you can only attack squares with the hope that an Undetected creature is there, and squares don't provoke AoO even if a creature might have moved out of them.)
Snipped for brevity.
In the case of the boulder, there really is no need for the opponent to be hidden before taking cover behind said boulder. They could just stride there in plain view, hide once they have cover from the boulder, then sneak away.
There are 0 context clues given to the other party as to what the foe is doing back there, but it is important to remember that you can't become Undetected by simply hiding alone unless you were already undetected.
That makes the order of operations:
1. Starts in the open: Observed.
2. Strides behind the boulder. Now has cover.
3. Uses the Hide action. Becomes Hidden (assuming they pass).
4. Uses Sneak. Secret check rolled. At that point, they are either:
A. Undetected by passing the check.
B. Hidden by failing the check. (So the opposing party knows their new location.)
C. Observed due to failing the check. (Of note this actually strips you of your hidden condition entirely unless you were both Invisible and Hidden when you began to sneak.)
My point is basically, in this situation and many others, there is no good reason I can see that the opposing party would "detect" that their opponent has left their position.
And really, upon further thought, there isn't much difference between my stance and Sibelius/Squiggits. In either case, the only thing that the opposing party knows with any certainty is the last known location of the opponent.
The only difference is the requirement of beginning your search reasonably at their last known location, rather than immediately knowing that they have moved on from that location.
It's a small enough difference that I can accept I could be mistaken. I'm still going to run it my way as it is what makes sense to me, but I'll concede that there is plenty of merit to immediately informing the player of the change in detection that their opponent just went through. I can see the advantages, as it will avoid "wasted" actions spent seeking or attacking an empty square. But sometimes I like to have elements that disrupt the standard turn order gameplay that PF2 can sometimes end up in, and turning a humdrum combat into a game of cat and mouse appeals to me in a big way.