It isn't stated in the general rules, but there are a lot of places that give concealment with the additional restriction that because your location is still obvious you can't use that concealment to hide or sneak. Such as Blur.
I would run Faerie Fire the same way. The affected invisible creatures would have to have some other source of concealment in order to hide or sneak. Faerie Fire itself would not be enough.
It would be somewhat nice if this was split into two conditions. One being concealment that you can hide with, and the other being concealment that gives the miss chance, but no option to hide. But that is not how the rules are currently written.
Visible creatures can't become concealed while affected by Faerie Fire, ergo they have to be in cover to try to hide.
Invisible creatures become concealed by Faerie Fire rather than undetected...does this mean they can still
1, hide to try to set up a Sneak Attack?
2, hide due to being concealed and thus becoming hidden (since they can't become undetected)?
For 1. I don't think that would work simply because Sneak Attack functions by either having the opponent caught off-guard or flanked by you and an ally. Although you are concealed and are attempting to hide, creatures know which square you are in, and your entire shape is outlined, meaning they can still see the attack coming, and from which square it's coming from. Remember, Sneak Attack requires that the enemy is flat-footed to you, and being concealed alone doesn't do this. You would probably be better off attempting to Feint the enemy instead.
For 2. While technically permitted by the rules, all this would do is increase the flat check to affect you from 5 to 11, since hiding via concealment in this case doesn't let you cover up the light emanating from your square; they'll still know which square to target, but will have a harder time trying to precisely affect you, which is probably the only benefit to this.
In my opinion, though, I would probably rule that Faerie Fire's "concealed instead of undetected" clause would overwrite any potential conditions that are higher than concealed; that is, if somebody attempts to be hidden or undetected (without removing the light emanating from your square in some manner, anyway), they are instead concealed, because the spell's effect of creating unnatural light on a target isn't being suppressed in any fashion by simply trying to hide the light behind cover (which might still be seen if the barrier isn't large enough), or attempting to use the light created by the spell to obfuscate their foes being fruitless because the light is what is causing the creature to be concealed instead of undetected/hidden in the first place.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like both Faerie Fire and Glitterdust are being replaced by the spell Revealing Light in the remaster, but unfortunately its spell description doesn't forbid the target from using its concealed condition to hide either. Hopefully it will be addressed with a more complete description in the concealed condition itself or the detection rules section. Otherwise we'll have to assume it's intended to be allowed
As it is now, the "rule" that you can't use certain types of cover or concealment to hide exists only in references to its assumed existence in some spell and other effect descriptions like Blur as mentioned by breith
I agree that this "concept" of obvious-where-you-are-concealment should be more explicitly written down as a rule. That would make it nice and clear and easy to teach.
But I don't really agree that until that time we have no choice but to allow it, even if it's silly. The general rules that tell us how to handle ambiguous and problematic rules already got our back here.
|
It looks like both Faerie Fire and Glitterdust are being replaced by the spell Revealing Light in the remaster, but unfortunately its spell description doesn't forbid the target from using its concealed condition to hide either. Hopefully it will be addressed with a more complete description in the concealed condition itself or the detection rules section. Otherwise we'll have to assume it's intended to be allowed
As it is now, the "rule" that you can't use certain types of cover or concealment to hide exists only in references to its assumed existence in some spell and other effect descriptions like Blur as mentioned by breith
I agree that this "concept" of obvious-where-you-are-concealment should be more explicitly written down as a rule. That would make it nice and clear and easy to teach.
But I don't really agree that until that time we have no choice but to allow it, even if it's silly. The general rules that tell us how to handle ambiguous and problematic rules already got our back here.
Indeed. A primary design goal of PF2 was to put power/control firmly back in the GM's hands. So that we would stop having players metaphorically bashing their GM into submersion with the rulebooks.