You indicate a creature that you can see to one or more allies, gesturing in a direction and describing the distance verbally. That creature is hidden to your allies, rather than undetected. This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially detect the target. If your allies can't hear or understand you, they must succeed at a Perception check against the creature's Stealth DC or they misunderstand and believe the target is in a different location.
While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are. You typically become hidden by using Stealth to Hide. When Seeking a creature using only imprecise senses, it remains hidden, rather than observed. A creature you're hidden from is off-guard to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.
Should Point Out require a flat check from the user? On the one hand, Point Out is an effect that explicitly targets the hidden creature and isn't an area effect. On the other hand, Point Out only reveals what square the target occupies, so nothing in the effect has anything to do with where the hidden creature is within their square, which is the only reason why the flat check would be necessary in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point Out's requirements seem to be enough:
"Requirements: A creature is undetected by one or more of your allies but isn't undetected by you."
Spending an action to point at the squares, with no need for another check, seems fine to me. If one does not know which square the foe is in, the Point Out action is completely unavailable.
The only time allies need to make a check in response is if they cannot understand the Point Out action itself; they get a chance to make another Perception check, but could not see/hear which spot they were being directed to.
-------------
I don't see anything specifically saying you are targeting a creature in Point Out, not sure where that's coming from.
You indicate a creature that you can see to one or more allies, gesturing in a direction and describing the distance verbally. That creature is hidden to your allies, rather than undetected. This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially detect the target. If your allies can't hear or understand you, they must succeed at a Perception check against the creature's Stealth DC or they misunderstand and believe the target is in a different location.
I think reinforcing the "just pointing out the square(s)" can help to get one's internal picture of what Point Out is doing to match with what it seems to do RaW.
I don't see anything specifically saying you are targeting a creature in Point Out, not sure where that's coming from.
Check my post again. I bolded the word target.
I don't see anything specifically saying you are targeting a creature in Point Out, not sure where that's coming from.Check my post again. I bolded the word target.
Hmm, seems I failed to communicate that Point Out is not at all targeting the (possibly) hidden foe.
Point Out is cleverly written to effect the allies that you are trying to communicate with. There is a requirement of awareness to perform the action, but there is 0 mention anywhere within Point Out that would invoke the flat check of hidden.
Just because something affects a foe, or the foe's undetected condition, does not mean that foe was targeted in a way that would require a flat check.
=====================
Again, the imagined "squares, not target-based" context example:
You have imprecise scent, you can smell what square an invisible foe occupies. This foe is undetected to your allies, and hidden to you.
Point Out's requirements are met.
You can Point Out and tell your allies "There's a ___ just beside that tree!" and all allies will convert the undetected into hidden. They know what square, but cannot see the foe. There is no need for a flat check to be invoked for this to make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to invoke both the Too Bad to Be True argument, as well as the Specific Trumps General argument.
Having an activity whose sole purpose is to help allies affect an enemy they otherwise can't see have an outright 50/50 chance of doing nothing when you have already made a check locating that creature (that is probably worse than 50/50) falls under Too Bad to Be True. Nobody would ever use this activity in a combat situation, and it's already niche as it is, since its only real benefit is to know which square(s) to affect. They are otherwise still subject to the Flat check on all non-area attacks even with the Point Out, so it's not like it does anything more than "you know which squares can actually affect a creature."
It is also Specific Trumps General, since if you cannot properly convey the information (such as if an ally has the Deafened or Blinded condition and you try to speak to them or point at the creature's location), they still have to make a Perception V.S. Stealth DC check to know which squares they are, otherwise the Point Out doesn't work, which supersedes any potential flat check (which, if they're still Hidden, is still going to take place anyway).
Hmm, seems I failed to communicate that Point Out is not at all targeting the (possibly) hidden foe.
Point Out is cleverly written to effect the allies that you are trying to communicate with. There is a requirement of awareness to perform the action, but there is 0 mention anywhere within Point Out that would invoke the flat check of hidden.
Just because something affects a foe, or the foe's undetected condition, does not mean that foe was targeted in a way that would require a flat check.
=====================
Again, the imagined "squares, not target-based" context example:
You have imprecise scent, you know what square an invisible foe occupies. This foe is undetected to your allies, and hidden to you.
Point Out's requirements are met.
You can Point Out and tell your allies "There's a ___ just beside that tree!" and all allies will convert the undetected into hidden. They know what square, but cannot see the foe. There is no need for a flat check to be invoked for this to make sense.
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature. And I don't think there are any single target effects that have a reminder to make the flat check due to hidden/undetected, because that's the default for everything that isn't an area effect.
I do see what you're getting at, though. If Point Out was considered to be affecting the hidden creature in a way that would require a flat check, then the visual and auditory traits would probably stop people from Pointing Out blind or deaf creatures, which is too bad to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
If there were a flat check, the feat would address that since rules re: actions walk you through how to use those actions. Reading to find an inobvious interpretation is reading too much into what's written in normal language.
Personally, I think "target" was an error in phrasing given its mechanical usage, but it's also the most natural way to address the "pointee" as it were. And as others have pointed out, nobody would waste their time spending an action when they could literally have their PC say "ten feet in front of the bookcase" or something for a free action. The Point Out option, IMO if anything, is cleaning up having the players speak so particularly on behalf of their PCs who can simply point at some blood splatter, distortion in the ground, or minor set dressing not shown on game maps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the title question: No.
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature.
To continue the discussion:
Point Out doesn't actually target the hidden creature. It doesn't actually list any target at all. The implied targets would be either or both of: your allies, or the square(s) that the creature is in.
The requirement that the allies could 'potentially target the creature' doesn't make the creature the target of your action.
To answer the title question: No.
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature.To continue the discussion:
Point Out doesn't actually target the hidden creature. It doesn't actually list any target at all. The implied targets would be either or both of: your allies, or the square(s) that the creature is in.
The requirement that the allies could 'potentially target the creature' doesn't make the creature the target of your action.
What do you mean by "listing" a target? It says "the target." Why isn't that enough? The allies could be implied targets due to the awareness they gain, but the hidden creature is rather explicitly the target, and that creature is being affected because their undetected condition is being downgraded to hidden. Although, I suppose Castilliano made a good point that the word "target" could be a mistake, since the word "target" only appears there and not at the start of the description.
And there's no requirement that the allies can target the creature. They just need to be able to detect the creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature. And I don't think there are any single target effects that have a reminder to make the flat check due to hidden/undetected, because that's the default for everything that isn't an area effect.
Nope, Point Out is not literally targeting the creature. It does literally say, "target," but that is a misnomer. The writer used the wrong word probably due to thinking of the undetected creature as a future target for the allies. But that creature is not being targeted by Point Out.
If SuperParkourio insists on following the poorly-worded phrase, then take a closer look at Hidden: "A creature you're hidden from is off-guard to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you." The target is not affected by Point Out, so failing a DC 11 flat check would have the same result as succeeding at the DC 11 flat check. So why make the flat check?
Likewise, a character could make a Recall Knowledge check against a hidden creature ("While my allies are trying to find the hidden Will-o'-Wisp, I try to remember my school lessons about it."). Though the Recall Knowledge action lacks the word "target." Likewise, the Seek action can be used against a hidden or undetected creature, though it also carefully avoids the word "target."
I remember back in PF1, we roleplayed pointing out an invisible creature as a free action. "My character yells, 'The invisible creature is 10 feet left of the northeast corner.'" The Point Out action formalizes that roleplaying but made it take a single action. Even in PF2 I sometimes allow my players to skip the Point Out action. "The ranger successfully hit the invisible creature with an arrow. You all now know which square it is in. It is only hidden to you."
To answer the title question: No.
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature.To continue the discussion:
Point Out doesn't actually target the hidden creature. It doesn't actually list any target at all. The implied targets would be either or both of: your allies, or the square(s) that the creature is in.
The requirement that the allies could 'potentially target the creature' doesn't make the creature the target of your action.
What do you mean by "listing" a target? It says "the target." Why isn't that enough? The allies could be implied targets due to the awareness they gain, but the hidden creature is rather explicitly the target, and that creature is being affected because their undetected condition is being downgraded to hidden. Although, I suppose Castilliano made a good point that the word "target" could be a mistake, since the word "target" only appears there and not at the start of the description.
And there's no requirement that the allies can target the creature. They just need to be able to detect the creature.
I think that Finoan means that Point Out lacks a Targets line like spells have. For example, Mending says, "Range touch; Targets non-magical object of light Bulk or less." But that is a moot point, because non-spell effects don't list targets that way. For example, Strike does not have a Targets line, even though it definitely targets a creature or object.
And there's no requirement that the allies can target the creature. They just need to be able to detect the creature.
However you want to word it, the result is that the limitation with the word 'target' that you bolded is a limitation on which allies you can target with Point Out.
You can only target allies who are "in a position where they could potentially detect the target".
That does not make the creature the target of Point Out.
When you use Point Out, the allies only know the squares that the creature is in. That is why the enemy becomes Hidden instead of Undetected.
That also implies that the square of the creature's location is the target of Point Out, not the creature itself.
Yes, overloading the word 'target' in the description may be an error. A better phrasing for the rule may be something like:
This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially target the square you are indicating towards.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other people have commented on the targeting bits sufficiently, but even if we ignore all of that Point Out isn't an attack, spell, and doesn't apply an effect to the creature.
So even if we assume the targeting is meant to be explicit you can make a pretty good argument it's none of the things that require flat checks anyways.
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature. And I don't think there are any single target effects that have a reminder to make the flat check due to hidden/undetected, because that's the default for everything that isn't an area effect.Nope, Point Out is not literally targeting the creature. It does literally say, "target," but that is a misnomer. The writer used the wrong word probably due to thinking of the undetected creature as a future target for the allies. But that creature is not being targeted by Point Out.
Fair point. I could see that mistake being made by the author.
If SuperParkourio insists on following the poorly-worded phrase, then take a closer look at Hidden: "A creature you're hidden from is off-guard to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you." The target is not affected by Point Out, so failing a DC 11 flat check would have the same result as succeeding at the DC 11 flat check. So why make the flat check?
Well, the target is being affected. The conditions may be relative to the observer, but it's still the hidden/undetected creature who has those conditions. But I agree that the manner in which the hidden creature is affected doesn't really have anything to do with where they are within their square.
Likewise, a character could make a Recall Knowledge check against a hidden creature ("While my allies are trying to find the hidden Will-o'-Wisp, I try to remember my school lessons about it."). Though the Recall Knowledge action lacks the word "target." Likewise, the Seek action can be used against a hidden or undetected creature, though it also carefully avoids the word "target."
I don't think Recall Knowledge is even targeting the creature. The knowledge is presumably already in your brain, so you could do it from anywhere. Also, Seek does target, but it does so as an area effect, so it would ignore the hidden condition anyway.
I remember back in PF1, we roleplayed pointing out an invisible creature as a free action. "My character yells, 'The invisible creature is 10 feet left of the northeast corner.'" The Point Out action formalizes that roleplaying but made it take a single action. Even in PF2 I sometimes allow my players to skip the Point Out action. "The ranger successfully hit the invisible creature with an arrow. You all now know which square it is in. It is only hidden to you."
If you hit a hidden creature despite the flat check, the rules say you are still off-guard to the hidden creature, which I guess means they're still hidden, and their Stealth state is unaffected. No such clarification is provided for hitting an undetected creature, though you're probably supposed to know that both secret rolls succeeded. Maybe they didn't want to get into it because of the possibility of a Large invisible creature? If you successfully attacked a square occupied by such a creature, that wouldn't reveal all the squares the creature occupies, or maybe it should for simplicity's sake? But if the creature is Medium or smaller, that should probably lower it to hidden for everyone who witnessed the attack.
For example, Strike does not have a Targets line, even though it definitely targets a creature or object.
Side tangent, but Strike being able to target unattended objects has been the subject of many debates here and on Reddit. There are rules for attacking objects, but the Strike action RAW is not one of the attacks that can target objects. However, a lot of features break if Strike can't target unattended objects, so I'm of the opinion that it can.
The creature being pointed out is neither hidden nor undetected by the person using the action to point it out, so they can target that creature without rolling.
Like the only way that "they are hiding behind the curtains" can fail is if your allies can't hear/understand you.
The creature being pointed out is neither hidden nor undetected by the person using the action to point it out, so they can target that creature without rolling."isn't undetected by you" It can be hidden. And it can be concealed.
Yup, the can / cannot threshold of being able to Point Out is whether or not you would be able to hit them with a square-based AoE and 0 flat check.
You need to be aware of where something is, and can then share that where to your party without a flat check.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm going to bring up the 8th level Druid Feat "Can't You See?" which *does* put limitations on Point Out.
The eye rebels, the mind recoils—no matter how much those who can see you try to explain what's there, their friends' gazes just skitter over you, like a bird afraid to land. A character who attempts to Point Out your location must attempt a DC 14 flat check. If they fail, their allies misunderstand them and aren't sure where you are. On a critical failure, their allies think they pointed you out in a different location entirely, chosen by the GM. Similarly, when a creature critically fails to Seek you while you're hidden to or undetected by it, it thinks you're in a different location chosen by the GM. In either case, you appear to be hidden to a creature that thinks you're in a different location, though you're actually undetected by it for targeting and further uses of the Seek action.
If, under ordinary circumstance, it were intended that you make a DC 11 flat check to Point Out, then the wording on this feat would refer to *increasing* the DC to DC 14.
But also, increasing a situational Flat DC by 3 would be a terrible L8 feat. Increasing a similar Flat Check by 2 is a level 1 ancestry feat.