I would like some clarification on a scenario that affected our party a few weeks ago. Our group has hashed it out internally to a solution that works for us, but I'd love to hear some wider feedback on the situation.
As background to the scenario in question, our party was attempting to sneak up on a potential enemy in a cave. We rolled initiative with our stealth. A couple of characters rolled well and beat the enemy perception DC, but several others did not. And to complicate it further, the enemy rolled their initiative well and went before any of the player characters.
Having been alerted to our party's presence, it is the first enemy's turn. It knows there are at least some enemies outside the cave entrance. So it uses its first two actions to stride just outside the entrance of the cave.
Here is where things got contentious in our group. The enemy used its third action to strike the Wayang Thaumaturge that had been one of the few to remain undetected at the start of combat. The GM argued (and several of us supported) that since there was no reasonable cover or concealment for the Thaumaturge, the Thaumaturge should be Observed, and therefore attackable. The Thaumaturge assented but also asked for a deeper dive post session.
At first, I too believed that since there was no longer cover between the undetected Thaum and the enemy, they should no longer be Undetected and instead be Observed. But on closer inspection of the rules, that does not seem to be the case.
First, the rules for Undetected condition itself don't list any scenarios for removing Undetected other than the Seek action.
We were using Avoid Notice, whose rules seem to be sparse, but do seem to point to Sneak action as a way to adjudicate here:
Avoid Notice wrote: If you're Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results). And while the Hide action has a bit of text that clearly addresses this:
Hide wrote: If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. The correlated rule in the Sneak is not so symmetrical, only automatically becoming observed as a result of Sneak action, not just for losing Cover/Concealment
Sneak wrote: You don't get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature.
Success You're undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.
You become observed as soon as you do anything other than Hide, Sneak, or Step. If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed. If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act unless the GM determines otherwise. The GM might allow you to perform a particularly unobtrusive action without being noticed, possibly requiring another Stealth check. If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become hidden instead of undetected.
If a creature uses Seek and you become hidden to it as a result, you must Sneak if you want to become undetected by that creature again.
All these ways of becoming Observed require actions by the Undetected character, other than Seek for a potential observer.
This caused a bit of stir in our group as we debated things like 20 Orcs avoiding notice in a room behind a closed door that no one can see once you open the door. Ultimately, we came to a compromise that an Undetected character would become Observed if they lose their cover/concealment and have no reasonable way to say they are still "hiding". It's not really RAW, but at least makes us happy and allows some verisimilitude we think.
But I'm also curious what the broader community thinks here. I did a lot of research before I wrote this, and I couldn't find any community discussions on this particular scenario. Lots of great discussions on how to use the various stealth rules, but nothing from the perspective of a potential Observer who uses Stride to a position where an Undetected Creature no longer has Cover or Concealment.
I'm not to sure on what it is exactly that want clarification.
But yes, Creatures automatically observe something in plain sight. That is a creature that lacks atleast standard cover or concealment. It is covered under senses under Perception and Detection
Player Core pg. 433 2.0 "Precise Sense" wrote: 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 This remains rather symmetrical with
Player Core pg. 244 2.0 "Stealth/Hide" wrote: If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. So yeah, if you open a door and 20 orcs are hiding in the room, then those 20 orcs all need their own hiding spot. Barring any purple ones with Legendary Sneak.
There is a segment in the GM core in regards to how you set up the encounter and marching order to accompany characters attempting to be stealthy, but this does not seem like the issue here.
NorrKnekten wrote: I'm not to sure on what it is exactly that want clarification.
But yes, Creatures automatically observe something in plain sight. That is a creature that lacks atleast standard cover or concealment. It is covered under senses under Perception and Detection
Player Core pg. 433 2.0 "Precise Sense" wrote: 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 This remains rather symmetrical with
Player Core pg. 244 2.0 "Stealth/Hide" wrote: If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. So yeah, if you open a door and 20 orcs are hiding in the room, then those 20 orcs all need their own hiding spot. Barring any purple ones with Legendary Sneak.
I think the clarification I want is why is that rule there for Hide but not for Sneak? To me, that implies that Undetected has a higher threshold for detection than Hidden does.
Maybe Hide in particular is just a poorly written action? Perhaps the verbiage that says if you lose your concealment/cover is superfluous? To me, it seems to be put there with a purpose, and then it is purposely different in the Sneak rules.
NorrKnekten wrote:
There is a segment in the GM core in regards to how you set up the encounter and marching order to accompany characters attempting to be stealthy, but this does not seem like the issue here.
Yeah, not the issue here. That's also confusing and difficult to get through all the rules on it, but it is there and consistent. We may not have run it exactly correct here, but that wasn't really the issue.
The asymmetry is because Sneak is to stay hidden while it is your turn, but Hide is to stay hidden while it is the enemy's turn.
If you do something that breaks stealth such as attacking or moving out into the open, then your stealth status changes to Observed during or right after your action.
If the enemies do something that causes you to lose your cover or concealment, then your stealth status changes to Observed during or right after their action.
jhuns wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: I'm not to sure on what it is exactly that want clarification.
But yes, Creatures automatically observe something in plain sight. That is a creature that lacks atleast standard cover or concealment. It is covered under senses under Perception and Detection
Player Core pg. 433 2.0 "Precise Sense" wrote: 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 This remains rather symmetrical with
Player Core pg. 244 2.0 "Stealth/Hide" wrote: If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. So yeah, if you open a door and 20 orcs are hiding in the room, then those 20 orcs all need their own hiding spot. Barring any purple ones with Legendary Sneak.
I think the clarification I want is why is that rule there for Hide but not for Sneak? To me, that implies that Undetected has a higher threshold for detection than Hidden does.
Maybe Hide in particular is just a poorly written action? Perhaps the verbiage that says if you lose your concealment/cover is superfluous? To me, it seems to be put there with a purpose, and then it is purposely different in the Sneak rules.
NorrKnekten wrote:
There is a segment in the GM core in regards to how you set up the encounter and marching order to accompany characters attempting to be stealthy, but this does not seem like the issue here.
Yeah, not the issue here. That's also confusing and difficult to get through all the rules on it, but it is there and consistent. We may not have run it exactly correct here, but that wasn't really the issue. Sneak is just the movement from place A to place B while remaining hidden.
That's why Sneak says that if by the end of the movement you do not have cover/concealment, you automatically become observed.
But on another's creature's turn, even if you manage to Sneak from behind boulder A to behind boulder B, if the creature moves behind the boulders, he can now clearly see you.
---
Hide/Sneak is very intuitive in the system once you get it once right. To put it in simple terms:
You are standing behind a boulder not tall enough to fully cover you:
You are observed by the enemy since he can see you, but you have some cover from the boulder.
You Hide behind said boulder on your turn: You are now Hidden. That means the enemy can't see you, but he knows you are there.
You stealthily move (Sneak) from behind the boulder you were to another point that the creature still doesn't see you. Assuming you roll high enough, you move without making noise and without the enemy seeing you during that move.
Now the enemy knows you are somewhere, but doesn't know if you are still behing boulder A, you moved behind boulder B, you are behind Tree A, tree B, or anywhere really: you are Undetected by the enemy.
The enemy never even knew you were in the room: Unoticed.
The rules for stealth and stealth actions are all written on the same page. And both have text for what happens if you suddenly lose concealment/Cover, The only difference is that Sneak only really considers what happens during your movement since you typically would already need to have hidden yourself, and that it allows you to move unconcealed through an area and still remain unobserved provided you end your movement in a good hiding spot. It doesn't need to repeat what has already been said earlier on the exact same page.
Hide wrote: If you successfully become hidden to a creature but then cease to have cover or greater cover against it or be concealed from it, you become observed again. Sneak wrote: You don't get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature. It also doesn't need to mention all the other rules that are connected, like senses, or the Degrees of Detection conditions. Or the extra clarifications that comes after on the same page Being stealthy wrote: Some actions can cause you to become observed again, but they're mostly what you'd expect: standing out in the open attacking someone, making a bunch of noise, and so forth. I am not sure what you mean by detection threshhold, But you arent harder to observe by being undetected, by default you automatically become observed by the exact same criteria regardless of your previous degree of detection; When a creature detects you with a precise sense such as sight and you are neither obscured or hiding.
TLDR: Wall of text doing a deep dive on a minor issue of nuance. I think the other posters here have the correct ruling, but I disagree on how they came to that conclusion.
Let me take a step back and try to clarify my own position here. I agree with the sentiment that it is intended that if Creature A is undetected by Creature B, but Creature B strides to a position in which Creature A no longer has cover/concealment from Creature B, then Creature A should no longer be Undetected and is now Observed. But I also don't think that intended effect is well supported by the rules. For most of the rest of this discussion, I'll refer to Creature A as the "observee" and Creature B as the "observer."
First, the perception and detection rules are pretty clear to me that the Sneak action involves a different form of hiding than the Hide action:
Perception and Detection/Senses/Detecting With Other Senses wrote: The Stealth skill is designed to use Hide for avoiding visual detection and Avoid Notice and Sneak to avoid being both seen and heard. This is highly consistent with how precise and imprecise senses work. If Sneak only ever avoided observation from the precise visual sense like Hide, it could never let the creature be Undetected since they would always have been observed by the imprecise sense of hearing. For this discussion, I'm only considering the default case of all observers and observees having the standard senses of precise sight, imprecise hearing, and vague sense of smell. There are obviously other combinations of senses, but the rules are awesome here too, describing how you might use the Hide and Sneak actions differently depending on the precise or imprecise senses you want to avoid.
This leads me to conclude that Sneak and Hide are fundamentally different types of actions. This is backed up by how the descriptions for Hide and Sneak are also written very differently.
Furthermore, Undetected is a different condition than Hidden. Hidden is not a sub condition of Undetected. No definition of Undetected says that the creature is also Hidden.
When can an observer observe an observee? Also from the Perception and Detection section:
Perception and Detection/Detecting Creatures/Observed wrote: In most circumstances, you can sense creatures without difficulty and target them normally. Creatures in this state are observed. Observing requires a precise sense Awesome. Most circumstances are covered. My character can see things they can see without much hassle.
However, I am not sure that when an observee is Sneaking, actively trying to avoid detection, counts as "most circumstances." So we need to dig a little deeper. How can an observer detect an Undetected Observee?
Perception and Detection/Detecting Creatures/Undetected wrote: If a creature is undetected, you don't know what space it occupies, you're off-guard to it, and you can't easily target it. Using the Seek basic action can help you find an undetected creature, usually making it hidden from you instead of undetected. Only Seek action is specified here as a way for an observer to change the degree of detection of an Undetected creature. The Undetected condition also only specifies Seek.
Finally, we look to the Sneak action, which I showed above also only has Seek as a way for an observer to change the observee's degree of detection from Undetected.
At no point in the scenario in question was the Hide action taken. So I don't understand why its conditions and rules would apply here. I only pointed it out in my original post because I was showing how its rules contrasted with the rules of Sneak.
It is from this that I think the rules imply the only way (feats/spells/abilities notwithstanding) for an observer to change the degree of detection of an observee is the Seek action.
Now for the case against this conclusion
Now, are there possible holes to this? I've seen a couple potentials, but they are scattered and less definite than I would prefer.
1. The Observed condition's opening line in the conditions index.
Conditions List/Observed wrote: Anything in plain view is observed by you. This is actually probably the strongest case for a previously Undetected creature becoming Observed. However, I'm not completely convinced that a creature whose last action was Sneak is going to be in Plain View. After all, that creature has taken "measures to avoid detection, such as by using Stealth to Hide" which is in the very next line. Additionally, is this the only condition written from this perspective? It's written from the Observer point of view instead of the Observee. That's the opposite of all the other degrees of detection conditions, and the opposite of all the other conditions I've read so far.
2. I am misreading the opening line of the Undetected condition
Conditions List/Undetected wrote: When you are undetected by a creature, that creature can't see you at all, has no idea what space you occupy, and can't target you I am wondering if the list "can't see you, no idea space, can't target" is a list or requirements rather than a descriptor of state. I don't think I've misread this, since the Undetected by a creature is the clause this is preceded by "when", not the list that follows.
3. Unobservable Stealth, an exception that proves the rule?
Stealth/Unobservable Stealth wrote: In some cases, it can be impossible for a creature to fully observe you. Typically this happens if you're invisible, the observer is blinded, or you're in darkness and the creature can't see in darkness. In such cases, any critical failure you roll on a check to Sneak is a failure instead. You also continue to be undetected if you lose cover or greater cover against or are no longer concealed from such a creature. Okay, I lied with the Observed condition, this is actually probably the best case for reading the rules toward the original intention as I stated at the beginning. I'm not sure why they would need to specify the final, bolded sentence, unless as an observee you would normally become Observed when you lose cover/concealment. I don't like interpreting rules based on exceptions without something written that it is excepting, but the implication is strongest here.
Final thoughts
I think I'm ultimately just frustrated. PF2 typically has very tight, concise, and consistent rules for so many scenarios. I enjoy that I don't have to "just intuit" how something should work most of the time. And so by contrast, the situations where you do need to do that are all the more noticeable.
Really, it's a tiny nitpick for an otherwise fun system of stealth. I have other issues with some of the design choices for stealth in this game, but they feel more like preference than this particular issue I found. I wanted to post about it because I like this game and want to talk about its peculiarities. I think carefully designed, well-crafted rules deserve careful reading.
And don't read Hide too closely, or you'll notice there's a whole sentence in there that does nothing.
Not doing a rules deep dive on this, but the scenario as I understand it is:
Creature is undetected as it is outside a cave, thus having cover from the enemy.
On the enemy's turn, it moves outside the cave. This movement removes any cover between the PC and the enemy. At the end of the movement, the PC becomes observed by the enemy.
The enemy attacks with its remaining action.
The only thing I'm unsure about is when exactly the PC becomes observed by the enemy. It might be when there is no longer cover between its position as it moves instead of at the end of its action.
I dont think there is any raw on exactly when one becomes observed if its the creature that moves and much like many other scenarios its going to be up to the GM to determine that depending on "what makes sense" But the RAW is rather clear that they are observed by the time the creature can take its other action.
As for Juhl
Theres a few holes in there but you are correct where the holes lie.
---------------------
1: "Anything in plain view is observed by you."
While this doesn't point to anything in specific it does circle back to what Precise Sense says since that defines both plain view and what happens to hidden creatures. Which is that a creature automatically observes another if the observee is not hiding or obscured. If you are being stealthy you are using the stealth skill, which does state that you become observed if you lose concealment or cover even independently of hide or sneak as you don't need to have done either to have become hidden.
---------------
2: Its a description of state so you arent really misreading it, But it isn't "your" state, but a state relative to the viewer and how well it senses you Senses wrote: The primary concepts you need to know for understanding senses are precise senses, imprecise senses, and the three states of detection a target can be in: observed, hidden, or undetected. and Detecting Creatures wrote: Three conditions measure the degree to which you can sense a creature: observed, hidden, and undetected. However, the concealed and invisible conditions can partially mask a creature, and the unnoticed condition indicates you have no idea a creature is around.
With the exception of invisible, these conditions are relative to the viewer—it's possible for a creature to be observed to you but hidden from your ally.
A creature can both be observed and undetected by two separate creatures, Depending on what senses they are currently able to sense the creature with. After all.. the thaumaturge was not undetected to the party on the other side of the wall.
-----------------
3: You basically got this one just on the head, Its also on the same page that explains that as long as you are within a clear view you are observed, and hidden creatures become observed when no longer benefitting from cover/concealment.
--
Basically, you cannot have a discussion about stealth without also having a discussion about senses.
I would also say that you might want to get used with scentences that do nothing, They like to add clarifying text without properly showing that it is, I've had players point to that line and say the ghoul couldn't possibly have become undetected by sneaking after having moved around a corner.
It takes some work to wrap your heads around stealth for sure, Theres plenty of discussions here on the forums in regards to how one should handle its nuances. Plenty of Youtube videos too, some of them good, some of them missleading. Which in typical Logan Bonner fasion is probably best explained as, "Apply common sense where neccesary"
It is relevant when a creature loses its hidden status by nature of removing cover between the creatures, as a creature might realize the hidden creature is now present, and thus alter the course of their movement.
Nothing about striding requires you to settle on a final destination, thus you could be possibly become aware of the creature mid stride and react to that information.
Honestly that's probably how I'd run it, because it makes the most sense to me, but still not sure about the RAW.
Thats how I typically run it too, with some exceptions such as a creature or player being focused on something else.
After are, They are observed by the end of the stride regardless of when during the stride they become observed.
I still wish the part about going from Hidden to Observed would be moved out of the Hide action. Or even if it remains there, it feels like a more fundamental rule than a specific rule for the Hide action. Afterall, there are other ways to become Hidden that don't require Hide, and basically all of those would also be rendered moot if cover/concealment is lost.
NorrKnekten wrote: ---------------------
1: "Anything in plain view is observed by you."
While this doesn't point to anything in specific it does circle back to what Precise Sense says since that defines both plain view and what happens to hidden creatures. Which is that a creature automatically observes another if the observee is not hiding or obscured. If you are being stealthy you are using the stealth skill, which does state that you become observed if you lose concealment or cover even independently of hide or sneak as you don't need to have done either to have become hidden.
---------------
What our Thaum argued is that they were indeed hiding, and therefore not in plain view. This is why I wish the rule about becoming Observed when losing cover should not be hidden (heh) in the Hide action.
Claxon wrote: It is relevant when a creature loses its hidden status by nature of removing cover between the creatures, as a creature might realize the hidden creature is now present, and thus alter the course of their movement. Yeah, I think this is relevant too. It also started to make me wonder if there were any weird edge cases with some of the activities that have Stride as a sub-action where you might not know where an opponent is, but think you do. So you stride and then...can you redirect mid activity toward the now Observed enemy?
Well, depending on how a GM does movement... Since theres no RAW on exactly how movement is done, you could maybe even redirect in the middle of a stride.
As said, Apply common sense where needed. as it does not make sense for a character to walk around the corner, and not react to a gelatinious cube thats plainly visible and instead just walk straight into it.
I do think there's a bit of an intuitive conflict here, insofar as your ability to use Avoid Notice, to subsequently roll Stealth as initiative, and parse that by following the rules in "Initiative with Hidden Enemies" isn't really dependent on the map... but whether you're in plain sight is pretty clearly dependent on the map.
I'm not sure there's a clear answer to this one, honestly. I think it's just an artifact of transitioning from loose, abstracted exploration rules (where the game just assumes you have a way to hide or stealth regardless of the actual terrain) to tighter grid-based combat system with a fixed map (where that assumption can quickly be broken). The GM is kind of left to decide how to square that difference.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Witch of Miracles wrote: I do think there's a bit of an intuitive conflict here, insofar as your ability to use Avoid Notice, to subsequently roll Stealth as initiative, and parse that by following the rules in "Initiative with Hidden Enemies" isn't really dependent on the map... but whether you're in plain sight is pretty clearly dependent on the map.
I'm not sure there's a clear answer to this one, honestly. I think it's just an artifact of transitioning from loose, abstracted exploration rules (where the game just assumes you have a way to hide or stealth regardless of the actual terrain) to tighter grid-based combat system with a fixed map (where that assumption can quickly be broken). The GM is kind of left to decide how to square that difference.
I wouldn't allow people to Avoid Notice if there was no cover or concealment to hide behind, and place them at the nearest cover point where they would be able to peak around and see the enemy when initiative is rolled.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think Captain Morgan is correct in regards to the RAW, but if they were trying to be stealthy and was avoiding notice then ofcourse they should be able to roll stealth as initiative as thats what they were doing regardless on if they were seen or not, but depending on if you used the grid or not during exploration you will either expect them to only move from cover to cover where possible while loosely following marching order, or be within suitable hiding places.
Placing Characters on the Map, Source GM Core pg. 25 2.0 wrote: If the PCs are already moving on a grid, as often happens in small dungeons, you already know where they are when they roll initiative. If they’re moving in free-form exploration, place them on the map when they roll initiative. The fastest way is to have the players set up their miniatures or tokens in a basic marching order ahead of time, then just move them onto the map in that formation. When that doesn’t work, such as when one or more PCs were in a different location or the map doesn’t fit the marching order, you can either set up the PC minis yourself, then ask if everybody is happy with where they are, or have the players place their own minis. If you find having the players do it themselves causes too much indecision (especially if they try to count out distances in advance), you can switch methods. Remember to place characters using Stealth in reasonable hiding spots, even if that means you have to adjust the marching order to do so. None of that really matters once the first round starts though, If you are standing in the open you are found, And if you are just standing in the open during exploration you will also be found and an encounter might start regardless.
Avoid notice is not so much that you can sneak independent of terrain or map, (See Terrain Stalker) but rather that it asssumes you begin sneaking while unseen and can thus remain unnoticed until something would take notice of you, And GM can make you roll again for whenever the situation changes and you risk being found. This makes yet more sense when you consider that Avoid Notice is just Sneak repeated just like all the other exploration activities are shorthand for "My character repeats x-action".
NorrKnekten wrote: Placing Characters on the Map, Source GM Core pg. 25 2.0 wrote: Book Citation Thank you for finding this, I was about to go start looking because I thought I remembered guidelines covering this situation, but wasn't sure exactly where.
Captain Morgan wrote: I wouldn't allow people to Avoid Notice if there was no cover or concealment to hide behind, and place them at the nearest cover point where they would be able to peak around and see the enemy when initiative is rolled. This is a sensible fiction-first way to handle it, but I can already think of at least one case where AP text is written as though the party members are allowed to use Avoid Notice while traveling along what look like open roads or similar on the map—and it has the mechanical effect of reducing the flat check for random encounters.
NorrKnekten wrote: rules snip That is a good catch, though that admittedly doesn't say what to do if the map lacks reasonable hiding spots. The "you're just seen" interpretation is clearly consistent with the other rules, though, yeah.
Witch of Miracles wrote: Captain Morgan wrote: I wouldn't allow people to Avoid Notice if there was no cover or concealment to hide behind, and place them at the nearest cover point where they would be able to peak around and see the enemy when initiative is rolled. This is a sensible fiction-first way to handle it, but I can already think of at least one case where AP text is written as though the party members are allowed to use Avoid Notice while traveling along what look like open roads or similar on the map—and it has the mechanical effect of reducing the flat check for random encounters. The hexploration rules are janky so I'd be careful about extrapolating regular exploration mode from them. Random encounter rules can also be janky-- Kingmakers are famously borked. If we are talking regular exploration for this AP... Open roads doesn't necessarily mean unlimited visibility, and if the party is moving at half speed they might be traveling off the road anyway. If they are in a truly featureless plain but really wanted to Avoid Notice, the GM could also give them concealment with fog or precipitation. A specific battle mao may also be lacking in cover, but that's an arbitrary point along the journey where the party is more likely to be spotted.
There's a lot of flexibility, is what I'm saying, so sensibility and fiction first can get you pretty far. While Pathfinder certainly has gamified elements that require some mental gymnastics to justify, I don't think they extend as far as "I can't see the person standing in front of me."
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
