Goblinworks Blog: You've Got the Brawn, I've Got the Brains


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is that, unless your scouting element is itself using stealth (which was not part of your example as written) they CANNOT see the stealthers before the stealthers see them. All other things equal, it is literally impossible for one character who is not using stealth to see another character who is using stealth first. The best he can get is 90% of the vision range the stealther has, assuming the stealther has not trained stealth at all.

I realise I'm picking needlessly at your example, but I only wanted to point out that characters cannot only use Perception and expect to see a stealther first. I agree that mixed unit tactics are strong, and that a group entirely composed of stealthers would have to give up a lot of other training for that.

Finally, IMO it's rather rude language to say "X is going to take a dirt nap", as that's vaguely threatening language and certainly pointed (didn't bring it up the first time, but you repeated it and I would rather people didn't get each other needlessly worked up over diction). Summer didn't even say he/she planned on maxing stealth, only asking why the majority of characters wouldn't rush to max it. As is, any person planning to run around solo at all would be very well served by taking levels of stealth.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I'm assuming that stealth also reduces movement speed, making it very much a situational benefit rather than something that passively reduces detection range.

A passive reduction in detection and targeting range might be too useful, depending on the opportunity cost.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
I'm assuming that stealth also reduces movement speed, making it very much a situational benefit rather than something that passively reduces detection range.

They never mentioned anything about it reducing movement speed, and given how weak it is in its current state, I don't think they'd be dumb enough to make stealth THAT much of a joke...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PnP rules dictate you move at half your normal movement rate. Anything above that rate gives you penalties. I hope PFO follows a similar route.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think that the "stealth stance" will be an normal speed.

The crucial element is that Stealth stance is not a stance from which you can make attacks; as soon as you try to make an attack, you'll go into a normal combat stance (and "combat stance" should be understood to be different from "in combat"). We need to work through all the permutations on exactly when you can reenter Stealth vs. how long you'll stay in combat after you stop making and taking attacks.


Harad Navar wrote:

I don't think that the "stealth stance" will be an normal speed.

The crucial element is that Stealth stance is not a stance from which you can make attacks; as soon as you try to make an attack, you'll go into a normal combat stance (and "combat stance" should be understood to be different from "in combat"). We need to work through all the permutations on exactly when you can reenter Stealth vs. how long you'll stay in combat after you stop making and taking attacks.

That quote suggests nothing about stealth speed.

Goblin Squad Member

If anything that particular quote suggests the opposite, so I will agree that it was, perhaps, not the greatest choice. If I had to guess between a combat or an non-combat stance being slower, I would put my money on the combat. Though I do agree that I see stealthed movement have penalties, hopefully they aren't nearly as prohibitive as 50%, at least not when trained. However, as with all things numerative, that doesn't matter until players are actually in the game and we can test things out.

If the system they design requires a movement penalty to remain balanced, then it shall have a movement penalty. That the tabletop happens to have one means nothing, as the tabletop system is about as far away from balanced as one can be. Especially when it comes to rogues.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Qallz wrote:
Harad Navar wrote:

I don't think that the "stealth stance" will be an normal speed.

The crucial element is that Stealth stance is not a stance from which you can make attacks; as soon as you try to make an attack, you'll go into a normal combat stance (and "combat stance" should be understood to be different from "in combat"). We need to work through all the permutations on exactly when you can reenter Stealth vs. how long you'll stay in combat after you stop making and taking attacks.
That quote suggests nothing about stealth speed.

"Whenever you're in Stealth stance (your typical crouched, sneaky walk), ..."

that does suggest a speed reduction, by reference to every game which implements stealth as a 'crouched, sneaky walk'.

Goblin Squad Member

How many games have stealth at full speed? I can't think of one, but I don't always play rogues.


I don't really care, stealth is going to be a joke either way, as I've said 100x now. Give them full speed, give them half speed, double speed... who cares? If you can be seen from a mile away I guess it's a mute point anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

The people who want to play a rogue and not just a buster class that strikes from the shadows. They're probably the ones that care.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

@Mbando, the point Summer's making is that, as your group isn't stealthed, he won't be taking any dirtnaps from those characters, because he will always see them first and can gauge them and leave them alone if they seem like too much of a threat. Or, if he really wants to kill them, he can call up his buddies and tail your group while stealthed. Having max perception is only half the equation; if you don't also stealth, you will always be spotted first. It then follows that the only time you'll be fighting stealthed characters is when those characters are confident in their ability to beat you.

I like the idea of most groups bringing along some stealthed bodyguards to accompany the non-stealth members. The enemies would gauge them from afar, move closer into the spotting range for max perception, and then have to do some quick and likely chaotic reevaluation when the stealthed guards start appearing for them. :)

This assumes that all groups won't have a stealthed contingent patrolling around it as they move. Any group that has hostile intent and tries to move into max Perception range would equally be in max Perception range of those they are trying to sneak closer to and would be a risk also of being spotted.

I see more of a tactical dance between opposing stealth having characters and their commander's ability to employ/deploy them. If the attacker's stealth scouts are spotted by the defender's stealth scouts attacker/defender roles could get quickly reversed.

Edit: Just reread the highlighted and we are essentially saying the same. Comprehension fail on my part. It's late and I need to go to bed, lol!

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
How many games have stealth at full speed? I can't think of one, but I don't always play rogues.

Rift. My version of Hobs in Rift can move at full speed while stealthing. I built him partially as an assassin to get stealth so that I could harvest more easily in higher level zones. The speed boost options in the skill tree help me get from node to node quicker without being spotted by mobs.

Goblin Squad Member

*"I don't always play rogues, but when I do I drink dos Equis, stay thirsty my friends."

*moot

On stealth it depends what's acceptable decimal increase per skill-training stealth or perception and how attenuated that is and how it matches to the distances involved.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
...stealth is going to be a joke either way, as I've said 100x now.

Because you've made your opinion completely clear, could you please (I mean please with all courtesy, and no intended irony) consider not re-stating it so many times until and unless you've something to add or change? It's a bit monotonous to know as soon as I see your avatar what you're about to say.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Qallz,

I'm not seeing (no pun intended) the problem with the stealth system. Form my reading, and just using the equal stealth vs. perception example, the victim of the stealthier opponent would not be able to see or target the stealthier person beyond 50% of normal sighting / targeting range.

A maximum stealth vs. minimum perception would be undetected up until the stealthier person enters the final 10% of the sighting / targeting range.

This does not take into account any terrain modifiers, which I'm hoping there will be some. There may also be the effect of structures (ie hideouts or secret hatches) that may further modify that range. Even clothing could play a role in adding additional modifiers.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
... as I've said 100x now. ...it's a mute point anyway.

Then stop being snarky and stop saying it, Haldir.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
I don't really care, stealth is going to be a joke either way, as I've said 100x now.

Well, you've certainly been repetitive and conssitent :)

Look, Qallz, let's pick the most likely of these three frames:

1) GW is staffed by complete poltroons who couldn't design their way out of paper bag, and you with your expert knowledge and singular experience of "having played DAoC," can immediately make an authoritative, completely accurate forecast that stealth is teh suck, is 100% broken, and it's all just a bitter joke and trust me I know I am a interwebz expert.

2) GW is staffed by evil trolls who on purpose proposed the stupidest, most broken stealth mechanic in teh worlds. Why? 'Casue reasons, and you with your expert knowledge and singular experience of "having played DAoC," can immediately make an authoritative, completely accurate forecast that stealth is teh suck, is 100% broken, and it's all just a bitter joke and trust me I know I am a interwebz expert.

3) GW gave us a preview of the basic design principles behind their proposed stealth mechanic (e.g. opposed stealth/perception checks, stealth as a perception distance mitigation, role feature exclusivity creating trade-offs, stealth-break on attack, stealth being intermediated by mobility/evade feats) and you immediately jumped the gun with assumptions and are throwing an internet pity-party because the proposed mechanic isn't word-for-word what you wanted to hear.

I know this is going to sound crazy, but I'm leaning towards taking number three. And I'm pretty confident--I played in the EQ beta 4, so I know pretty much everything about game design ;)

Seriously though Qallz, maybe just back off the ledge here a bit? :) Just consider the possibility you're over-reacting a smidge?


Hardin Steele wrote:
Qallz wrote:
... as I've said 100x now. ...it's a mute point anyway.
Then stop being snarky and stop saying it, Haldir.

Craig Parker ftw.


Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Qallz,

I'm not seeing (no pun intended) the problem with the stealth system. Form my reading, and just using the equal stealth vs. perception example, the victim of the stealthier opponent would not be able to see or target the stealthier person beyond 50% of normal sighting / targeting range.

A maximum stealth vs. minimum perception would be undetected up until the stealthier person enters the final 10% of the sighting / targeting range.

This does not take into account any terrain modifiers, which I'm hoping there will be some. There may also be the effect of structures (ie hideouts or secret hatches) that may further modify that range. Even clothing could play a role in adding additional modifiers.

Because I assume that the "normal sighting" is extremely far away... as it's 2013 and in this day and age, character models can render from pretty damn far away. So 50% is not very useful to melee'er, and only of minimal use to a ranged attacker (if any).

People will be running around with speed buffs and on mounts, and if they can see a stealther from 150 feet away (or if just one person in the group can), they can go over and roll him in no time, and there's not much he can do about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:
knowledge and singular experience of "having played DAoC,"

I've played other games, but you have to take into account that people who've played DAoC know everything there is to know about MMORPGs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Mbando wrote:
knowledge and singular experience of "having played DAoC,"
I've played other games, but you have to take into account that people who've played DAoC know everything there is to know about MMORPGs.

Credit for humor. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Mbando wrote:
knowledge and singular experience of "having played DAoC,"
I've played other games, but you have to take into account that people who've played DAoC know everything there is to know about MMORPGs.

See, that's what give me hope for you. If you can handle being teased without getting in a snit, you can handle mechanic X not matching your expectations, without freaking out. Very serious suggestion here, if you would like to influence the design process and get a meaningful response:

1. Articulate your concept. "So, based on the blog and comments, it sounds like..."
2. Draw out implications. "If that's the case, then X..."
3. Problematize it. "That would be a problem because Y..."
4. Solicit discussion. "Do I have this right? Devs, could you address Z to help clear this up?"

Goblin Squad Member

I may be incorrect, but is there an assumption here that when a stealthed creature is discovered full visual detail is revealed? [An NPC or a monster could be using stealth after all.] Granted I have very limited MMO experience, but it seems more likely to me that detecting a stealthed creature is not the same as seeing that creature close up. If a stealthed creature is detected at any distance greater than can be closed for a melee attack, I hope that there will only be a shadow-like indication that something is there. I would feel better about stealth if, once the stealthed creature is detected and only then, the detecting character can focus perception to determine detail.

Goblin Squad Member

You probably won't be able to determine detail with perception. Then you'd have to render an avatar differently for different people. I don't know if that's technically feasible. You get more detail by engaging them and breaking stealth. ( I think)

Goblin Squad Member

I believe that it is feasible as each client will resolve what the player sees independently from the other players withing interaction range.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:


1. Articulate your concept. "So, based on the blog and comments, it sounds like..."
2. Draw out implications. "If that's the case, then X..."
3. Problematize it. "That would be a problem because Y..."
4. Solicit discussion. "Do I have this right? Devs, could you address Z to help clear this up?"

1.So, based on the blog it sounds like even at max stealth skill, opponents will still be able to see us at at significant distances.

2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training

3. That would be a problem because many players expect and want rogues and particularly assassins to work like in other MMOs, ie melee burst attacking from invisibility.

4. Do I have this right? Devs, could you adress typical expected viewing distances to help clear this up? Alternatively, could you adress your vision for what should be achievable by stealth in PFO?

(could you also possibly give an indication on whether maxing stealth and maxing perception will require roughly comparable effort?)

EDIT: in either this or the other thread, either works.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:
1.So, based on the blog it sounds like even at max stealth skill, opponents will still be able to see us at at significant distances.

It's probably fair to say that characters who max Perception will be able to detect Stealthed characters at a "significant" distance.

From the blog, I got the impression that the Rogue's stock-in-trade would be disengaging from combat, ranging out away from opponents well beyond any "significant" distance, and then returning under Stealth. At that point, it's up to the Rogue to try to pick a target that's paying attention to someone else in order to maximize his Sneak Attack.

If a group is actively engaged in combat, I seriously doubt one of them is going to be standing around playing "radar antenna".


randomwalker wrote:
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training

This one is incorrect because stealthers wouldn't be able to sneak up and engage in melee attacks against anyone, regardless of the stealther's stealth training or the non-stealther's perception. But the rest is good.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
I believe that it is feasible as each client will resolve what the player sees independently from the other players withing interaction range.

I thought they said it would be server side to prevent hacks.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
It occurs to me that it is silly to worry if rouges are over powdered, when the Thing is still broken. They need to fix the Thing first. Nothing else matters!

Oh +1000 for this btw :) Not sure how many other folks got it.

Goblin Squad Member

It's one of my favorite lines, that I shamelessly stole from a gaming website :)

Goblin Squad Member

I can't find the original Nihimon--do you have a link?

Goblin Squad Member

I was just searching for it, here and out there.

Search Results in chronological order.

I'm starting to think the first place I saw it was the Drama Mamas article on WoW Insider, years ago. Searching the internet, though, it's extremely hard to pin it down.

Goblinworks Game Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
randomwalker wrote:
1.So, based on the blog it sounds like even at max stealth skill, opponents will still be able to see us at at significant distances.

"Significant" is a bit of a loaded word. What feels like too far away for the stealther is likely to be "OMFG there's a rogue right in my face!" to the guy with Perception.

Quote:
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training

Very likely.

Quote:
3. That would be a problem because many players expect and want rogues and particularly assassins to work like in other MMOs, ie melee burst attacking from invisibility.

We suspect that that's not nearly as many as those that hate being on the receiving end of a rogue completely out of nowhere. Also keep in mind that we don't have the option to limit Stealth to just Rogue-type classes, as other games do (though we can give them feats to make Stealth better). So we have to worry about situations like "OMFG there's a touch-spell specialized Sorcerer right in my face!"; that is, we can't specifically say "this is powerful, but we know exactly what kind of attacks can be made out of stealth, because only attacks rogues get could be made out of stealth, and we can balance around those."

Quote:
4. Do I have this right? Devs, could you adress typical expected viewing distances to help clear this up? Alternatively, could you adress your vision for what should be achievable by stealth in PFO?

Due to how we're splitting different hexes onto different server processes and plans to include more tree cover than is common in other MMOs, our vision range isn't going to be hundreds of yards. But that's likely a whole other discussion that we'll talk more about when we have the tech for hexes developed further, and I probably shouldn't have used hard numbers in the blog since it's still somewhat in flux.

What does seem likely, and why we set the numbers the way we did, is that having a reasonably high Stealth, even against someone with good Perception, means that you're not visible at all until you've already gotten inside max attack range with a ranged weapon, and you're probably close enough that you can leap/charge from further away than they can actually target you. In the total Max Stealth vs. No Perception situation, you've basically reduced their "can target you" range to melee range, even if they see you a few meters past that.

Quote:
(could you also possibly give an indication on whether maxing stealth and maxing perception will require roughly comparable effort?)

They will probably have very similar total XP costs, but keep in mind:

  • Stealth is based on Dexterity, so Rogues (plus Rangers, Monks, and anyone else Dex-focused) will be able to buy it up without buying anything they didn't already want. Meanwhile Perception is based on Awareness (our version of Wisdom), so non-Divine casters may wind up having to buy more Will saves, Awa-based skills, etc. to get their score high enough to buy advanced levels of Perception. In the long term, everyone will probably get around to maxing it out, but for most of your career it's going to be much easier for Rogues to keep Stealth high than for most roles to keep Perception high.
  • Skills only go up to 200 from pure ranks; you have to get the last 100 points from slotted passive feats, racial bonuses, magic items, and buffs. Rogues will probably see a lot more value in having those things to truly max out the skill (and have passive Stealth-boosting feats as part of their role feats) than most other players. So even in the end game, the likely comparison is around 300 Stealth vs. around 200 Perception.
  • We'd like to do bonuses and penalties for light (i.e., time of day), concealment (i.e., terrain ground cover), and viewer facing. But it's too early to tell which of those will be viable so I don't want to promise any of them.

Ultimately, we get that other MMOs have trained players that Stealth means total invisibility until you're right up on your target's back, but that's not true at all in Pathfinder tabletop, doesn't fit the non-magical nature of Pathfinder rogues, and probably is super unfun for everyone who's not the stealth-based character. So we're going with something that isn't quite as powerful and trying to make Rogues effective and fun in other ways (such as Sneak Attack also triggering off of the Flat-Footed state and giving them lots of ways to escape melee). Our current expectation is that they're a hit-and-run role, not a go-off-like-a-landmine role; they aren't meant to appear and kill a target before he can react, but neither are they screwed once the target starts reacting.

And if we put it in play and find out that, indeed, very few people bother with it, we can easily make it more effective. We'd rather buff things that are underperforming, rather than nerf things that are overperforming.


Hate to say "I told you so"...

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Rafkin wrote:
Harad Navar wrote:
I believe that it is feasible as each client will resolve what the player sees independently from the other players withing interaction range.
I thought they said it would be server side to prevent hacks.

Ah. I see. Let me think this through. If all the various possible components pieces for all avatars are resident with the player client, and if the server sends a construction string to build a lower resolution avatar, someone could still hack the string to find the highest resolution of each component, and thus build a detailed image of the avatar regardless of distance. Let's say that the client had a generic set of arms, legs, torsos, etc. in a shadowed mode that were not directly linked to specific avatar components. Say one medium shadow left arm for all medium creatures with a left arm. The server could send a construction string of generic shadowed parts to represent a "detected" stealthed creature that could not be hacked to gain more resolution as there no linkage back to the client stored components for the real avatar.

Once the server determines that player has successfully "detected" the stealthed creature, it sends the shadow avatar string. If the player attempts to focus on the revealed shadow version of the creature, the server can determine if the player has successfully "viewed enough detail" to resolve what the creature is. At that point the server sends the true avatar construction string and the client shows the player what he sees.

Is this something like what you meant by the process residing "server side"?

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks, Stephen. You all are clearly thinking ahead of us on this stuff with regards to the classless skill system.


Urman wrote:
Thanks, Stephen. You all are clearly thinking ahead of us on this stuff with regards to the classless skill system.

Not really. They have a "dedication" system for people who want to dedicate themselves to a certain kind of role. They could just give decent stealth to people who are dedicated to Rogue, Ranger, Monk, and Bard.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

Quote:
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training

Very likely.

Quote:
3. That would be a problem because many players expect and want rogues and particularly assassins to work like in other MMOs, ie melee burst attacking from invisibility.

We suspect that that's not nearly as many as those that hate being on the receiving end of a rogue completely out of nowhere. Also keep in mind that we don't have the option to limit Stealth to just Rogue-type classes, as other games do (though we can give them feats to make Stealth better). So we have to worry about situations like "OMFG there's a touch-spell specialized Sorcerer right in my face!"; that is, we can't specifically say "this is powerful, but we know exactly what kind of attacks can be made out of stealth, because only attacks rogues get could be made out of stealth, and we can balance around those."

On #2, you just killed Pathfinder Online for Rogues that want to sneak. I sincerely hope that the feats you do include for Rogues with high stealth give them an advantage against high Perception characters.

#3, don't allow sorcerers to specialize in touch attacks if they take stealth.

Killing a key ability and play style of an archetype because of it's use by others is going to alienate that original play style. I really hope the feats make up for it so people that want to play rogues get to play them "correctly" and true to its PFRPG potential.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks Stephen,

appreciate you adding more detail and explaining the rationale behind this. Sounds like a really promising system. This is really going to put scouting and patrolling into play.

Goblinworks Game Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Areks wrote:
On #2, you just killed Pathfinder Online for Rogues that want to sneak.

I'd like to hear you (or someone else that really wants invisible-until-melee range stealth) unpack why you consider that essential. Hyperbole about "killing" doesn't help us understand why you feel that way, or what you think the ramifications will be if it's implemented in the current format.

Why is everything else that Stealth lets you do insufficient?

Why do you think that being detected further away than melee range is going to be a problem for you?

If Stealth did allow you to get into melee range, why is that fair to other players (particularly if they have invested points into Perception)?

Given that I've said that we're trying to balance Rogues so they're still fun and effective with the currently described Stealth, what are you willing to give up if we made Stealth more powerful?

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
On #2, you just killed Pathfinder Online for Rogues that want to sneak.

I'd like to hear you (or someone else that really wants invisible-until-melee range stealth) unpack why you consider that essential. Hyperbole about "killing" doesn't help us understand why you feel that way, or what you think the ramifications will be if it's implemented in the current format.

Why is everything else that Stealth lets you do insufficient?

Why do you think that being detected further away than melee range is going to be a problem for you?

If Stealth did allow you to get into melee range, why is that fair to other players (particularly if they have invested points into Perception)?

Given that I've said that we're trying to balance Rogues so they're still fun and effective with the currently described Stealth, what are you willing to give up if we made Stealth more powerful?

So what you are saying is that it is impossible to back stab or assassinate via melee weapon by using stealth. This must be done via a tandem attack and is more a matter of facing or positioning?

Will ambushes be handled the same way, essentially ranged weapons only?

Goblin Squad Member

I do believe that somewhere in the rogue tree, however high up, there does need to be an "attack directly out of stealth". It doesn't have to be the most powerful attack, but a rogue isn't complete within its lore if they can't do it at some point.

I think Cheney already addressed that though. Rogues can and should have stealth buffing feats. In an online game the ability to pounce on somebody from invisibility is extremely powerful and I expect epic rogues will be able to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

My primary concern isn't that I won't be able to fulfil my fantasy of sneaking up on people and backstabbing them. If that is the concern that other people have in this thread, I would try and persuade you to read into the system as described and draw out an actual confrontation.

Rogues getting their backstab off depends on a single precursor; The target doesn't have you targeted. Now, as long as a passive observer cannot mash their tab button and run through a list of any nearby targets, that will still be possible. You just won't be invisible while you do it. You can still use terrain to get close to the target, you can still use your own skill to get into melee range. The developers have hinted at extremely dense tree cover, if those are sufficient enough to hind behind then care will need to be taken in those forests. If you come across someone who isn't paying attention you will still be able to get close enough to garotte them.

My primary concern is that the current mechanic feels incredibly passive, and I abhor passive mechanics. You are either invisible or you have passed the threshold and now you aren't. If the target is spinning their camera around like a top, they can see you. I would much prefer if the target actually has to be physically active in their detection of you, and the worst part is is that there are reasonably computationally simple methods of doing that; draw a cone out in front of the player model and double the characters perception skill for any characters found within that cone. Change the threshold so that without this doubling of perception a stealthed character can get close enough to get a melee attack off. Even better, change the bonus that a character receives within that cone to scale with how long they have remained still (1.1 times bonus when spinning like a top, up to 2.0 times bonus if they have been looking the same way for 30 seconds, fex)

Now both participants of the attacker/defender confrontation have to be active in their movements. The attacker has to keep themselves out of the cone of awareness that the defender projects, and the defender has to be sensible in where they are throwing their own perception out to.

Goblin Squad Member

The game mechanic that makes rogues completely invisible is not, and has never been, attractive to any player except the rogue who is invisible. Most games that give rogues "stealth" rendering the rogue invisible do a huge disservice to all the other players in the game. The other players should have a counter to it, but in most cases the only counter is to get close enough to hear a sound the rogue makes, or to feel a dagger in the back. Which is why most players feel rogues are always OP.

Other tools should be in place such as a crouching movement, camouflage, using shadows and darkness to your advantage, even imbibing a potion of invisibility (which should be very difficult to brew and expensive as hell to buy).

So, if an assassin wants to be effective, use camouflage, approach at night, creep and crouch upon your prey, and if you can afford, use a potion of invisibility. Those are legitimate ways to sneak attack...and most can be countered in some logical way. Invisibility should have never been the default in any game, but the gaming public (those who favor rogues at least) seems to think it is a natural rogue skill.

Goblin Squad Member

8 people marked this as a favorite.

That THING that I wanted isn't in exactly the way I expected it, and without that THING the exact WAY you've ruined everything! That role that I wanted is PERMANENTLY BROKEN and NO ONE WILL EVER PLAY IT because THAT THING isn't THIS THING.

This project is LITERALLY DEAD in the water and NO ONE SHOULD PLAY IT and if I had known the THING wasn't going to be THAT THING I would NEVER HAVE GIVEN TO THE KICKSTARTER.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
On #2, you just killed Pathfinder Online for Rogues that want to sneak.
I'd like to hear you (or someone else that really wants invisible-until-melee range stealth) unpack why you consider that essential. Hyperbole about "killing" doesn't help us understand why you feel that way, or what you think the ramifications will be if it's implemented in the current format.

I think if you CAN roll in modifiers for foliage, shadows, walking surface composition (stone vs dirt vs sand vs marsh) I see no reason why I would be prevented from sneaking up on someone. That SHOULD be a possibility. There is no point in training stealth if it only takes minimal investment into perception to "see" me, regardless of whether or not I am in stealth.

If you can't roll those in, my objection remains that if I am stealthy, there is no magically shadow that falls over me but still allows my target to see me. If I am being stealthy, I am avoiding detection. That is the point of stealth, to avoid detection. If my target can still see me regardless if they pass their perception check BEFORE I get in combat range, then they just run. You really are defeating the primary reason for stealth... to be unseen and unheard.

Quote:
Why is everything else that Stealth lets you do insufficient?

Everything else is good... but if I am visible out of melee range, I've got to rely on ranged attacks. If it's very likely that a stealthing character will never be able to get close enough to use a blade, you are forcing that play style to pick up ranged weaponry, and while that might be fine for Ranger enthusiasts, Rogue enthusiasts will want to get right up on their target with a blade. You are taking that away from them.

Quote:
Why do you think that being detected further away than melee range is going to be a problem for you?

They can see me and run away when they shouldn't be able to.

Quote:
If Stealth did allow you to get into melee range, why is that fair to other players (particularly if they have invested points into Perception)?

I trained the skill necessary to sneak up on people, I should stand a chance at sneaking up on people. How is it fair that "no matter what" they WILL see? I would sincerely hope that there is a check involved. If I max stealth and they max perception, it should be a 50/50 chance they see me approaching. If checks aren't possible and its a static statistic then there is no way to balance it.

Quote:
Given that I've said that we're trying to balance Rogues so they're still fun and effective with the currently described Stealth, what are you willing to give up if we made Stealth more powerful?

That depends on what they have, how over powered those features are, etc. If Rogues are that over powering, I'd love to play one right now before they get nerfed =)

I'd be ok with lessened damage output, having to return to cover before being able to re-stealth, having to break line of sight before re-stealthing, the possibility of taking damage breaking my stealth, and decreased speed while stealthed.

I'm not looking for an alpha strike. I'm not looking to walk right up to someone has decent perception without them seeing me.

What I'm looking for is a chance. The possibility of being able to sneak up on someone if I am careful and dedicated and the possibility for them to see me if I'm sloppy and they put forth effort in remaining vigilant. Those possibilities are proportionate to my investment in stealth and my targets investment in perception. With stealth in its current state, they see me no matter what... I'm just in a different "stance".

My avoidance of my targets line of sight, use of cover and concealment, shadows, time of day, terrain, should all factor into stealth.

Goblin Squad Member

So if rogues can't stealth up for a sneak attack and they can't sneak attack at all if they are targeted by their enemy.....sounds like a horrible solo class. Which may be fine but I wouldn't play one.

Other games balance "invisible" stealth by giving the stealther the one big opening attack and that's about it.

I have faith it'll all get worked out. Make the "classes" fun and worrying about balance later. Even if that means nerfs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:

That THING that I wanted isn't in exactly the way I expected it, and without that THING the exact WAY you've ruined everything! That role that I wanted is PERMANENTLY BROKEN and NO ONE WILL EVER PLAY IT because THAT THING isn't THIS THING.

This project is LITERALLY DEAD in the water and NO ONE SHOULD PLAY IT and if I had known the THING wasn't going to be THAT THING I would NEVER HAVE GIVEN TO THE KICKSTARTER.

Now who's the obnoxious, snarky one?

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: You've Got the Brawn, I've Got the Brains All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.