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


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Areks:
What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?

Goblin Squad Member

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.

No one's saying that.

Clearly people that want to play a rogue style character have a vested interest in stealth remaining a viable option.

Me playing a rogue style character went out the window over a year ago with having to be evil to be an assassin.

You would be doing the same thing if they nerfed "Lay of Hands" or "Turn Undead" beyond your reasonable opinion of what it should be.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Rafkin wrote:
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.

Bold added for emphasis. They haven't said that at all. People are freaking out about stealth and I wonder if they've read the section on sneak attack.

Quote:
There are multiple different versions of Sneak Attack, depending on the style of fighting you plan to do as a Rogue. Each of them triggers on the Flat-Footed state, which can be applied by feats like Feint (and automatically in other situations if you don't have Uncanny Dodge). The standard version of the feat is currently called "Cut-Throat" and additionally gets Sneak Attack against any target that isn't targeting the Rogue. This essentially represents both flanking and attacking an unaware target from the tabletop: if you don't have the Rogue selected, you're not able to give him enough attention to keep him from poking you in your vulnerables. Additionally, we're looking into alternate versions of the feat like Daredevil and Opportunist that get Sneak Attack in different ways.

So you'll be able to use a number of different sneak attacks. I assume they're different skills, or different tiers on the same skill tree.

- They all can be used against a flat-footed target.

- The "cut-throat" method is the standard (most basic?) one and can also be used against victims that aren't targeting the rogue.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Rafkin wrote:
...sounds like a horrible solo class.

I fully expect EVERY class to to be a horrible solo class. This game is about meaningful human interaction. Solo can be done, but it will be seriously disadvantaged in any role.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Areks:

What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?

No. Once detected, the element of surprise is gone. The player can react and move, run, cast an AOE to damage me first, which IMO SHOULD have a chance to de-stealth you.


The argument that "there are more people who hate being snuck up on then there are people who like it" is a pointless one. Let's bring it to its logical conclusion...

Personally I HATE how healers are able to heal for so much damage, we need to minimize their ability to heal so that the non-healers aren't at a disadvantage. If healers are good at healing, only the healers and people rolling with healers in PvP or PvE will like this. The people who don't have a healer with them will be at too much of a disadvantage.

Also, I don't like it how tanks can absorb all that damage, let's make it so that tanks can't really absorb any more damage than rogues can. We can't make it so tanks can absorb all that damage because the people who are dishing it out to them just hate how much damage they have to do before the tank is dead, we need to make this fair for everyone.

I also hate how mages can deal so much damage, and from so far away, let's minimize both their damage and their range, so that no one feels that mages deal too much damage... You know what?

How bout everyone wears leather armor, carries a medium sheild, has the same amount of hit points, the same abilities, and does the same amount of damage, that's the most fair way to handle this.

Also, I HATE when people win because they're higher level than me... can we scrap progression entirely and keep everyone on an even playing field? That would be awesome. Oh man, this game is sounding exciting, can't wait to play it (so long as you implement these awesome balance changes which I just gave you).

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Will invisibility spells be in game? The tech demo appeared to include the sorceress using something that appeared to be an invisibility spell, ie a refresh ability. Will there be mechanics to see someone who has cast such a spell such as a large bonus to Stealth that high end Perception could counter or will it only be countered with See Invisibility type spells/magic items?

Also, what kind of rolls - if any - are involved in skill checks? With attacks we know it's 3d200 and take the min/middle/max roll, but what about skills?

(We also don't know how crit rolls are done, so I'm curious as to non-attack rolls in game.)

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

The argument that "there are more people who hate being snuck up on then there are people who like it" is a pointless one. Let's bring it to its logical conclusion...

Personally I HATE how healers are able to heal for so much damage, we need to minimize their ability to heal so that the non-healers aren't at a disadvantage. If healers are good at healing, only the healers and people rolling with healers in PvP or PvE will like this. The people who don't have a healer with them will be at too much of a disadvantage.

Also, I don't like it how tanks can absorb all that damage, let's make it so that tanks can't really absorb any more damage than rogues can. We can't make it so tanks can absorb all that damage because the people who are dishing it out to them just hate how much damage they have to do before the tank is dead, we need to make this fair for everyone.

I also hate how mages can deal so much damage, and from so far away, let's minimize both their damage and their range, so that no one feels that mages deal too much damage... You know what?

How bout everyone wears leather armor, carries a medium sheild, has the same amount of hit points, the same abilities, and does the same amount of damage, that's the most fair way to handle this.

Also, I HATE when people win because they're higher level than me... can we scrap progression entirely and keep everyone on an even playing field? That would be awesome. Oh man, this game is sounding exciting, can't wait to play it (so long as you implement these awesome balance changes which I just gave you).

While I can appreciate and agree with your points... it doesn't help Stephen understand where we are coming from.

Why not answer his questions?

If their current build of "rogue" is over-powered, and they are the only ones who have seen it, what would you take a hit on in order to get what you want?

I get that we shouldn't have to sacrifice anything to be able to do what we can normally do in PnP, but if we had it, where would you be willing to budge?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

The argument that "there are more people who hate being snuck up on then there are people who like it" is a pointless one. Let's bring it to its logical conclusion...

oooh, let's! This is going to be fun.

Qallz wrote:


Personally I HATE how healers are able to heal for so much damage, we need to minimize their ability to heal so that the non-healers aren't at a disadvantage. If healers are good at healing, only the healers and people rolling with healers in PvP or PvE will like this. The people who don't have a healer with them will be at too much of a disadvantage.

A core tenant of Pathfinder tabletop is that clerics are far more than heal spells, and can be replaced by anyone with a wand or some potions. We have no design blogs at all on clerics yet, but I would expect that heals are just a SMALL part of what they bring.

Qallz wrote:


Also, I don't like it how tanks can absorb all that damage, let's make it so that tanks can't really absorb any more damage than rogues can. We can't make it so tanks can absorb all that damage because the people who are dishing it out to them just hate how much damage they have to do before the tank is dead, we need to make this fair for everyone.

There are no tanks in Pathfinder. Fighters are more sturdy than most classes, but I wouldn't expect them to be able take 2-4 times much damage as everyone else like in other games. "Tanking" is likely going to be relying on opportunity to control movement and a question of gear.

Qallz wrote:


I also hate how mages can deal so much damage, and from so far away, let's minimize both their damage and their range, so that no one feels that mages deal too much damage...

Mages already are having AOEs minimized thanks to magical turbulence making them less effective. If you want to minimize mage damage, wear cloth armor that are strong vs energy, but then you are weak vs physical damage.. choices, choices.

Qallz wrote:


You know what?
How bout everyone wears leather armor, carries a medium sheild, has the same amount of hit points, the same abilities, and does the same amount of damage, that's the most fair way to handle this.

That's exactly what is going on. Based on skills trained, of course.

Qallz wrote:


Also, I HATE when people win because they're higher level than me... can we scrap progression entirely and keep everyone on an even playing field? That would be awesome. Oh man, this game is sounding exciting, can't wait to play it (so long as you implement these awesome balance changes which I just gave you).

Hmm... it's a good thing there are no levels in this game then. You know, it looks like they are designing this with you in mind.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.

Blah! I think the above should really kill the argument.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.
Blah! I think the above should really kill the argument.

In as much as it should kill any discussion about any mechanics ever, yes. That the developers have stated their intention of balancing mechanics does not mean that people shouldn't voice their concerns about intended implementations. It is true that we should basically ignore any mechanical preview until we can actually play the game, but this is a forum dedicated to discussing Pathfinder Online. That isn't going to happen.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Areks wrote:
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.

No one's saying that.

Clearly people that want to play a rogue style character have a vested interest in stealth remaining a viable option.

Me playing a rogue style character went out the window over a year ago with having to be evil to be an assassin.

Areks, your first post said exactly that: "you just killed Pathfinder Online for Rogues that want to sneak." That sort of over the top dramatic hyperbole is ridiculous.

Your second post is good though, and really helps advance the discussion. If I understand Stephen, their conception is that being able to sneak up and get very close represents a significant combat advantage for player slotted/trained the right way. If I understand you correctly, sneak providing a significant combat/intell advantage isn't what you want. You want a specific mechanic: sneak invisibility + attack from invis. Is that right?

So now you have a basis for discussion, maybe offering a reason why this is a good game mechanic, as opposed to just "what I prefer."

Pax Areks wrote:


You would be doing the same thing if they nerfed "Lay of Hands" or "Turn Undead" beyond your reasonable opinion of what it should be.

Actually, when Ryan offered a pretty stunning "LG characters can't take proactive measures against evil," I wasn't too happy to hear it, but instead of freaking out I've been listening and talking.


Imbicatus wrote:
Qallz wrote:

The argument that "there are more people who hate being snuck up on then there are people who like it" is a pointless one. Let's bring it to its logical conclusion...

oooh, let's! This is going to be fun.

Qallz wrote:


Personally I HATE how healers are able to heal for so much damage, we need to minimize their ability to heal so that the non-healers aren't at a disadvantage. If healers are good at healing, only the healers and people rolling with healers in PvP or PvE will like this. The people who don't have a healer with them will be at too much of a disadvantage.

A core tenant of Pathfinder tabletop is that clerics are far more than heal spells, and can be replaced by anyone with a wand or some potions. We have no design blogs at all on clerics yet, but I would expect that heals are just a SMALL part of what they bring.

Qallz wrote:


Also, I don't like it how tanks can absorb all that damage, let's make it so that tanks can't really absorb any more damage than rogues can. We can't make it so tanks can absorb all that damage because the people who are dishing it out to them just hate how much damage they have to do before the tank is dead, we need to make this fair for everyone.

There are no tanks in Pathfinder. Fighters are more sturdy than most classes, but I wouldn't expect them to be able take 2-4 times much damage as everyone else like in other games. "Tanking" is likely going to be relying on opportunity to control movement and a question of gear.

Qallz wrote:


I also hate how mages can deal so much damage, and from so far away, let's minimize both their damage and their range, so that no one feels that mages deal too much damage...

Mages already are having AOEs minimized thanks to magical turbulence making them less effective. If you want to minimize mage damage, wear cloth armor that are strong vs energy, but then you are weak vs physical damage.. choices, choices.

Qallz wrote:


You know what?
How bout
...

Really think you missed the point here. And you spent a lot of time doing it too.


Pax Areks wrote:


Why not answer his questions?

If their current build of "rogue" is over-powered, and they are the only ones who have seen it, what would you take a hit on in order to get what you want?

I get that we shouldn't have to sacrifice anything to be able to do what we can normally do in PnP, but if we had it,...

It's not hard to figure out. Countless games have implemented invisi-stealth effectively, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel here. Just follow the more experienced developers... Like DAoC. DAoC. DAoC.

Edit: Also WoW and its sequal "Rift" implemented invisi-stealth successfully too. WoW being the most successful game of all time (and yes, I know this game doesn't want to be a WoW clone, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, they did a few things right).

Goblinworks Game Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Alright, going to grab as many of these as I can before I have dinner and hopefully leave you plenty to talk about until I can check back in tomorrow.

Bluddwolf wrote:

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?

I hope people have never gotten the impression that assassination would be a one-shot.

A maxed out Tier 3 weapon is a bit more than 100 base damage. With a melee weapon, if you're fighting someone in cloth with a full hit, that works out to somewhere between 400 and 500 damage in a round. Assuming the target is not drastically lower level than you (and that you are Tier 3 to be using that weapon), he'll have over 1000 HP, even if he's a Wizard.

Thus your best case scenario is that it will take a couple of rounds to put him down if he holds still. This is entirely intentional, to give everyone time to respond to a fight, and make it the result of tactics and skill rather than rocket tag. Starting off from Stealth gives you the advantage of choosing a lot about the scenario, but you're still going to have to have several friends if you want to take down any target quickly.

(EDIT: That's barring the stacks of Observed discussed previously, but that's also not germane to popping out of stealth on someone totally unaware.)

See below on ranged vs. melee weapons.

Pax Morbis wrote:
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.

As mentioned above, we'd like to do a lot of this but can't promise it until we get the tech further developed. But I get you. As a counter, however, I don't think we want to see the standard method of travel to be trying to keep everything in your vision cone and always twirling, twirling into the future. :)

Pax Areks wrote:
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.

What would you consider "minimal"? Would a fighter who's worked very hard to raise Perception and paid just as much as you did for your Stealth while also having to buy other Awa-based traits to raise his Awareness to keep raising Perception and having a harder time getting bonuses to Perception not, in fact, feel like it's equally unfair if you could get very close to him for a "minimal" investment in Stealth?

Quote:
then they just run.

Did you set up a situation where you wanted him to run away from you, because that's back toward your friends? Did you have the opportunity to notice that he was already moving slowly due to encumbrance or armor, and that's why you picked him to attack in the first place? The worry about being able to run fast enough will usually be on the one being ambushed

Quote:
Rogue enthusiasts will want to get right up on their target with a blade.

See above. Just because you aren't invisible doesn't mean you'll have any problem getting into melee range; even if the target is wearing light armor and you aren't flushing him somewhere, running backward is slower that forward, so just about anyone can catch someone that's backpedaling while trying to make ranged attacks.

Pax Rafkin wrote:
sounds like a horrible solo class

We're not expecting to make any solo classes. Anyone in an area where they expect PvP without allies is playing the game on hard mode. Stealth probably makes that way easier as written, because you have a better chance of choosing your engagements.

Nightdrifter wrote:
Will invisibility spells be in game?

Don't know yet. Obviously any balance concerns for Stealth would be worse for Invisibility.

Quote:

Also, what kind of rolls - if any - are involved in skill checks? With attacks we know it's 3d200 and take the min/middle/max roll, but what about skills?

(We also don't know how crit rolls are done, so I'm curious as to non-attack rolls in game.)

There's no unified system for how skills are randomized or not, since they vary pretty drastically in applications. As outlined, Stealth vs. Perception is a straight comparison with no randomness. In general, randomness on Stealth would be to the further disadvantage of the Stealther, presuming it was rolled on a periodic basis; the perversity of the random number generator would mean you could never count on staying stealthed, so you'd probably want to rush in every time.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?
Blog wrote:
Each of them triggers on the Flat-Footed state, which can be applied by feats like Feint (and automatically in other situations if you don't have Uncanny Dodge)

That's what this is. I was leaving that unmentioned since programming hasn't signed off, but the intention is that entering combat gives you a round of Flat-Footed unless you have Uncanny Dodge slotted, as an approximation of how it works in tabletop.

Aaaand... dinner time. Play nice until tomorrow, please ;) .

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Now who's the obnoxious, snarky one?

That would still be you, as you have consistently proven for almost two weeks now on this and related threads. When given a chance to explain or elaborate on a point that concerns you it seems you can't resist responding in the most arrogant, insulting , snarky and provocative way possible.

Could you please drop the non stop negativity and take a deep break and relax a bit?

This game is still under development, the development team is actively requesting our feed back, and we have over a year of EE to figure things out.

So why the non stop hostility to what is otherwise some very productive conversation?

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Morbis wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.
Blah! I think the above should really kill the argument.
In as much as it should kill any discussion about any mechanics ever, yes. That the developers have stated their intention of balancing mechanics does not mean that people shouldn't voice their concerns about intended implementations. It is true that we should basically ignore any mechanical preview until we can actually play the game, but this is a forum dedicated to discussing Pathfinder Online. That isn't going to happen.

By all means continue if you must. Just an opinion. There is nothing of interest (to me) for me to read anymore.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Pax Areks wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Areks:

What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?
No. Once detected, the element of surprise is gone. The player can react and move, run, cast an AOE to damage me first, which IMO SHOULD have a chance to de-stealth you.

So, you want the element of surprise to persist after the opening attack? I don't believe that's your position, but it is what you said.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Areks:

What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?
No. Once detected, the element of surprise is gone. The player can react and move, run, cast an AOE to damage me first, which IMO SHOULD have a chance to de-stealth you.
So, you want the element of surprise to persist after the opening attack? I don't believe that's your position, but it is what you said.

The surprise attack can only come once. All we wanna do here is make stealth viable for Rogues. And not bow-weilding rogues either... but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Qallz wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Areks:

What it sounds like you are asking for is the ability to be guaranteed one flat-footed attack from stealth, if the stars align. Would an effect that makes all opponents flat-footed for one round after they detect you be sufficient, provided that that was enough time to run up from the detection radius and start stabbing?
No. Once detected, the element of surprise is gone. The player can react and move, run, cast an AOE to damage me first, which IMO SHOULD have a chance to de-stealth you.
So, you want the element of surprise to persist after the opening attack? I don't believe that's your position, but it is what you said.
The surprise attack can only come once. All we wanna do here is make stealth viable for Rogues. And not bow-weilding rogues either... but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.

Except that the suggestion that you get to make a melee sneak attack from stealth was rejected, on the basis that "Once detected, the element of surprise is gone."

Is 'too little time to react effectively' not good enough, and you will only accept 'zero time to react'?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:


The surprise attack can only come once. All we wanna do here is make stealth viable for Rogues. And not bow-weilding rogues either... but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.

Now that's not true--you're demanding stealth have a specific mechanic. There's no doubt GW is designing stealth to be viable for rogues. What's very much in doubt is stealth = invis + massive burst damage from stealth.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.

I believe what is being said is that you can. It just isn't called "sneak attack" or "from stealth". After the first surprise attack, which might be at range, you can move in and out of being the target (if grouped) and manage additional flanking attacks.

If any argument against the system can be made, it is the reliance on being grouped. A solo Rogue is by no means effective, which is why they will rely on evasion to GTF out and then try to re engage.


Mbando wrote:
Qallz wrote:


The surprise attack can only come once. All we wanna do here is make stealth viable for Rogues. And not bow-weilding rogues either... but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.
Now that's not true--you're demanding stealth have a specific mechanic. There's no doubt GW is designing stealth to be viable for rogues. What's very much in doubt is stealth = invis + massive burst damage from stealth.

I'm not talking about MASSIVE burst damage from stealth, just one sneak attack.

The point here isn't to specifically get in a s%$#load of damage from stealth, the point is that Rogues don't have much of a chance against ranged attackers if they can't get close without being seen (or in this case, it's very difficult to get close).

Also, if you're moving slower in stealth mode, or even if you're moving at normal speed, a group that's mounted, or rocking a nice speed buff will blow by you, one of them is bound to have a few points in Perception (especially true at higher levels) and they'll walk over to the stealther(s), and just blow them out of the water, because a nicely balanced non-stealther group is going to destroy a stealth group if they get the jump on them (which they will).

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Qallz wrote:


The surprise attack can only come once. All we wanna do here is make stealth viable for Rogues. And not bow-weilding rogues either... but regular every day melee rogues, who want to be able to make a sneak attack from within melee range and get the jump.
Now that's not true--you're demanding stealth have a specific mechanic. There's no doubt GW is designing stealth to be viable for rogues. What's very much in doubt is stealth = invis + massive burst damage from stealth.

That's not true. We are lobbying for stealth = possible complete concealment until after the first attack.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:


I'm not talking about MASSIVE burst damage from stealth, just one sneak attack.

Ok, noted. You're demanding a mechanic where stealth = invis + sneak attack from stealth.

Qallz wrote:


The point here isn't to specifically get in a s+++load of damage from stealth, the point is that Rogues don't have much of a chance against ranged attackers if they can't get close without being seen (or in this case, it's very difficult to get close).

Help me here--are the devs out and out lying, or just so monumentally stupid they have no idea what their saying?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Except that the suggestion that you get to make a melee sneak attack from stealth was rejected, on the basis that "Once detected, the element of surprise is gone."

Is 'too little time to react effectively' not good enough, and you will only accept 'zero time to react'?

My issue with this is we don't know if it is "too little time to react".

If I am stealthed, and I am not seen, my target wouldn't know to AOE.

If I am stealthed, and I am seen, my target can possibly pull off an AOE.

To me, the second shouldn't be an option unless the target has "true seeing" or something similar.


Mbando wrote:
Help me here--are the devs out and out lying, or just so monumentally stupid they have no idea what their saying?

I don't know that they're lying about anything. What are you referring to specifically? Stephen specifically said it won't be very possible for rogues to engage in melee without being seen.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
We are lobbying for stealth = possible complete concealment until after the first attack.

While at an LP/OP I had a CSM get within 2 feet of me, before I knew he was there.

* It was about 3:00 AM

* He came from the camp side, inside of the perimeter.

* I was not sleeping, but leaning on my machine gun, just staring out into the treeline.

I finally sensed him, and looked over my shoulder. I remember saying immediately, "I wasn't sleeping". He responded, "I know, but you're still dead".

My CO was a former Army Ranger,and he spent the better part of 3 hours low crawling down the main road and then crossed it, right next to a fairly active guard post. He got within the fence line and practically made it to the S3 Operations Tent, before he was detected.

People who are trained in stealth, are freaking scary silent and can go undetected even past trained soldiers. Although not invisible, damn near close to it at night time.


Stephen Cheney wrote:
Just because you aren't invisible doesn't mean you'll have any problem getting into melee range; even if the target is wearing light armor and you aren't flushing him somewhere, running backward is slower that forward, so just about anyone can catch someone that's backpedaling while trying to make ranged attacks.

It seems reasonable that some melee Stealth characters will want to slot "Leaping Assault" abilities that rapidly close with enemies, to maximize the time they can be melee'ing the enemy in the 1st "Flatfooted" round... Whether that is a Rogue ability or is from some other Class Role that becomes popular to "multiclass" for this type of build doesn't really matter.

Quote:
There's no unified system for how skills are randomized or not, since they vary pretty drastically in applications. As outlined, Stealth vs. Perception is a straight comparison with no randomness. In general, randomness on Stealth would be to the further disadvantage of the Stealther, presuming it was rolled on a periodic basis; the perversity of the random number generator would mean you could never count on staying stealthed, so you'd probably want to rush in every time.

If only the Perception "side" was rolled randomly, and the Stealth side is given the average or average+1 as static value, then that could allow similar randomness but remove some problems like you give... Once your static-based Stealth beats a given opponents's Perception then that is the fixed relationship for that encounter vs. that opponent... Barring other variable factors (bonuses/penalties ala foliage, buffs/debuffs, etc.) then the "Sighting Distance" of the Perceiver is fixed vs. the Stealther. That would reset (and allow a new Perception roll) once either character has moved a certain distance away from the other (or dies, or other special events which could have specific "Stealth Reset" purpose), but until then the same Perception "roll" is used...???

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Help me here--are the devs out and out lying, or just so monumentally stupid they have no idea what their saying?

I don't think they are lying nor are they stupid.

What is going on is that the devs are saying that stealth will function in a way that is different, but equal to how we know it to work in PnP.

We are debating that equality based on our own values we find in the stealth ability.

For me, the primary function of stealth is non-detection... not the mechanical benefits behind opponents being flat-footed and a sneak attack.

If stealth doesn't have non-detection, it is monumentally less effective. It allows for target pre-emptive action. Be it a potion, an at will ability, activating a magic item... all those things that if a rogue is not detected, the target would not know to do. The target can call over voice chat to alert others in the area.

If you are all of the sudden damaged, and there is a rogue in your face, you are preoccupied. You may not alert your friends right away until you overcome the surprise factor.

Surprise is a non-measurable factor as everyone reacts differently. Some may be able to fight back and alert their friends. Others might panic and run. Others might freeze.

Taking the surprise factor away isn't something that is trivial and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's all I'm asking. The devs have responded and hopefully we can move forward with productive dialogue to both better our understanding of how stealth is "different but equal" and they can better understand our view point, regardless if we agree or agree to disagree.


BTW, any more info on what Flatfooted would do? You can't take advantage of Opportunity if you are FF?
It seems reasonable that actions like Quick Jumping Away from/ Towards an Opponent would not work while FF...
Perhaps even a general ban on actions whose cost is above a certain value, or with their own longer duration cooldowns?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:
We are lobbying for stealth = possible complete concealment until after the first attack.

While at an LP/OP I had a CSM get within 2 feet of me, before I knew he was there.

* It was about 3:00 AM

* He came from the camp side, inside of the perimeter.

* I was not sleeping, but leaning on my machine gun, just staring out into the treeline.

I finally sensed him, and looked over my shoulder. I remember saying immediately, "I wasn't sleeping". He responded, "I know, but you're still dead".

My CO was a former Army Ranger,and he spent the better part of 3 hours low crawling down the main road and then crossed it, right next to a fairly active guard post. He got within the fence line and practically made it to the S3 Operations Tent, before he was detected.

People who are trained in stealth, are freaking scary silent and can go undetected even past trained soldiers. Although not invisible, damn near close to it at night time.

Again, the "surprise" factor. With stealth as it is, there is no chance for surprise.

I'd like to hear from the developers on why it is so important to remove this, as opposed to something else, from the "rogue" archetype.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
2.If that's the case, stealthers will never be able to sneak into melee range of anyone with basic perception training

Very likely.

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.

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.

I feel like GW's currently described system is fine, and I think people are approaching this too much from a solo play perspective, which isn't the design focus of PFO. In a multiplayer PVP assumption, the use of Stealth is getting more attackers/defenders in immediate range then the opposition is expecting. It doesn't really matter whether the Stealth side may still need to move/jump/etc to close a gap, they've already shifted the tactical balance in their favor by a certain amount. It seems like this system is easily tweakable by just adjusting the server value for distance, to change the Spot distance for Stealth=Perception scenarios... it doesn't need to be "perfectly" tuned to begin with, that value can be changed ongoing.


Let's take a second to look at what Rogues are like now.

1) They can't roll solo.

2) All stealther groups won't be effective either (that's pretty self-evident though it wasn't said outright).

3) "Rogues" can't sustain themselves in battle, they have to jump in, do a sneak attack, and jump out. Then come back in.

4) They've got special abilities to get them "out" of combat, while Fighters have special abilities to get them "in" or chase down Rogues running away.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks, that's a great post, and very reasonable. I do we hope we can have a productive discussion on this--I may not be planning on playing a sneaky rogue-type, but I absolutely plan to work with and promote a scout force. I have a strong interest in a robust, complex, and most of all fun stealth/perception mechanic.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:

Let's take a second to look at what Rogues are like now.

1) They can't roll solo.

2) All stealther groups won't be effective either (that's pretty self-evident though it wasn't said outright).

3) "Rogues" can't sustain themselves in battle, they have to jump in, do a sneak attack, and jump out. Then come back in.

4) They've got special abilities to get them "out" of combat, while Fighters have special abilities to get them "in" or chase down Rogues running away.

1) No class is intended to be balanced for solo play.

2) I disagree-I think that e.g. a group intending to raid an outpost which is behind a line of early-warning scouts can gain a lot from stealth, even if what they gain is making the defender put out from 110-1000% as many scouts as they would have to in the absence of stealth.

3) Yep. Rogues don't win stand-up fights. They win hit-and-run battles, or battles where they make their enemy chase them around while their party fights.

4)... but they get abilities which help them to do what they do. That is intended and good.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.

I am hoping that the maxed stealth your talking about is skill rank 200 and not the 300.

I take it the 300 mark only reachable by characters that have the dedication bonus to a "class" role that has stealth as a "class" role skill?

Same being for perception ?

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

Let's take a second to look at what Rogues are like now.

1) They can't roll solo.

2) All stealther groups won't be effective either (that's pretty self-evident though it wasn't said outright).

3) "Rogues" can't sustain themselves in battle, they have to jump in, do a sneak attack, and jump out. Then come back in.

4) They've got special abilities to get them "out" of combat, while Fighters have special abilities to get them "in" or chase down Rogues running away.

That first comment is irrelevant--no one can.

You may be a little off on #3, but yes the intent is to be more about "hit and run than a landmine."

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

3) Yep. Rogues don't win stand-up fights. They win hit-and-run battles, or battles where they make their enemy chase them around while their party fights.

I think sneak attack sounds plenty dangerous every round the Rogue can be on the 2 side of a 2:1 fight. That doesn't mean their company has 40:20; that means at one spot in the fight where there's a momentary 2 on 1 fight. Or any spot where an archer or mage or healer is trying to do something else.

Goblin Squad Member

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

Right here, Areks and Qallz. He says in most cases you can charge into melee from a farther range than the enemy can target you, if your Stealth is reasonably high. You can go straight from stealth into melee against most targets. Is that not what you wanted?

I really don't see how lowered move speed but 50% opponent's detection range is not a balanced trade-off. I would even put that in favor of the stealther. That's assuming equal skill on both sides, which is ignoring the part where a developer told us that for most characters (see: 3 out of the 4 starting roles) leveling Perception quickly enough to scale with a rogue's Stealth will be impossible without throwing out all of the rest of your role's mechanics (fighters who can't fight, wizards who can't cast spells, and rogues who cannot stealth or do other rogue-ish things). It's also ignoring the part where he hinted that rogues will get bonuses to stealth above and beyond this tradeoff to put it even more in the stealther's favor.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:
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.

Right here, Areks and Qallz. He says in most cases you can charge into melee from a farther range than the enemy can target you, if your Stealth is reasonably high. You can go straight from stealth into melee against most targets. Is that not what you wanted?

If I were not detected, my enemy wouldn't know to target me nor would he be able to.

I'm debating the mechanic as it stands, not including things that have not been elaborated on like the rogue feats that give bonuses to stealth.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Just thinking aloud here in response to juicy tidbits of info from Stephen. Hopefully I'm not threadjacking too badly.

Stephen Cheney wrote:
A maxed out Tier 3 weapon is a bit more than 100 base damage.

100 base damage on a t3 weapon is consistent with what I've being figuring for a top end longsword: 40 + 4*5 (minor) + 2*20 (major), matching the max numbers of keywords on armor. Presumably other weapons can reach slightly higher base damage than a longsword (such as a 2H weapon). You specifically mention melee weapons, so I would assume for balance that ranged weapons (eg. bows) have lower damage factors.

Does this mean there is some relation between the number of keywords on a weapon/armor and its tier? Essentially some sort of hidden mapping between item quality and tier? I'd also assume that the major keywords are only available to top quality pieces.

Stephen Cheney wrote:

With a melee weapon, if you're fighting someone in cloth with a full hit, that works out to somewhere between 400 and 500 damage in a round.

I assume this implies that cloth armor never gets bonuses to physical resistance due to keywords? Then a full hit is 140 damage with a longsword, meaning that 400-500 damage worth of full hits is 3 attacks.

More rambling, but at one point you mentioned 20 stamina for an example level 4 fighter. 3 attacks means ballpark 6-7 stamina per attack. Presumably there's some form of scaling of stamina costs and stamina available via skills.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
I think sneak attack sounds plenty dangerous every round the Rogue can be on the 2 side of a 2:1 fight. That doesn't mean their company has 40:20; that means at one spot in the fight where there's a momentary 2 on 1 fight. Or any spot where an archer or mage or healer is trying to do something else.

I don't really have an issue with sneak attack. Equalizing that if it were under-powered / over-powered is just a number adjustment.

For me, the basic premise of stealth is what is being debated. If I am in stealth, why can someone see me?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Areks wrote:
For me, the basic premise of stealth is what is being debated. If I am in stealth, why can someone see me?

Because it's stealth, not invisibility. Obviously in the last few years the MMO world has made stealth a kind of invisibility, so some of us are used to it. It's not that way in Pathfinder TT:

"If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving."

Look, if you're in a ghillie suit, and patient as hell, yea, you might be able to get much closer than a person would ordinarily. But you're not going to just casual stroll up to people like you're wearing that Harry Potter cloak.

I do hope there are condition modifiers. It would be be cool if a rogue can't just stroll around stealthed in broad daylight, but at night, with broken ground/concealment, they can sneak into your back pocket.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
For me, the basic premise of stealth is what is being debated. If I am in stealth, why can someone see me?

The way I see it, stealth is a surreptitious advance done via hiding in shadows, using terrain, camouflage or the like. Thus a character with enough 'perception' has the innate ability to notice you sooner than some noob character.

To use the old parlance, you manage to hide and move silently. You don't manage to become invisible.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
I do hope there are condition modifiers. It would be be cool if a rogue can't just stroll around stealthed in broad daylight, but at night, with broken ground/concealment, they can sneak into your back pocket.

Agreed. I would love to see infiltrator type characters that can max out stealth, use specific items and max out their other abilities to be 'almost' next to impossible to detect.

However, in doing so they're completely ordinary at most other aspects. Their role is to sneak in somewhere undetected and maybe steal something or listen to something they shouldn't BUT NOT to alpha strike the mage to death in one blow.

Goblin Squad Member

It was Hide in Shadows/Move Silently, but now it's a single mechanic for the same thing, a skill that "covers hiding and moving silently."

Goblin Squad Member

That was the point I was trying o convey (though I forgot the in shadows part). You are hiding, not becoming invisible. You can still see or hear someone hiding if you're good enough and/or they're bad enough.

Goblin Squad Member

@Areks, they cannot see you unless you let them. You will see them first, and then you get to decide whether they can see you by either moving in closer (just how close you can get without being seen will change based on both characters) or backing off. You could tail them at max render distance and they'd never know you were there unless you got too close (unless they're moving too fast for that; you still might be able to follow them by moving alongside instead of behind).

Edit: Okay, reread the blog and you're right that the detected range and targetable range are kept separate, so the charge can't be initiated straight from invisibility. So is your desire that the detectable range be more limited than an average 50% the norm?

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Does this mean there is some relation between the number of keywords on a weapon/armor and its tier? Essentially some sort of hidden mapping between item quality and tier? I'd also assume that the major keywords are only available to top quality pieces.

I'm not sure of the relationship between number of keywords and tier. But I thought there was a previous tidbit of a tier 2 weapon having 1 major and some number of minors, doing something north of 60.

151 to 200 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.