Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who has rolled a natural 1 on a stealth check while under the effects of an invisibility spell, thus alerting a VERY ANGRY Dragon of my presence, I like the uncertainty of stealth as described. Yes it is different than almost any other MMO out there. But it feels very similar to the TT mechanic.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@Sepherum the Surprise Round only happens in a meeting engagement where one party is unaware of the other party's presence and has not already decided to move to initiative order.
It happens in tabletop games because GM fiat can overcome the desire of players to stay in initiative order at all times.
In an MMO, it's harder to imagine situations where a surprise round could occur. It would require a true ambush against a party not otherwise ready for a fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In an MMO, it's harder to imagine situations where a surprise round could occur. It would require a true ambush against a party not otherwise ready for a fight.
I do wonder if it might be possible, at least when a hideout-ambush precipitates someone out of fast travel. Even if a ambushers have a countdown pre-ambush and the travelers are suddenly back in the world with the ambushers some distance away, the ambushers are ready to move and the travelers have to figure out the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In an MMO, it's harder to imagine situations where a surprise round could occur. It would require a true ambush against a party not otherwise ready for a fight.I do wonder if it might be possible, at least when a hideout-ambush precipitates someone out of fast travel. Even if a ambushers have a countdown pre-ambush and the travelers are suddenly back in the world with the ambushers some distance away, the ambushers are ready to move and the travelers have to figure out the situation.
That's just a reason to not have Fast Travel IMO. Other than magical means such as a one-way teleport spell or portal, I don't want there to be fast travel. If you want to go from point a to point b, you have to go there either by walking, riding, sailing, or flying in the game world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Imbicatus Yeah, I only raised it because they told us in the part that there would be a form of fast travel, and it could be interdicted from hideouts.
I'm of mixed feelings on fast travel. I think staying in the game world adds to immersion. On the other hand I stopped playing Wurm cold after several years; I just wasn't willing to make yet another 4 RL hour trek to get someplace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Areks, what you're arguing for is NOT the premise behind the mechanic. You're arguing for the recent MMO convention of invisible rogues: a high(er) level can just stand in front of someone and be invisible until they initiate their chain-stuns. You're not de facto wrong to desire invisible rogues, but you're absolutely wrong about the premise behind stealth.Every time people start screaming when we touch mechanics with a long history of abuse in MMOs, I think we're on the right track.I have no issue with abuses, whatever they may be, being addressed so long as the basic premise behind the mechanic remains.
Invisible Rogues should only happen if the Rogue has access to the Invisibility spell. Even if they are invisible, there should still be a chance they make audible noise and for sure other visual clues should exist (i.e., if they pass through water they still make waves, if on soft ground they leave footprints, etc. )
To give Rogues Stealth and apply the states of Invisible, Silence, Incorporeal and Ethereal all into it does not, to me, seem desirable or even close to being true/near the actual PF game principles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks again to Stephen (and Ryan). Great response time and very clear answers (to the extent that things in flux can be)!
In the "End-game", not only will non-rogues have 200 perception, but Rogues will have access to dimension door, charge, invisibility (if in the game) etc. Even 1st level spells like silent image or obscuring mist can confuse sentries for that precious second. Not being able to get into range might be a question fo "L2P" rather than balance.
That said, has there been any indication on how stealth vs perception is compared? (Nightdrifter? Decius?)
If inspired by the d20 system, it should be linear and based on the difference in skill (with differences above 200 redundant). However, based on the blog on combat mechanics, I do not necessarily expect a linear model. Rather I would expect a system of diminishing returns.
I would not mind something like a 'logarithmic' model where a difference of 10-30-100-300 points gets you to 40-30-20-10% range (or 60-70-80-90 if you are the spotter).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
DB- No. What I am saying is I am fine with the mechanical effects as they are presented, except for being able to be visually and audibly detected. I don't believe "mechanics" are a substitue for player reaction.
People react differently to being startled. Some are calm under pressure, some panic. That cannot be efficiently translated in game by mechanics because it is player dependant. Maybe through effects triggered by biometric equipment a player could wear but we are no where NEAR that and further discussion on that possibility is counter-productive as it isn't currently a viable option.
Suffice it to say, startling a player is an advantage that we don't really have in PfO from the current mechanics described and I believe a lot of people that want to play rogues want that "possibility". We don't want to do it for sure, all the time, no questions asked. We just want it to be a possibility.
I hope I have captured the spirit of your position correctly.
This is a fairly important area to discuss, I believe. Let me play my role of Pathfinder GM. While this is not the tabletop game, part of the spirit is still applicable.
A very important aspect when playing a roleplaying game with characters is to remember that your primary target of interaction is the character and not the player. As such, a degree of care must be given to look at the character's skills and aptitudes and not punish a player for being unable to represent them with full adequacy. Most players have no freaking clue how to use the weapons they play with in the game. Bob doesn't know how to track animals through the woods, but his Ranger is an expert at it. Limiting Bob's Ranger's ability to track based on Bob's skill at such is punishing Bob for daring to partake in the Fantasy element of role play.
Now, with our video game a line does need to be drawn somewhere. Another player won't give a crap what someone's diplomacy score is when they are negotiating. But character awareness and ability react? Which side of the fourth wall should that line be drawn? I tend to favor allowing characters to react based on their awareness and reaction attributes using in-game mechanics. But my bias is in playing the role of a character that is more adept at such things than I might be in person. Other people simply wish characters to represent an extension of themselves and their own personal abilities.
I do not think either side of the argument is a clear winner, but I hope that can shine some light on the reasons to resolve "surprise" through more mechanical means. Understanding the other side can often make the position more tolerable, even if it is not what one might favor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if we were to keep within the spirit of the Pathfinder tabletop rules, what you would be arguing for is essentially a first-strike capability that only applies when the target is not engaged in combat.
It should be noted that I am talking about before combat commences. Can you assume and utilize a combat stance without engaging in combat? If that was stated, I missed it.
What I am arguing for is :
"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."
If I am in stealth, say in a city, and I am trying to sneak past a player guard. If that player sees my crouched shaded figure lurking around the corner, even though he has never gained line of sight of me, he knows I'm there and with only minimal investment into Perception if I break ranged distance. He can follow me if he can keep up, and if I am stealthed, I would assume I won't be moving at 100% rate of speed.
The fact that other characters are aware of me WILL affect how they react, regardless of what state I am in, stealth or not.
Rogues will not be able to slip past foes short of staying outside of ranged distance. I don't consider 30 feet "slipping past" would argue that it is "circumventing", same objective, different execution. The only possibility for a strike from an unseen location is if you stick to ranged attacks.
I get that the mechanics will not be able to translate over from PnP. Completely understand that.
If I get within 30ft of my target, they are automatically aware of me. I cannot slip past targets and cannot strike with melee from an unseen location.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Invisible Rogues should only happen if the Rogue has access to the Invisibility spell. Even if they are invisible, there should still be a chance they make audible noise and for sure other visual clues should exist (i.e., if they pass through water they still make waves, if on soft ground they leave footprints, etc. )
To give Rogues Stealth and apply the states of Invisible, Silence, Incorporeal and Ethereal all into it does not, to me, seem desirable or even close to being true/near the actual PF game principles.
Thank you for supporting my position. I am in complete agreeance with you. The fact of the matter is that there is no "chance" involved. Once I break ranged distance at best, whoever I am approaching is aware of my character's presence, just in a different state.
To give Rogues Stealth and apply concealment both mechanically and visually would be more accurate, and what I am lobbying for.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."
On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, has there been any indication on how stealth vs perception is compared?
This is relevant (from this thread):
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.
So no roll in comparison of Stealth to Perception (unlike tabletop). It's just a raw skill comparison.
Whenever you're in Stealth stance (your typical crouched, sneaky walk), the distance at which other players can see and target you is based on a comparison of your Stealth total and their Perception total. This ratio scales from 90% of the normal distances (for minimum Stealth vs. maximum Perception) to 10% of the normal distances (for maximum Stealth vs. minimum Perception), with equally matched characters resulting in a 50% reduction of sighting and targeting distances.
Note that skills run from 0 to 300. 200 has been brought up for a common upper Perception as 200 is the max you get from skill ranks and the rest from other feats/gear/buffs etc, but that is a separate matter.
Then what is relevant is Perception minus Stealth (denoted p-s below) which is a number running from -300 (300 Stealth and 0 Perception) up to +300 (0 Stealth and 300 Perception).
Denote the spotting distance for stealth relative to spotting distance with no stealth by r. So we know from the blog:
p-s = -300 ---> r = 0.1
p-s = 0 ----> r = 0.5
p-s = +300 ---> r = 0.9
If this happens to be a linear comparison, then the spotting distance when stealthed relative to normal spotting distance is:
r = 0.5 + m*(p-s)
where m = (4/3)*10^(-3) ~ 0.001333
Then for Stephen's example of 300 Stealth and 200 Perception at the upper end
r = 0.00133*(200-300)+0.5 = 0.36666, so about 36.7% of normal spotting distance when Stealthed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted
Also:
Invisible
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
I do agree that it doesn't really make any sense, but Ryan is right about the TT mechanic I believe. How relevant that is to the video game's mechanic remains questionable...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do agree that it doesn't really make any sense, but Ryan is right about the TT mechanic I believe. How relevant that is to the video game's mechanic remains questionable...That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
It's not correct at all.
InvisibleInvisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
Huh. Checking the rules, this is correct. A (non-invisible) hiding character in a combat that has already begun doesn't necessarily deny his target the dexterity bonus to AC. I don't think that situation has ever come up, but if it did, it happened contrary to the way the rules say.
Striking during the surprise round, before your target has acted in the combat does have those nice effects, and a common way to make that happen is with stealth.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted
There is only one surprise round, and that round only happens in the case of a meeting engagement where one party is unaware of the other party (I mean "group of people acting as allies" for party, not "an individual".) They're actually very rare.
There is no condition called "surprised" in the tabletop game.
Also:
InvisibleInvisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
Being unseen or concealed is not the same as being invisible. If it were, the Stealth skill would say that you were invisible, and the concealment rules would say you were invisible.
This is by design. Invisibility is a supernatural condition, whereas being stealthed or concealed is not. The supernatural condition of invisibility is substantially more robust than simply not being seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
If combat has yet to commence, and I am in concealment, and I strike via melee weapon, would my opponent not be flat footed by default, unless otherwise specified as not being able to be denied a DEX bonus?
I get that in combat, this flat-footed state is not applicable because we are in combat.
I would say that while "hit" is applicable, "perform any action that requires the knowledge of my presence" is more accurate. True Seeing, Psionics, other divination, and the like aside that is.
I get that this mechanic is another way to gain sneak attack in PfO and that this is it's primary function along with reducing the distance at which you are visible.
A better approach for this might be asking a different question.
Outside of combat, will there be a different skill for sneaking around undetected through non-magical means?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfootedThere is only one surprise round, and that round only happens in the case of a meeting engagement where one party is unaware of the other party (I mean "group of people acting as allies" for party, not "an individual".) They're actually very rare.
There is no condition called "surprised" in the tabletop game.
Also:
InvisibleInvisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
Being unseen or concealed is not the same as being invisible. If it were, the Stealth skill would say that you were invisible, and the concealment rules would say you were invisible.
This is by design. Invisibility is a supernatural condition, whereas being stealthed or concealed is not. The supernatural condition of invisibility is substantially more robust than simply not being seen.
The invisibility spell gives you a bonus to your stealth skill. The point is, a target that is not aware of his attacker, because of stealth or invisibility or because they are blind and deaf, is flatfooted for the first attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An unaware combatant, in the surprise round, is considered flat-footed because they have not acted yet-in tabletop (p.178 Core Rulebook). I think the separate 'surprise round' is one of those things that can't translate to an MMO. You're just surprised 'cause you are. In pnp the DM tells you you're surprised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being unseen or concealed is not the same as being invisible. If it were, the Stealth skill would say that you were invisible, and the concealment rules would say you were invisible.This is by design. Invisibility is a supernatural condition, whereas being stealthed or concealed is not. The supernatural condition of invisibility is substantially more robust than simply not being seen.
Correct. If I gave the impression I was trying to give stealth the Supernatural Condition of Invisibility, I apologize as I meant simply unseen by the player.
On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses.
It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
Stealth is written to work "as if you had concealment", which I believe to actually mean "total concealment".
Invisibility also grants that, but is also distinct in function.But I've seen Paizo Design Team staff themselves explicitly discussing Stealth as enabling Sneak Attack... This is what I could find in a simple search:
Concealment means you can make a Stealth check, which means your adjacent rogue allies can use sneak attacks.
The current RAW wording for Stealth/Perception/Sneak Attack is not exactly ideal, there seem to be unstated assumptions, and it may even be that the official Paizo endorsed functionality is not strictly derivable from RAW... I'm not in charge of their FAQ and Errata process :-)
If the aim here is to reflect how Stealth works in Pathfinder, either by RAW or by ideal, I think that a discussion on Stealth with Paizo's Rules Design team would be very productive, if only because they themselves have identified problems with PRPG's own RAW that they attempted to resolve via different rules changes. (one of which explicitly had Stealth working like Invisibility) While your take on Stealth/Sneak Attack may very well seem in line with RAW of tabletop Pathfinder, I don't believe it matches the design intent and actual applied game-play experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Re: the Flat-Footed condition, in the tabletop game it certainly does affect things beyond just being subject to Rogue Sneak Attack,
it is removing DEX and other similar bonuses to AC (e.g. Monk bonus) and also prevents taking AoOs.
Both of those seem translatable to PFO, and should be relevant beyond just Rogue Sneak Attack scenarios.
It seems plausible that a character without significant Sneak Attack Feats could nonetheless train Stealth to high levels,
and still gain some benefit from leaving their target Flat-Footed, even if Sneak Attack most strongly leverages that.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
If combat has yet to commence, and I am in concealment, and I strike via melee weapon, would my opponent not be flat footed by default, unless otherwise specified as not being able to be denied a DEX bonus?
I get that in combat, this flat-footed state is not applicable because we are in combat.
I would say that while "hit" is applicable, "perform any action that requires the knowledge of my presence" is more accurate. True Seeing, Psionics, other divination, and the like aside that is.
I get that this mechanic is another way to gain sneak attack in PfO and that this is it's primary function along with reducing the distance at which you are visible.
A better approach for this might be asking a different question.
Outside of combat, will there be a different skill for sneaking around undetected through non-magical means?
I think the point of 'sneaking' being a non-combat stance is that you cannot sneak while you are in combat.
And if you open the combat with an attack against an opponent who has not yet acted, even if your opponent is fully aware of your presence, you get sneak attack. That technically includes edge cases, such as a duel, where your opponent has reason to expect your attack at a agreed moment- the referee says 'fight', and if you win initiative, you react faster than your target can anticipate (unless he has uncanny dodge).
Given that PFO is simultaneous, I expect everyone who doesn't have an uncanny dodge power slotted to be flat-footed the entire first few seconds, or for a period of time based on their 'initiative' skill total, rather than until their player can hit a button.
Oh, and True Seeing does absolutely nothing versus non-magical stealth, including stealth which is performed with enhancement bonuses to stealth checks. True Seeing penetrates illusions, including invisibility, darkness, and a few other effects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me the stealth systems value is incredibly obvious. In Darkfall you have have a name tag when someone mouses over you and can never go invisible. You can enter a crouch mode which makes the audio of a footstep trigger less often and makes your vertical profile smaller.
In other words, stealth is fully reliant on how sneaky the player is. Have I ambushed targets in Darkfall? Yes, many times. Have I gotten into melee range and played them with the first swing before they realized what was going on? Yes, on multiple occasions.
What we absolutely know about this system is it will allow you to get closer to your target before there is any possibility of being spotted at all, unlike in Darkfall where if I could see and hear them they could see and hear me. This allows you to move around quite a bit while outside their perception range as you set up for a smooth approach.
Once the stealth goes away your cover isn't blown, you're just relying on your own skills. You can still get in melee range and get off that first swing before being targeted.
This is very powerful in an open world environment. WoW stealth is balanced for arenas where lots of action is happening very fast and time spent setting up perfect ambushes is time spent not assisting your team. In that environment some extra speed or offensive capabilities are balanced against stealth that allows you to get incredibly close to your target before having much chance of being detected, and possibly invisible until you make your first attack.
In a massive world where fights may be few and far between by comparison and death will be much more significant, that kind of stealth would be beyond overpowered. Everyone would play a stealth class.
The proposed system sounds awesome, and well balanced for this environment. If it's not, it can be adjusted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With regards to being detected there is little to no difference between stealth and invisibility. If you cast invisibility on yourself and try to move past a guard you still have to make a stealth check. So even while invisible it's your stealth vs. their perception.
Invisibility being a supernatural ability makes no difference as ultimately it just gives you a bonus to your stealth check.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Surprise round doesn't translate to PFO only because you will never be surprised with these stealth mechanics
Stephen seems to think it will translate well. We haven't seen it in action yet, so I'm still going to reserve judgement until I do.
I was just alarmed at being visible just inside of ranged range as it allows player reaction when there should be nothing to react to and think it's a relevant concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the dev statements, but it seems that if a stealthed creature breaks stealth stance (ending stealth) for combat stance, then leaps in and attacks, that would leave the target flatfooted, at least for the initial 6-second window when melee begins. Then a rouge's Cut Throat functions for extra damage would apply. After the initial 6-second melee round the rouge would have to rely on others in their party to distract the target long enough for the rouge to have Opportunity against that target, where other rouge skills could be effective (e.g., back stab). Is this close to where the design stands at present?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being unseen or concealed is not the same as being invisible. If it were, the Stealth skill would say that you were invisible, and the concealment rules would say you were invisible...
yikes, I'm going to question Ryan Danceys call! /cower
In the stealth errata thread of march 31st 2013
Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).
which seemed to indicate that attacking from stealth generally -does- negate AC bonus. Which is not the same as being invisible, but hurts equally much for the target.
But now this is turning into a PnP FAQ thread rather than a PFO one. If it becomes important, you can probably send a goblin runner over to Paizo and ask.
In PFO he 'loss of dex bonus' is anyway not required for sneak attacking in this situation (if you are targeted this is moot). The only thing on the line here seems to be a few points of evasion defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope I have captured the spirit of your position correctly.This is a fairly important area to discuss, I believe. Let me play my role of Pathfinder GM. While this is not the tabletop game, part of the spirit is still applicable.
A very important aspect when playing a roleplaying game with characters is to remember that your primary target of interaction is the character and not the player. As such, a degree of care must be given to look at the character's skills and aptitudes and not punish a player for being unable to represent them with full adequacy. Most players have no freaking clue how to use the weapons they play with in the game. Bob doesn't know how to track animals through the woods, but his Ranger is an expert at it. Limiting Bob's Ranger's ability to track based on Bob's skill at such is punishing Bob for daring to partake in the Fantasy element of role play.
Now, with our video game a line does need to be drawn somewhere. Another player won't give a crap what someone's diplomacy score is when they are negotiating. But character awareness and ability react? Which side of the fourth wall should that line be drawn? I tend to favor allowing characters to react based on their awareness and reaction attributes using in-game mechanics. But my bias is in playing the role of a character that is more adept at such things than I might be in person. Other people simply wish characters to represent an extension of themselves and their own personal abilities.
I do not think either side of the argument is a clear winner, but I hope that can shine some light on the reasons to resolve "surprise" through more mechanical means. Understanding the other side can often make the position more tolerable, even if it is not what one might favor.
Very valid and enlightening points.
@randomwalker: Yeah, I cued into that discrepancy as well, although to be fair to Mr. Dancy,
his reading is perfectly plausible and legitimate if you're just going by the RAW...
But hey, maybe this will provoke Paizo to fix up the RAW wording, which could be improved with very simple changes:
AC & Denied Dex is easily fixable: "unaware of a threat" is not really any longer than "cannot react to a blow", so why not use the version that is more accurately expressive of intent? (and that correlates to the wording in Stealth of them "not [being] aware of you")
Stealth's mention that you are treated as if you have Concealment should pretty clearly be Total Concealment...
Especially since you usually need to have Concealment to even try Stealth in the first place,
so achieving just normal Concealment would not really be much of an accomplishment.
While they're at it, they could even clear up the incoherent differing conditions for Stealth re: Concealment (unrestricted, i.e. any, in one section vs. Concealment only from Dim Light in another section).
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If combat has yet to commence, and I am in concealment, and I strike via melee weapon, would my opponent not be flat footed by default, unless otherwise specified as not being able to be denied a DEX bonus?
Yes, that's the intent of the Surprise Round rule. If, in a meeting engagement, one side is not aware of the other side, the side that acts first catches the other side flat-footed.
Maybe I'm using a term of art that is unfamiliar. "Meeting engagement" is one of several ways a combat action can begin. It just means that two opposing forces encounter one another while one or both are moving in an environment suitable for combat conditions to result where one side was incompletely prepared for battle.
Now here's the problem.
Let's imagine we're using tabletop rules, just for the sake of argument. I will want to be in initiative order (that is, in "combat mode") any time I feel I'm in a dangerous situation. If I'm in a situation where I think I'm at risk, I'm going to have my weapon drawn and I'm going to be wary of being attacked. Under those conditions there will not be a surprise round.
We could mechanically create a surprise round by doing something like allowing a group that is engaged in a fast-travel mode which is ambushed to begin the fight in surprise, but that implies that the fight begins immediately; the attackers and defenders are intermixed at melee ranges as soon as the fight starts. We had not planned on doing that; instead my ideas were that you'd be precipitated out of fast travel and the ambushers would have to move to your location and engage. Clearly, if you got dropped out of fast travel, you'd immediately go on guard, and there would not be a surprise round.
We could imagine a situation where within the walls of a Settlement you might not want people walking around with weapons drawn all the time ready to fight, and have a rule that by fiat put you in a vulnerable situation, and in that situation if someone somehow got inside the walls and got close enough to you without being detected, they might be able to initiate a surprise combat. But that's a lot of ifs, and it takes a lot of agency away from players and that makes me very uncomfortable.
As I said upthread, surprise rounds should be very infrequent events. In my games, they usually occur only within tightly constrained spaces (like dungeons or caverns) when the party prepares an ambush and monsters walk into it. Generally speaking, the PCs are rarely the target of a surprise round, or they're subjected to one at the start of a set-piece battle where I engineered the surprise condition by fiat for dramatic purposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Invisible Rogues should only happen if the Rogue has access to the Invisibility spell. Even if they are invisible, there should still be a chance they make audible noise and for sure other visual clues should exist (i.e., if they pass through water they still make waves, if on soft ground they leave footprints, etc. )
To give Rogues Stealth and apply the states of Invisible, Silence, Incorporeal and Ethereal all into it does not, to me, seem desirable or even close to being true/near the actual PF game principles.
Thank you for supporting my position. I am in complete agreeance with you. The fact of the matter is that there is no "chance" involved. Once I break ranged distance at best, whoever I am approaching is aware of my character's presence, just in a different state.
To give Rogues Stealth and apply concealment both mechanically and visually would be more accurate, and what I am lobbying for.
I completely agree. Stealth alone should never allow one to sneak up on another when there is nothing of mass blocking vision between the two. Now, if the Rogue had the spells Invisibility and Silence cast on them as well as was either Ethereal or Incorporeal via some magic item or spell, then yes they should be able to break ranged distance unseen/unheard/undetected up to 5ft from their target.
A Rogue just having maxed stealth alone should not unless his target remains facing away from him/her the entire time and the Rogue wins the Stealth vs Perception roll each turn until they are at 5ft (5ft being normal melee attack range). If ever there is a point in which a straight line can be drawn by the server from the stalked character's eyes to a point on the body of the Rogue Stealth should be dropped, Rogue detected.
So even if a character sits and spins a savvy Rogue would still be able to make the 5ft mark using cover (buildings, large boxes/crates, trees, boulders, hills, statues, etc) to block line of sight as they approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do agree that it doesn't really make any sense, but Ryan is right about the TT mechanic I believe. How relevant that is to the video game's mechanic remains questionable...That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.
Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.
At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.
RyanD
It's not correct at all.
InvisibleInvisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
They are, but Stealth does not confer the invisible state. Invisibility is gained only via the spell or other magical means. Stealth gives a bonus to concealment.
That said: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack."
This not an opposed roll. This is not Stealth vs Perception. It's a flat out round to round check the target gets to make. Sure, it may not be enough to attack the Rogue, but it should allow them the opportunity to flee the situation.
So while not visually, a character does have other means that would warn them something is amiss.
We could mechanically create a surprise round by doing something like allowing a group that is engaged in a fast-travel mode which is ambushed to begin the fight in surprise, but that implies that the fight begins immediately; the attackers and defenders are intermixed at melee ranges as soon as the fight starts. We had not planned on doing that; instead my ideas were that you'd be precipitated out of fast travel and the ambushers would have to move to your location and engage. Clearly, if you got dropped out of fast travel, you'd immediately go on guard, and there would not be a surprise round.
I like the idea of Surprise and Flat-Footed being relevant for attacks against Fast Travellers... Again, beyond Rogue/Sneak Attack concerns, Flatfooted SHOULD be widely relevant at least in terms of temporarily lowering AC/Defence and in nullifying Opportunity as far as the FF character is concerned (so the attackers can freely use Opportunity-provoking actions without fear of getting caught for doing so, as long as the target is still Flatfooted). But it wouldn't be an "every time" sort of thing, it should still depend on Perception vs. Stealth, possibly with using Fast Travel giving some penalty to Perception. If Stealth fails then Fast Travel is dropped but with perhaps a bit more distance vs. the Ambushers?
We could imagine a situation where within the walls of a Settlement you might not want people walking around with weapons drawn all the time ready to fight, and have a rule that by fiat put you in a vulnerable situation, and in that situation if someone somehow got inside the walls and got close enough to you without being detected, they might be able to initiate a surprise combat. But that's a lot of ifs, and it takes a lot of agency away from players and that makes me very uncomfortable.
Well obviously if you're using Stealth to sneak around a Settlement, then the standard rules already cover things. It does sound reasonable that the Disguise rules could also overlap with Stealth re: the Flatfooted rules, i.e. if the targets are deluded that you are a member of their Settlement, etc. Although given that there will be Settlements where random inter-Settlement PVP is fairly common, I don't know if one could make a general rule about that sort of thing.
@ The Devs: Now that we know stealth is relatively lackluster compared to other MMO's with invisi-stealth, can explain a bit more as to why someone would choose a Rogue (outside RP'ing reasons).
Like, it seems you just get get DPS in melee range if they're not targeting you, or you could hit them with a bow and get some decent damage if you're not being targeted and outside of melee range. You're a little less squishy than Sorcs/Wizards, but overall, I think the Sorc/Wiz DPS and Utility from a distance would outweight the DPS benefits of playing a Rogue. So in Conclusion:
If I want to play a high DPS character, why would I choose Rogue over Mage?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could imagine a situation where within the walls of a Settlement you might not want people walking around with weapons drawn all the time ready to fightWell obviously if you're using Stealth to sneak around a Settlement, then the standard rules already cover things.
You miss my point.
In a world where you could be Flat-Footed inside your Settlement if you voluntarily sheath a weapon ... nobody will sheathe their weapons. Because there's no cost to being ready to fight, you'll always be ready to fight, which means you'll never be Flat-Footed which means there will never be a surprise round which means there is no benefit to sneaking around alone inside a Settlement trying to catch an opponent unaware, etc. etc. etc.
It's a classic example of "wouldn't it be cool if x means nobody will ever do x".
That's why I said we could artificially impose a rule saying you were involuntarily put into a situation where you could be engaged with surprise, and also why I said I was uncomfortable with that, because all we're doing is removing choices from players by fiat.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
can explain a bit more as to why someone would choose a Rogue (outside RP'ing reasons).
Find / remove Traps
Pick locks
Sneak Attack increased melee damage vs. flanked targets
Sneak Attack increased ranged damage vs. sniper targets
Stealth for observation / recon
Mixture of lightweight armor and good melee damage
Use Magic Device
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
If I want to play a high DPS character, why would I choose Rogue over Mage?
Arcane spellcasting implies tradeoffs regarding the abilities you have access to based on your spellbook - depending on the situation you may not be correctly configured for DPS.
Arcane damage is likely to be typed meaning that you may face resists.
You may have a limited amount of high-DPS options per realtime unit.
You are likely to be a glass cannon and some people don't like being alpha-strike targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
can explain a bit more as to why someone would choose a Rogue (outside RP'ing reasons).Find / remove Traps
Pick locks
Sneak Attack increased melee damage vs. flanked targets
Sneak Attack increased ranged damage vs. sniper targets
Stealth for observation / recon
Mixture of lightweight armor and good melee damage
Use Magic Device
RyanD
Outside of removing magic traps and sneak attack, there are many other classes in TT that can do those things as well or better than a rogue. Will the Pick Locks, Use Magic Device, and so on be restricted as Rogue only skills or will the be general skills as in tabletop?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Outside of removing magic traps and sneak attack, there are many other classes in TT that can do those things as well or better than a rogue. Will the Pick Locks, Use Magic Device, and so on be restricted as Rogue only skills or will the be general skills as in tabletop?can explain a bit more as to why someone would choose a Rogue (outside RP'ing reasons).Find / remove Traps
Pick locks
Sneak Attack increased melee damage vs. flanked targets
Sneak Attack increased ranged damage vs. sniper targets
Stealth for observation / recon
Mixture of lightweight armor and good melee damage
Use Magic Device
RyanD
Unsure how this will effect skills in PFO, if at all. But rogues in PF get more skill points to spend than any other class. So perhaps it will be easier/faster for rogues to learn skills in PFO that fall under rogue class skills.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Outside of removing magic traps and sneak attack, there are many other classes in TT that can do those things as well or better than a rogue.
We are focusing on the contents in the core rulebook. Within the constraints of that rulebook, within the power levels we're targeting I think you'll find the Rogue is the best option for those types of activities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
can explain a bit more as to why someone would choose a Rogue (outside RP'ing reasons).Find / remove Traps
Pick locks
Sneak Attack increased melee damage vs. flanked targets
Sneak Attack increased ranged damage vs. sniper targets
Stealth for observation / recon
Mixture of lightweight armor and good melee damage
Use Magic Device
Isn't the game skill based with archetypes? Couldn't I just train pick locks, find/remove traps, and use magic device as a wizard or sorc? Then also take invisibility, for recon and other such things? All this said, given that Arcane Trickster is one of my fav classes to play as.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't I just train pick locks, find/remove traps, and use magic device as a wizard or sorc? Then also take invisibility, for recon and other such things? All this said, given that Arcane Trickster is one of my fav classes to play as.
Certainly you can. And you'll be advancing down each of those paths at a fraction of the speed of people who choose to specialize, but that's totally up to you. You're not following a pre-defined role, you're forging out on your own to find interesting ways to use the game system, and we applaud that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree. #1 Stealth alone should never allow one to sneak up on another when there is nothing of mass blocking vision between the two. Now, if the Rogue had the spells Invisibility and Silence cast on them as well as was either Ethereal or Incorporeal via some magic item or spell, then yes they should be able to break ranged distance unseen/unheard/undetected up to 5ft from their target.
A Rogue just having maxed stealth alone should not unless his target remains facing away from him/her the entire time and the Rogue wins the Stealth vs Perception roll each turn until they are at 5ft (5ft being normal melee attack range). #2 If ever there is a point in which a straight line can be drawn by the server from the stalked character's eyes to a point on the body of the Rogue Stealth should be dropped, Rogue detected.
#3 So even if a character sits and spins a savvy Rogue would still be able to make the 5ft mark using cover (buildings, large boxes/crates, trees, boulders, hills, statues, etc) to block line of sight as they approach.
#1 - Complete agreeance.
#2 - I could see pinging the Rogue to re-confirm stealth so long as the Rogue has partial concealment... as long as the target character isn't spinning. If caught in the wide open, then yes, drop stealth.
#3 - I would hope spinning in a circle at even a moderate rate of speed nullifies that characters awareness attributes. Your character isn't paying attention to its surroundings, it's trying to keep its balance.
I hope mechanics are emplaced to prevent unnatural character behavior for the sake of mechanical advantage.
As far as concealment via terrain and objects, since flora is procedurally generated this possess a problem. The only solution I see is to apply the bonus for concealment to all terrain where flora can be generated, not necessarily where each individual bush, shrub, or plant populates.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a world where you could be Flat-Footed inside your Settlement if you voluntarily sheath a weapon ... nobody will sheathe their weapons.
Unless its against the law to have a drawn weapon, in which case you would get flagged / hostile state as a criminal and be open to PvP and PvE if applicable.
Or is that not an option? As a NRDS organization, I would hope it is.
In a world where you could be Flat-Footed inside your Settlement if you voluntarily sheath a weapon ... nobody will sheathe their weapons.Unless its against the law to have a drawn weapon, in which case you would get flagged / hostile state as a criminal and be open to PvP and PvE if applicable.
Or is that not an option? As a NRDS organization, I would hope it is.
Coming from an MMO-standpoint, I don't think people will really care whether or not the people in their settlement have weapons drawn or not. This whole weapons drawn/not drawn in settlements thing isn't really a priority debate. lol
Edit: And also, while I'm here, if you make it so there's no disadvantage to having a sheathed weapon, people in settlements will likely just keep their weapons sheathed NATURALLY.