Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread is to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the Idea posted here:
https://pathfinderonlinecrowdforging.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Assassins-can-avoi d-detection-of-the-use-of-the-Observation-feat/42078-30320#comments
Do not automatically allow detection of the "being observed" debuff, Instead have the initial application of the debuff trigger a Perception vs. Stealth check which if the target beats the assissin's stealth allows him to notice that he is under observation. Allow further applications of 'Being Observed' to continue triggerring perception with a cumulative bonus for each stack applied by the same assassin.
Example Scenario:
Assassin stealthily approaches a target Perception is checked vs. the assassins Stealth and failed (if perception is passed Observation cannot be used as the assassin is no longer hidden), the assassin remains hidden and uses Observation on the target, this triggers an additional Perception Check, If passed the assassin remains hidden but the target is now aware he is under observation, If Failed The target remains unaware that he is under observation.If Perception was passed with the first application of observation, the assassin can attempt to add another stack of observation as soon as the cool down on the first use has run out, another Perception check is triggered this time with a bonus. If failed the target gains another stack, if passed the Assassin breaks Stealth and the target loses the observation debuf. If failed the assassin can attempt to add another stack and the process repeats.
If Perception was failed with the first application of Observation, then the assassin can attempt to add another stack a second perception check is triggered with a small bonus +1 or +2. If the target continues to pass the assassin can continue to add stacks in this fashion until a check is passed at which point you move to the process outlined above but retain the cumulative bonus to the targets perception.
This allows the assassin to observe a target who is completely unaware of his presence but gives the target a cumulative bonus to discover the assassin the longer observation is maintained, and can even potentially reveal the assassins actual location.
Please discuss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I posted it here because it seems as though Ideascale never draws more than 3 commentators to any given idea where as a lively discussion here is more likely to encourage people to vote there. I haven't seen any posts suggesting this is unacceptable although I also don't have a ton of time to browse the forums and read every post either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought we were being discouraged from discussing ideas in both places?
Perhaps, but IdeaScale is trivial to game that I've ignored it past the first few days.
On topic: I think there should indeed be a perception check, with varying results based on the check. At the very basic success level, you might just get a visible icon to represent unease at being observed. At higher check levels, the party doing the observing could be marked in some way, such as a red highlight, with the length of highlighting being dependent upon the margin by which the check succeeded. At the extreme end, the one being observed could also get a chat notification indicating the observer, so even if they can't find the highlight, they know who is stalking them.
Eh, the whole point of the Observation is that it prevents an easy one-hit kill by giving the victim a chance to get to safety/find the stalker. Making him potentially ignorant of the Observation removes that opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh, the whole point of the Observation is that it prevents an easy one-hit kill by giving the victim a chance to get to safety/find the stalker. Making him potentially ignorant of the Observation removes that opportunity.
It both allows one-shot kills (or something close to it) for assassins as an exception to the general rule and prevents one-shot kills without warning. Two birds with one stone. Beautiful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It depends I suppose, if the early warning increases the odds beyond 50% or any significant margin it's a problem. Or because of some 100% evade chance from unknown X side effects (instant logout, hiding in restricted places, etc...) then it doesn't really matter, it's unbalanced in favor of the target.
If it was tied to perception it would allow a buffer in those unbalanced scenarios, which depending on how things work out might be a better idea anyways depending on how long it takes to build up lethal stacks. Maybe the target is always warned, but a target with particularly bad perception gets the warning with only a few moments to spare instead of a much safer margin of a minute or two.
Also an assassin will be using disguise under such conditions therefore it should not highlight the assassin as beating his disguise is a separate mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not meant to be one-shot:
"I hope people have never gotten the impression that assassination would be a one-shot."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not meant to be one-shot:
"I hope people have never gotten the impression that assassination would be a one-shot."
Immediately below that section he edited in:
(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.)
That thread was tangentially related but not quite about the same topic.
And, as implied by Duffy's quote, he was talking about attacking from stealth.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that letting the target know that he is under attack before blades are drawn is a design goal of the Observed status, rewarding players who manage to infiltrate deeply enough that they aren't suspected. Making it possible to apply the effect without the target noticing gives that benefit to everybody.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that whoever is being observed should need to notice it on their own, or even someone nearby with a high enough perception and a clear view of both the stalker and prey.
Letting anyone get a free notice like this tells players they do not need to invest points into being observant.
I say this even as a town leader knowing that I am likely to attract this sort of attention. If I and my cohorts fail to notice A) the potentially disguised assassin, and B) the observation action itself, I really do not feel bad about what comes next.
It is not a clear death sentence even then, but at that point, if you die from assassination, you have failed three times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not meant to be one-shot:
"I hope people have never gotten the impression that assassination would be a one-shot."
Immediately below that section he edited in:
(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.)That thread was tangentially related but not quite about the same topic.
Still waiting on information as to how much Being Observed actually boosts your base damage. Even if Being Observed gives an insane boost to base damage (eg. +100, effectively doubling the base damage on a top end weapon), one shots are only going to happen against targets who have very little hp/resistance and certainly not against a target with decent hp/resistance.
Max damage on an attack is (damage factor)*(base damage-resistance), so assuming no resistance on the part of the target and a crazy 200 base damage that's (damage factor)*200. Even with a damage factor of 3 that's at best 600 damage on a full hit. Bear in mind this assumes a massive boost to base damage with a max keyword T3 weapon, an effectively naked target, and an attack with a high damage factor which can take advantage of Being Observed. In all likelihood this is vastly over-estimating the damage you'll do. If we go with something more realistic (100 base damage increased by 50 from Being Observed against 20 resistance) that's 390 damage on a full hit - less than a new character starts with.
You get some bonus hp for various passives. Let's ignore those. Starting hp is 400 and increases by 40 for each time you train up your hp, up to 20 times. So to get up to 600 hp (to match the vast over-estimate of damage) is 5 ranks and assumes no increases due to passives (or buffs). That takes 298 xp - just under 3 hours worth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still not convinced that there will be enough incentives to having your seneschals online to make it worth risking assassination. I'll be very pleased, but very surprised, if we don't end up with a system where building owners are alts with the bare minimum of social skills to get the needed bonuses, and sleep at the character select screen 99% of the time.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I believe that whoever is being observed should need to notice it on their own, or even someone nearby with a high enough perception and a clear view of both the stalker and prey.
Letting anyone get a free notice like this tells players they do not need to invest points into being observant.
I say this even as a town leader knowing that I am likely to attract this sort of attention. If I and my cohorts fail to notice A) the potentially disguised assassin, and B) the observation action itself, I really do not feel bad about what comes next.
It is not a clear death sentence even then, but at that point, if you die from assassination, you have failed three times.
Are you talking about player skill, or character feats?
If it is possible for the assassin to have feats which make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to detect them, they will.
Wait, what happens if an Observed target logs off?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also an assassin will be using disguise under such conditions therefore it should not highlight the assassin as beating his disguise is a separate mechanic.
Disguise is contested against Perception. If you're a low-skill disguise artist and you're trying to Observe someone with significantly higher perception, then perhaps your shoddy costume makes you stand out rather than blend in. If you have high Disguise and they have low Perception, then they're oblivious enough to miss even the basics.
Perhaps someone with many ranks in both Perception and Profession: Bodyguard could use their skills on behalf of another, being able to see the Observed status of their charge.Do you really expect a system that's just "click observe, click kill, run"? Targets of actual value with no reasonable defence against such a system will simply be logged off as often as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what happens if an Observed target logs off?Then the assassin has removed that character from the world. Job well done.
That doesn't convey the same kind of infrastructure-suppressing penalties that a completed assassination would.
Unless it does- would it make sense to say that logging off while observed counts as being assassinated?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait, what happens if an Observed target logs off?Then the assassin has removed that character from the world. Job well done.That doesn't convey the same kind of infrastructure-suppressing penalties that a completed assassination would.
Unless it does- would it make sense to say that logging off while observed counts as being assassinated?
Personally, I'd be ok with that. The assassin gets a 'free' assassination, but the target doesn't lose their gear to actual death. Seems like a fair tradeoff.
Edit to add: Ideally there'd be some kind of buffer against random crashes, but I can't actually think of a good way to do that that doesn't force the assassin to wait near the person's logoff spot while he gets reinforcements on TS, so that's probably going to have to be an acceptable level of risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's one of my chief concerns regarding the 'Being Observed' debuff. If it is automatically detectable without the need for a perception roll, then high priority targets will simply vanish into the logged off state before I have a chance to strike let alone add multiple stacks the debuff is intended to allow. Detection needs to be a requirement not a given.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is possible to apply Observed without being detectable, why have it?
It's currently the only way to get a one shot kill potential. Otherwise assassinations would simply not be possible regardless.
Theoretically remaining disguised within a settlement long enough to stack the buff may in and of itself be a challenge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is possible to apply Observed without being detectable, why have it?
I think this statement misses the point. The proposal is to have 'Being Observed' be detectable rather than being detected.
The difference is requiring a successful Perception vs. Stealth vs. No requirement at all. Anything other than the above is a colossal breach of realism. So bad in fact as to make the assassin character archetype that a great many of us want to play impossible.I think it also needs to be understood that At no point am I saying the 'Being Observed' debuff should be undetectable that would be just as breaking as the reverse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is possible to apply Observed without being detectable, why have it?I think this statement misses the point. The proposal is to have 'Being Observed' be detectable rather than being detected.
The difference is requiring a successful Perception vs. Stealth vs. No requirement at all. Anything other than the above is a colossal breach of realism. So bad in fact as to make the assassin character archetype that a great many of us want to play impossible.I think it also needs to be understood that At no point am I saying the 'Being Observed' debuff should be undetectable that would be just as breaking as the reverse.
Realism is not, and should not, be a design goal unless you're making a physics sim. Good gameplay should be the design goal.
As it stands right now, someone already needs to have perception to try to penetrate your disguise, or the best the target can do is run, not fight back. You should not be able to have an encounter in which one side is unaware they are participating until it is over. Passive, system-generated skill checks do not constitute engagement.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What should the target being observed do to know that they are being observed? Why wouldn't the targets simply macro those actions? If there isn't something that the specific target can do to detect the observation (because they lack the XP to learn perception, for example), then that particular Observation is undetectable.
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.
I think what you'll end up seeing is most good assassins do several probing/desensitizing runs with a couple of stacks of BO before they actually move in for the kill when the target is sick of jumping at shadows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.
Yep. Do it several times over the course of a couple of weeks- get them desensitized, so that when you're ready to actually make your move it's just another nuisance to ignore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Realism is not, and should not, be a design goal unless you're making a physics sim. Good gameplay should be the design goal.
In any role-playing game a certain amount of realism is necessary or it breaks immersion and breaking immersion results in a bad gameplay experience.
If I want to play the role of an assassin and the system purports to allow such through mechanics such as the assassin flag and assassination contract, then i should be able to play that role. The Observation feat which will likely be necessary in order to make a 'real' assassination attempt workable will in its current form allow responses that make a successful assassination attempt impossible.
Myself and a good many others want to play an assassin in a way that is immersive and meaningful to us. Its not our fault if you don't want to play the role of hapless victim, no one does. If you're that concerned about being assassinated, never work your way up into a position of power within an organization you join and there will never be a reason to target you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.Yep. Do it several times over the course of a couple of weeks- get them desensitized, so that when you're ready to actually make your move it's just another nuisance to ignore.
So I should waste weeks of my time on something that a fighter can accomplish in seconds on the field?
I can think of better ways to spend time then throwing out stacks of Observed just to annoy someone. I would hazard a guess that after enough people complained about being observed over and over again to no effect that the behavior would be labeled griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I should waste weeks of my time on something that a fighter can accomplish in seconds on the field?
If the only result of being assassinated was death, no. But it's not. Being assassinated is much worse than death, impacting bind point threads and settlement DI. So, yes, it should require more investment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Observation feat which will likely be necessary in order to make a 'real' assassination attempt workable will in its current form allow responses that make a successful assassination attempt impossible.
We know with confidence that GW wants a useful and interesting assassination mechanic to be part of the game. If it turns out in practice that assassination is unworkable, they can fix it until it works.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What i think the most interesting thing to do would be to put a single observed stack on a target, and then leave.Yep. Do it several times over the course of a couple of weeks- get them desensitized, so that when you're ready to actually make your move it's just another nuisance to ignore.So I should waste weeks of my time on something that a fighter can accomplish in seconds on the field?
I can think of better ways to spend time then throwing out stacks of Observed just to annoy someone. I would hazard a guess that after enough people complained about being observed over and over again to no effect that the behavior would be labeled griefing.
A fighter in the field can't create paranoia and distrust, nor can he cause his target to cry wolf. Nor can he have the effects of assassination. Nor can he enter a hostile settlement unnoticed.
Why do you want to be an assassin, if you don't think any of their unique effects are noteworthy?
For aristocrats logging in: Perhaps they could simply be required to be logged in for, say, one hour per day/two days/week. If they log out in the middle of it, it resets the clock—meaning it's not quite so easy to avoid the assassin.
This keeps things challenging—the assassin might have as little as an hour to reach the aristocrat (he should already be lurking nearby, of course), stack the Observations, and kill him—but also ensures the assassin will have ample opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps not, but a fighter has at his disposal the simple expedient of grinding an opposing settlements into the dust in the open with his fellows.
The effects of assassination are all fine and good for those who contract the assassination, but I have no interest in sowing paranoia and distrust, only in fulfilling contracts. My intent is to build my character to the point where I can ghost into an area Kill my contracted target, as quickly and quietly as possible then stealth up again and sneak out to collect my reward. I expect that this will require a very significant investment of experience points and coin to accomplish I also expect that each contract will carry with it a high risk of discovery and death before I even make it to the objective, and I also expect that should I succeed or fail, making my escape will also be challenging. It is those interactions that I'm looking for, and to make myself the best I can possibly be to achieve that end. What I don't like is an arbitrary and artificial system in which my designated target becomes aware of my presence through no effort of his own. If a person wants to avoid being assassinated, He should have to train Perception, or have hired someone who has.
I'm perfectly happy with modifying the proposal to include everyone in the area gets triggered a perception check not just the target. as long as its not just handed to them on a silver platter.
Personally, I don't see how it's unrealistic in a bad way. The "sense you're being watched" is an old staple. Everyone from B&W movie damsels to hardboiled private eyes to people who say stuff like "I'd lose my head if it weren't attached to me" in horror movies is liable to get that sense.
The "Turn Around, See Nothing, Turn Back And BOOM" is a staple of jumpscare-happy shows and movies like Supernatural, and they often depend solely on the sense.
Is it realistic? Not really, but it's a classic.
Does it nerf assassins? No, it just means you have to be somewhat clever instead of solely just boosting your sneakyskills and hoping for the best. Disguises, Stealth, deception—assassination is a skill-intensive job that will probably be quite expensive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I don't see how it's unrealistic in a bad way. The "sense you're being watched" is an old staple. Everyone from B&W movie damsels to hardboiled private eyes to people who say stuff like "I'd lose my head if it weren't attached to me" in horror movies is liable to get that sense.
The "Turn Around, See Nothing, Turn Back And BOOM" is a staple of jumpscare-happy shows and movies like Supernatural, and they often depend solely on the sense.
Is it realistic? Not really, but it's a classic.
Up until this point I agree with you completely which is why i think it should be allowed by a successful perception check.
If I was pushing for total realism you would never know what happened, your screen would just go black for a second before you respawned.
I never said the sense was a Perception check.
And how would that example be realistic? Realism is letting the target have a chance to notice you. Hell, it's more realistic to have him get the sense than to give him no chance to get anything at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never said the sense was a Perception check.
And how would that example be realistic? Realism is letting the target have a chance to notice you. Hell, it's more realistic to have him get the sense than to give him no chance to get anything at all.
No you didn't, I said it should be.
The best assassins never give their targets an inkling of whats about to happen to them before it does, in game terms, I'm assuming that if I'm close enough to use the Observation feats, you and everyone around you has already failed every chance you were given to detect me before hand, and since you failed, my first attack was instantly fatal because it was both magical and laced with lethal doses of poison.
And like others have said, it's not okay to make a one-hit kill that doesn't give the victim a chance to react.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, it has been said many times by GW that one hit kills are out. I don't know how assassins will work in PFO but GW probably has something in discussion. An odd idea I had was that an assassin could put up an effect close to an invisibility sphere for the length of the assassination. Not sure how that would play into PF mechanics....eh(shrugs shoulders)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, it has been said many times by GW that one hit kills are out. I don't know how assassins will work in PFO but GW probably has something in discussion. An odd idea I had was that an assassin could put up an effect close to an invisibility sphere for the length of the assassination. Not sure how that would play into PF mechanics....eh(shrugs shoulders)
You can read the (probably) current plan for it in the blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, it has been said many times by GW that one hit kills are out. I don't know how assassins will work in PFO but GW probably has something in discussion. An odd idea I had was that an assassin could put up an effect close to an invisibility sphere for the length of the assassination. Not sure how that would play into PF mechanics....eh(shrugs shoulders)
One thing that i find interesting is all this focus on the one-hit-kill. While I have said that in my opinion a one hit kill should be allowed as part of the assassination mechanics, the proposed change to the mechanic currently under discussion in no way allows for a one-hit-kill. It simply prevents a target from being notified of the presence of an assassin without a perception check. somthing they would need anyway if we were to opt not to use observation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, did not mean to take the discussion off the rails.
My apologies, I didn't mean to single you about specifically, we have all at one point or another mentioned it, and it should be a moot point as the developers have said they will do all in their power to make it impossible. I just feel like all of the opposition to my proposal have been prompted by fear of being one hit killed without warning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that it would keep to the Table Top version to require some skill in Perception to notice if you are being targeted by an assassin. It makes sense. If you want to be a high profile target, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. The Aristocrats give what I can only assume is a decent bonus to their settlement. They shouldn't be able to do that without any risk. Everything in PFO is about weighing risk and reward. So the risk part is that assassins will be gunning for you. I don't think you should know by default when you get the Being Observed status for the reasons already listed above. With the requiring a perception skill mechanic the worst case scenario is that an Aristocrat gets attacked while he feels safe and secure in his settlement. He gets attacked, not one-shot. If that is the worst case scenario for this mechanic, I don't see anything wrong with it and I see some nice things for assassins that it brings to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, it has been said many times by GW that one hit kills are out. I don't know how assassins will work in PFO but GW probably has something in discussion. An odd idea I had was that an assassin could put up an effect close to an invisibility sphere for the length of the assassination. Not sure how that would play into PF mechanics....eh(shrugs shoulders)One thing that i find interesting is all this focus on the one-hit-kill. While I have said that in my opinion a one hit kill should be allowed as part of the assassination mechanics, the proposed change to the mechanic currently under discussion in no way allows for a one-hit-kill. It simply prevents a target from being notified of the presence of an assassin without a perception check. somthing they would need anyway if we were to opt not to use observation.
I'd suggest you go back and read up a bit more.
Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
So, yes, stacks of observation currently are planned to allow one-shotting. Which is why the target gets to know how many he has.