Sorcerer perk Stalker (remake?)

[redo]

Well hello there. I have an idea how to remake this perk. I dont like this perk, because sorcerer has pernament invisible, wich is not good to RP with someone else. Doesnt matter its really power and strong perk, but is not really good for RP.

How remake this perk? If it is possible, would be nice make invisible from this perk to hide buttom. If sorceror want.. he will "hide" and this would means he will activate his invisible. I know, he cannot run in this invisible, but i'm sure you all know this perk is really powerfull. If sorcerer will not run in his invisible it doesnt matter i guess. But what is nice? If he unactive his invisible, he can RP with someone else without trouble i guess.

EDIT: I mean edit this perk something like shadow dancer (but with invisible, not with hide)

[Anthee]

My understanding is that it's very intentional that you can't turn the invisibility off. It affects roleplay and it's meant to be like that -- the character is "losing themselves", so to speak, and losing their identity as they fade away from the realm of the visible, slowly driving them insane in the process.

[Ladocicea]

Anthee is right. It's intentional that he cannot remove the effect at will, and this is supposed to be a kind of disadvantage, although in practice I think it's not really much of one.

It occurs to me that this change would make this perk a lot more powerful anyway, and that's really the last thing we want.

[Zango_Unchained]

Perhaps a better representation of the perm invis and how it effects social skills and interactions would be a social skill debuff, or something even more crippling like -1 charisma. Honestly I would stay away from the later option, but its there if this is seen as really overly powerful. The only reason this perk is so strong, is that fighters and otherwise cannot handle someone who is always unseen due to our lack of innate see invis like a caster.

[Ommadawn]

There are disadvantages, certainly. You can't target invisible people for healing for example. This seems to be a flavoursome perk and I don't think it needs to be made more powerful by allowing it to be switched on or off when convenient.

[gravekeeper]

Perhaps a better representation of the perm invis and how it effects social skills and interactions would be a social skill debuff, or something even more crippling like -1 charisma. Honestly I would stay away from the later option, but its there if this is seen as really overly powerful. The only reason this perk is so strong, is that fighters and otherwise cannot handle someone who is always unseen due to our lack of innate see invis like a caster.

-1 cha would ignore the magnetic aura and strength of character of the PC. If a penalty is needed, I would go for skills... for instance, persuade.

[Zango_Unchained]

Can you be very magnetic, and have a force of personality without people being able to see your emotions and actions?
 
But a hit to skills would be in order I'd think if anything. But no need to nerf it now when a main server villian is a stalker.

[gravekeeper]

Can you be very magnetic, and have a force of personality without people being able to see your emotions and actions?
 
But a hit to skills would be in order I'd think if anything. But no need to nerf it now when a main server villian is a stalker.

Yes, you can. Those things are not dependent on the others, even less on the vision alone. A lot more of variables are needed to measure that ability.

Ghosts and hideous hags would be bestowed the worse charisma if that was the logic

[Dredi]

I personally see no reason that this perk needs to be nerfed.

[Ladocicea]

There are disadvantages, certainly. You can't target invisible people for healing for example.

Yeah. Would be a disadvantage if level 8 stalkers ever got hurt in the first place.

[Pigadig]

Maybe the invis should be replaced with a 3/day invis token and given some other buffs and negatives as a replacement.

I mean there's a reason this perk gets identified as the best PvP perk. Although the nerf that makes invis re-apply every 10 rounds instead of 3 would seem to help.

[Crump]

permanent 50% concealment instead of permanent invis would probably be more fair and still keeping in the spirit of the bloodline.

[NewBeings]

I don't often comment on this stuff, but this is turning into the same complaint style as we have seen with Evard's Tentacles time and again. The perk is fine as it is. It really shouldn't affect pvp so much, especially with the recent adjustment, because the invis still breaks as per normally with open attacks. Its no different than fighting a wizard who casts invis on himself, except the sorcerer in question (might) be free from taking another action to reapply by casting. If you don't have the ability/potion/spell/whatever to see invisible creatures, then you'd be screwed either way.

Now, as far as the RP aspect of it, you should be creative enough to roleplay your situation, and it should fit into your concept/story, etc. If you don't think you have the stuff to pull that off, then you should probably consider something else.

PS - This is coming from someone who hasn't even reached the level of perma invis, and tbh, mechanically it'll be a small convenience at best. Nor will it very much change the way I'm already playing the concept, except to act as a progression to the STORY.

[redo]

I dont wanna nerf this perk. It would be really nice, if character may switched betwen invisible and visible. That isnt nerf... but its really bad, if you want RP with someone or with more character... you're in ass i guess... because no oce see you. Thats reason why would be great to make something like switch invis/visible .... thats all what would be nice to do. You all speak about nerf... but if you think about it, its not nerf... its something like shadow dancer (no with hide, but with invisible)


'Btw. thats only idea.

[Ladocicea]

Yeah but redo there's a reason why EFU has never seen a shadowdancer, if you'll excuse the pun. And it's not because they're good at hiding... Actually no, it is because of that. It's because they're too good.