Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6987262" data-attributes="member: 12731">If sneaky critters can't even surprise untrained oafs in plate helmets that are as blind and deaf as random peasants (without the DM skipping the sneaking part and moving right up to the ambush part) that game has Stealth rules worse than non-existing.This doesn't mean I don't see the value in bounded accuracy. But any rules for Stealth must have a clear vision and takes into account the fundamental mathematical underpinnings. I mean, if the designers added an &quot;ambush bonus&quot; that told me they were aware of the inherent advantage of the perceptors over the ambushers, it'd be okay. One suggestion has been &quot;have ambushers make a group check&quot;. This might not be my personal favorite solution, but it does address the math. By allowing the group to succeed even if 2 out of 5 fail, you have shown a basic awareness of the statistics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6987262, member: 12731"] If sneaky critters can't even surprise untrained oafs in plate helmets that are as blind and deaf as random peasants (without the DM skipping the sneaking part and moving right up to the ambush part) that game has Stealth rules worse than non-existing. This doesn't mean I don't see the value in bounded accuracy. But any rules for Stealth must have a clear vision and takes into account the fundamental mathematical underpinnings. I mean, if the designers added an "ambush bonus" that told me they were aware of the inherent advantage of the perceptors over the ambushers, it'd be okay. One suggestion has been "have ambushers make a group check". This might not be my personal favorite solution, but it does address the math. By allowing the group to succeed even if 2 out of 5 fail, you have shown a basic awareness of the statistics. [/QUOTE]

Verification