Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8951034" data-attributes="member: 6779196">If there are 100 orcs, it’s going to be very difficult to maintain the conditions necessary to hide from all of them at once, since their lines of sight likely cover a lot of ground. If the DM wants to represent that in an abstract way, they could always use advantage on the orcs’ passive perception, disadvantage on the sneaker’s stealth, and/or some other situational penalty at their discretion. But the fact that this can be resolved with one roll instead of 100 is a feature, not a bug.Well, sure; it’s three separate instances of trying to sneak past someone. It’s not as if you didn’t have the opportunity to go back to your party and report your findings after the first patrol, or try to get a jump on the first patrol, or something. You’re essentially trying to tackle three separate encounters back to back on your own. That’s a decision you can certainly make, but you should know it’s a huge risk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8951034, member: 6779196"] If there are 100 orcs, it’s going to be very difficult to maintain the conditions necessary to hide from all of them at once, since their lines of sight likely cover a lot of ground. If the DM wants to represent that in an abstract way, they could always use advantage on the orcs’ passive perception, disadvantage on the sneaker’s stealth, and/or some other situational penalty at their discretion. But the fact that this can be resolved with one roll instead of 100 is a feature, not a bug. Well, sure; it’s three separate instances of trying to sneak past someone. It’s not as if you didn’t have the opportunity to go back to your party and report your findings after the first patrol, or try to get a jump on the first patrol, or something. You’re essentially trying to tackle three separate encounters back to back on your own. That’s a decision you can certainly make, but you should know it’s a huge risk. [/QUOTE]

Verification