Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9514641" data-attributes="member: 2067">I am a big user of group checks. I think the Stealth situation is interesting. On the one hand, yes, a single failed check could fail a stealth situation, and so if you want a stealth situation, you get your stealthy party members to sneak on ahead of those who are more boisterous. This is an interesting strategic decision, as it means ambushes are rarer (the party is split), but are still useful in some situations (when maybe there's only a guard or two and your stealthy scouts can take them out). This is a bad gameplay result, though, since it means the non-stealthy bit of the party just sits around twiddling their thumbs for what could be quite a lot of table time.So I think I'm still going to use group checks for Stealth, because I'd rather not have Boredom Time. And I'm OK with the average result - with more stealthy characters giving advice and help to less stealthy characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 9514641, member: 2067"] I am a big user of group checks. I think the Stealth situation is interesting. On the one hand, yes, a single failed check could fail a stealth situation, and so if you want a stealth situation, you get your stealthy party members to sneak on ahead of those who are more boisterous. This is an interesting strategic decision, as it means ambushes are rarer (the party is split), but are still useful in some situations (when maybe there's only a guard or two and your stealthy scouts can take them out). This is a bad gameplay result, though, since it means the non-stealthy bit of the party just sits around twiddling their thumbs for what could be quite a lot of table time. So I think I'm still going to use group checks for Stealth, because I'd rather not have Boredom Time. And I'm OK with the average result - with more stealthy characters giving advice and help to less stealthy characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification