Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nail" data-source="post: 1598764" data-attributes="member: 224">Well....yes and no.&nbsp; It would be best to clear the cover....but sometimes it's not possible, or &quot;it takes to much work&quot;.&nbsp; (We are talking about orcs, right?)Sure.&nbsp; But a better use to sneaking is to scout, rather than attack.&nbsp; Knowing where the enemy is and what they are doing can be a huge advantage...depending on your Game Master.&nbsp; For some DMs, tactical information is....less important to the &quot;flow of events&quot;.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Easy: Sneak skill.&nbsp; Roll it once against the Spot or Sense skill of the guards.&nbsp; Apply the distracted penalty for card-playing orcs.&nbsp; Done.You see, once again you are being confined by the legacy of the D&amp;D system.&nbsp; There are not two separate actions; there's just one: Sneak.&nbsp; You wanna sneak by the orcs, across the open door?&nbsp; Then just do it =&gt; Roll Sneak, and then yer done.&nbsp; What's the problem?Once again: This change actually makes things easier.&nbsp; The rogue rolls his Sneak check, applies whatever circumstance modifiers the DM sees fit, and then the opponent rolls either a Sense or a Spot check.&nbsp; The observer gets to chose - usualy that'll be his highest score.&nbsp; The DM could also say: &quot;You should roll a Sense check; Spot is not applicable.&quot;&nbsp; There's no need to tell the PC why.&quot;Improved cover&quot; makes detecting a sneak-er harder, either with vision or with other senses.&nbsp; So...no need defining which is which.As far as &quot;telegraphing&quot; that there is an invisible assasin by requiring Sense: Hey, the current system does that too.&nbsp; It's called Listen.....I can tell you've rarely, if ever, used the Listen skill in your games.&nbsp; It should be used as often as Spot, really.Think about it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nail, post: 1598764, member: 224"] Well....yes and no. It would be best to clear the cover....but sometimes it's not possible, or "it takes to much work". (We [i]are[/i] talking about orcs, right?) Sure. But a better use to sneaking is to scout, rather than attack. Knowing where the enemy is and what they are doing can be a huge advantage...depending on your Game Master. For some DMs, tactical information is....less important to the "flow of events". :) Easy: Sneak skill. Roll it once against the Spot or Sense skill of the guards. Apply the distracted penalty for card-playing orcs. Done. You see, once again you are being confined by the legacy of the D&D system. There are not two separate actions; there's just one: Sneak. You wanna sneak by the orcs, across the open door? Then just do it => Roll Sneak, and then yer done. What's the problem? Once again: This change actually makes things [i]easier[/i]. The rogue rolls his Sneak check, applies whatever circumstance modifiers the DM sees fit, and then the opponent rolls either a Sense or a Spot check. The observer gets to chose - usualy that'll be his highest score. The DM could also say: "You should roll a Sense check; Spot is not applicable." There's no need to tell the PC why. "Improved cover" makes detecting a sneak-er harder, either with vision or with other senses. So...no need defining which is which. As far as "telegraphing" that there is an invisible assasin by requiring Sense: Hey, the current system does that too. It's called Listen. ....I can tell you've rarely, if ever, used the Listen skill in your games. It should be used as often as Spot, really. Think about it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification