Invisibility and Intimidation

[noretoc]

I dissagree. As the dm, you should be giving bonuses for all kinds of things. You don't have to be consistant, you know the mindset of the NPCS and the history, etc. What scares one might not scare the other, and you don't have to tell the PCs which are which, let them figure it out. It is what make it interesting and not a numbers game.
I might have given the bonus the other way though. It the door were open, it is a good chance to get out and not be frightened. If I know all the exits are blocked, and I have four or five people just waiting for my spell to run out, with no way out. I'b be crapping in my pants.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You don't have to be consistant,

Obviously we would not work in the same gaming group.

 

[Dross]

I dissagree. As the dm, you should be giving bonuses for all kinds of things. You don't have to be consistant, you know the mindset of the NPCS and the history, etc. What scares one might not scare the other, and you don't have to tell the PCs which are which, let them figure it out. It is what make it interesting and not a numbers game.
I might have given the bonus the other way though. It the door were open, it is a good chance to get out and not be frightened. If I know all the exits are blocked, and I have four or five people just waiting for my spell to run out, with no way out. I'b be crapping in my pants.

I disagree with the bolded part. You do have to be consistent.
You can do the underlined part and still be consistent.

 

[Dross]

There are a number of circumstance modifiers.
invisibility v exits are guarded etc.
I'd have given the bonus to the side that appeared to have the true hand. What happens is the NPC has tumble? he could have tried tumbling through the blocked doorway (if at all possible) so the bonus should go to the NPC.

I'd be happy with the ruling in game, as long as it was consistently applied.

 

[noretoc]

Obviously we would not work in the same gaming group.

Guess not. I don't want my players knowing if they do a and b then the outcome will be c. They should think, if I do a and b then the outcome is usually c. Just like us. I know if I say this and that, usually I can get what I want, but sometimes I don't. Then what, how do I deal with it not. Players should not know, imo, that if they are on higher ground, have a target outlined, etc, that they get +3. They should know it make the bad guys guys easier to hit, but not the details. That way when something goes wrong, I don't spend 20 mins axplaining myself. "Why didn't I get +3, I got +3 last time". I never have to deal with that because things change because of reason the PC don't know. Maybe my players just trust me. They know that when strange bonuses or penalties happen there is a reason. Then they will try to find out the reason.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Guess not. I don't want my players knowing if they do a and b then the outcome will be c. They should think, if I do a and b then the outcome is usually c. Just like us.

I would imagine that's where rolling dice comes into play.