Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7038197" data-attributes="member: 5890">To me, that's really only a difference in narration. I don't actually think that"We stealth""Ok, roll"<rolling>"Ok, you sneak up on the compound and are spotted and attacked/scope the place out and return to base"is any different to "We stealth""Ok, you sneak up on the compound. Roll stealth"<rolling>"You're spotted and attacked/you return to base safely"I'm not going to request multiple stealth checks for attempting a single thing (ie - if you sneak into a camp, that's going to be one stealth check, regardless of the number of sentries) because otherwise you make failure very likely, even with competent PCs.That said, more complex stealth scenarios are more difficult to adjudicate fairly: you want to stick to one roll, but you also want the PCs to be able to react to things they observe and take more or less risk. I think if you're keen on running an extended stealth scenario and not just have it fail due to lots of rolls, you want to come up with something more complex: the existing rules just suck for that kind of thing.For starters I'd come up with some kind of alert level for the target that triggers various reactions at different levels, plus some ways the PCs can affect that level positively and negatively. Failing a stealth check should result in an increase in alert level, not an immediate armed conflict unless the PCs just give up on stealth.Isn't all stealth an ongoing effort to be stealthy?The scenarios I envisage are when the players don't have a way to detect the NPCs intentions at the point when they are spotted. As an example, the NPC is himself hidden and the PCs do not detect him when he skulks away to arrange an ambush. Or the NPC is visible, but continues on as normal until out of sight, springing a trap later.</blockquote>

Verification