Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6877582" data-attributes="member: 996">True, only on their right to choose, not which choice they make. Stealth has always been problematic that way, the more so when it was separate hide/move-silently.&nbsp; The group check and skill challenge concept from 4e addressed problems like that, and 5e has retained the Group Check, which is ideal for dealing with the problem of multiple characters trying to sneak...It's a thing, because people do it.&nbsp; There's a criticism of 5e, and a zealous defender of 5e (not thinking through what he's saying) retorts &quot;while 5e just isn't for you!&quot; or &quot;5e just can't do that, it's not nth ed.&quot;&nbsp; Asserting failure of the 5e 'big tent' goal as a defense against some minor criticism or personal opinion. With defenders like those, it's a good thing 5e doesn't have 'hater5...'(...and no cracks about 5e not having 'Defenders.')</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6877582, member: 996"] True, only on their right to choose, not which choice they make. Stealth has always been problematic that way, the more so when it was separate hide/move-silently. The group check and skill challenge concept from 4e addressed problems like that, and 5e has retained the Group Check, which is ideal for dealing with the problem of multiple characters trying to sneak... It's a thing, because people do it. There's a criticism of 5e, and a zealous defender of 5e (not thinking through what he's saying) retorts "while 5e just isn't for you!" or "5e just can't do that, it's not [i]n[/i]th ed." Asserting failure of the 5e 'big tent' goal as a defense against some minor criticism or personal opinion. With defenders like those, it's a good thing 5e doesn't have 'hater5...' (...and no cracks about 5e not having 'Defenders.') [/QUOTE]

Verification