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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6061422" data-attributes="member: 1165">Defining this as a non-standard encounter is key. I think most DMs would just plop down three guards and two crossbowmen.<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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Good points: I like giving the non-stealthy PCs options (and PCs options for continually winning Stealth checks).I think there should be a Bluff option too. PCs who appear as if they "should be there" might be ignored until they're right up to the guards, or non-stealthy PCs could distract the guards, setting up some devastating sneak attacks from the stealthier PCs. (Distraction can enable PCs to sneak up on enemies even if they have clear line of sight.)I do not like the +10 Stealth bonus, that's giving me flashbacks to 3.x invisibility, where spotting a hidden opponent was basically impossible. In addition, any well-designed guard outpost is going to give clear line of sight to the guards anyway. Even with a Stealth result of 40, if there's no cover or concealment between the PCs and the guards, the guards will spot them, and wonder why they're obviously sneaking around or hiding under a cloak of invisibility.I guess I'm suggesting:1) Drop the Stealth bonus. (Give the guards a chance!)2) Make Bluff integral as well. At least some of the PCs are going to be seen, so they need to "manage the expectations" of the guards.</blockquote>

Verification