 3rd Ed Stealth. |
  |
 May 17 2006, 12:06 AM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Beetle Eater  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826  |
You mean 4, right? |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
May 17 2006, 12:14 AM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I don't ever remember reading anything that said that. Can you give me a BBB page reference? I don't have my sourcebooks with me but I can send an email to some people I know in the US who could then confirm that for me. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 17 2006, 12:25 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
oops, it's the average +1 per member. SR3 pg 231, 3rd para under Perception. i dunno how it works in SR4.
that said, it's optional. it says "if the GM wants to make one test for the entire team..."[/i] so, actually, WR's roll-lots-of-dice thing is perfectly legit. |
|
|
|
|
May 17 2006, 02:47 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Yay! I have still caught t3h correct. And I also showed the original poster how he can make high stealth skills alone inadequete.
See, the thing is that for Stealth to be really effective you need a strong Stealth score *and* you usually want to send only one guy because that reduces the number of rolls that the opposition gets to make. It balances out Stealth because while you can potentially do some scouting or possibly snipe out one key NPC you usually are best off sending only one party member which makes the scouting party relatively weak. |
|
|
|
|
May 17 2006, 03:24 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
Glad to see we're talking about how to make the stealth more challenging and interesting, rather than just how to thwart it. Really, I was expecting to see a lot of suggestions to screw the players. Instead, there are some good ideas for making the sneaking part non-routine.
Don't forget to reward the characters for their high stealth too. If they've invested a lot in that skill, they deserve a break now and then. |
|
|
|
|
May 17 2006, 03:34 AM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Alas, you wound me! |
||
|
|
|
||
 May 17 2006, 04:37 AM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
Yeah, but with a Karma pool of 40, that doesn't matter a whole lot. No way I'm rolling 150 dice (I don't use electronic die rollers, for me, as in my opinion, it takes away from the gaming experience). I'm not sure they're as random as real dice. Besides, mice are like my children. I'll use the average +1 for every member of the group, that seems logical, if not realistic. I don't screw my players, in fact, sometimes I think I'm too nice. If I wanted to screw them, they'd have died 2 years ago. :dead: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 17 2006, 04:59 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
WR, it was this comment that made people assume you forced constant rerolling on the players.
Your example given later doesn't use that method at all. I used a similar method in SR3, but usually only made one roll for each gaurd and then compared it to each runner's stealth check. In SR4 you use the cooperative tests rules, which means you use the highest perception rating (usually 6). Each other person makes a test, with each hit adding to the primary roller's die pool. So on average 3 sec gaurds with 6 perception dice will end up rolling 10 dice on the final perception test, which should be enough to see at least one character in the group. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 17 2006, 10:33 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
Huh? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 12:06 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
Mice = My Dice, sorry. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 19 2006, 03:39 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 7-July 03 Member No.: 4,891 |
If anything, they're more random. But there's something about the rattling sound that my laptop can't quite fake. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 19 2006, 07:24 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 58 Joined: 9-May 06 From: Right behind you! Member No.: 8,538 |
My group disallows random number generators, on the twin principles of "dice are cool", and "pseudorandom numbers aren't as good as rolling the real thing". Plus we have the usual set of superstitions regarding how to roll better.
|
|
|
|
|
May 19 2006, 02:26 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
Ditto. My dice must bounce off my GM screen, otherwise I roll bad. One of my players only rolls on his character sheet. Another player rolls so bad, a random generator might help her. Although she loves her sparkly dice. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 22 2006, 12:01 AM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
It's true that my "method" of there being a lot of security guards isn't the same thing as having the PCs reroll stealth a lot. That being said, I *also* would point out that if the PCs keep using stealth they will eventually get a bad roll. If the whole party tries to hide outside a place, sneak towards it, sneak across it, etc. the odds of at least one party member getting a bad roll also go up. In other words the example I gave later wasn't necessarily intended of a contradiction of the idea that if the PCs use stealth a lot as a group they will become increasingly likely to fail badly. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th January 2026 - 04:53 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.