D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
. The pickpocket would not be the one making the initially engagement.I'll be watching this topic closely, because it's a subject of internal debate as I prepare to launch a new campaign.
I don't like passive perception except for in-initiative hiding. For overland travel, I would prefer to establish some standard operating procedures, including automated stealth and perception checks when entering or travelling through a new area, if the travelling speed allows. Enter a new area, make a check, describe the results and interact with stuff, rinse and repeat. I'll also assume a default marching order and formation defined by the party unless they specifically state otherwise. For overland travel, I assume they deploy their most competent scout 50 feet or more ahead. Stealth and perception checks are made between each encounter even when there's nothing to sneak around or detect. The purpose is to create uncertainty, but also to disable gotchas.
The scout presumably makes first contact with anything interesting. If he fails his stealth check, someone detects him. If he fails the perception check, he overlooks the interesting thing. Or the interesting thing might be a trap and he falls into it. If he succeeds on his stealth check, he might encounter an unhidden obstacle without being detected. If he succeeds on his perception check, he notices an interesting thing, which may or may not also be the thing he's sneaking around.
The group also makes a stealth and perception check separately from the scout. If the scout's activities didn't change the nature of the possible encounter, their group check succeeds when at least half or more pass.
It's basically the same process for interior settings, but segmented by corridors and rooms.
A couple notes. I'm going to be running this on roll20, so I have the luxury of macros to make this a quick and painless process. Also, I don't treat this approach as one-size-fits-all for handling encounters and travel. There will be situations where it doesn't make sense to apply this handling. Again, this is just standard operating procedure.
I don't like passive perception except for in-initiative hiding. For overland travel, I would prefer to establish some standard operating procedures, including automated stealth and perception checks when entering or travelling through a new area, if the travelling speed allows. Enter a new area, make a check, describe the results and interact with stuff, rinse and repeat. I'll also assume a default marching order and formation defined by the party unless they specifically state otherwise. For overland travel, I assume they deploy their most competent scout 50 feet or more ahead. Stealth and perception checks are made between each encounter even when there's nothing to sneak around or detect. The purpose is to create uncertainty, but also to disable gotchas.
The scout presumably makes first contact with anything interesting. If he fails his stealth check, someone detects him. If he fails the perception check, he overlooks the interesting thing. Or the interesting thing might be a trap and he falls into it. If he succeeds on his stealth check, he might encounter an unhidden obstacle without being detected. If he succeeds on his perception check, he notices an interesting thing, which may or may not also be the thing he's sneaking around.
The group also makes a stealth and perception check separately from the scout. If the scout's activities didn't change the nature of the possible encounter, their group check succeeds when at least half or more pass.
It's basically the same process for interior settings, but segmented by corridors and rooms.
A couple notes. I'm going to be running this on roll20, so I have the luxury of macros to make this a quick and painless process. Also, I don't treat this approach as one-size-fits-all for handling encounters and travel. There will be situations where it doesn't make sense to apply this handling. Again, this is just standard operating procedure.
JonnyP71
Explorer
It's hardly a gotcha for anything. A good DM does not treat it as a computer program might - it's up to the DM to evaluate the situation and adapt, and react to the ideas and the roleplay - let the story develop, let the players surprise you and enjoy it when they do.
If a player was to pass me a note listing things their character always does I would pass it back and tell them 'I will assume your character will wash, get dressed, go to the toilet, check their pack before setting off, keep their blade sharp, etc, however anything of specific importance to an adventuring situation that is being played out, you must tell me what they are doing.' Going to a tavern might be played out in 30 seconds - "We just go to relax in the inn" could result in - "You have a quiet night in the inn, a couple of drinks, it's a pleasant evening but nothing of note happens."...
But if they say something like, "ok we'll go to the tavern, I'd like to get to know the innkeeper, while the others mingle with the patrons to see if they can learn of any rumours pertaining to the missing relic." Then obviously we would take our time over that, and with it becoming an 'adventuring situation', we'd roleplay various conversations, specific drinks may matter, I might call for a few rolls to see how well they get on with the patrons, depending on how the players approach the event and engage with the environment I describe.
The players drive the game in this sense, and have a greater impact on events than their characters' mechanical skills.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Rolling a check to determine the perception during a travel leg sounds just fine, if you don't like passive. I would, however, not assuming how the players arrange themselves. I have mine tell me what their 'default' is, and, unless they change it, that's what it is, not because I've assumed it but because they've told me.
I made a 'travel' map page on Roll20 that lets the party both organize their marching order but also assign themselves jobs (the map is a set of boxes and labels with their tokens on it so they can drag themselves wherever they want to be). This takes a few moments at the start of a travel/exploration leg and really helps me by putting all of the decisions into the player hands in a way that I just have to read off at the end and ask for relevant checks for each leg. I've also got a spot on that page where I can clip and display the current 'near' area map from the full campaign map so we can conduct almost all of the travel from that one page, only needing to move to another for an encounter.
Further, I'd also recommend breaking out the 'jobs' a bit more than just having everything on the scout. The decision tradeoffs between watching for hazardous terrain versus watching for foes vs sneaking around makes those important and meaningful decisions, and I've found it adds a great deal to overland travel. I would not use it for a more plot based game where travel is to and from plot points, but in sandboxes or games that focus on the exploration leg, adding meaningful decisions to the actual exploration is very nice. It also lets those abilities that otherwise kind of fall away (like Ranger favored terrain, Outlander backgrounds, etc) really get a nice punch up and spotlight time in the game by allowing them either advantage on jobs or the ability to do more than one job at a time. A ranger in their favored terrain, for instance, can Be Alert for Danger and Navigate while also either and sneaking, trailblazing, or (super) foraging at the same time. That's pretty cool. Might not mean they're the best lead scout, though, and might mean they take a place a little further back in the marching order. But it does make them absolute assets in their favored terrain(s)!
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I agree. Giving advantage only in specific circumstances isn't really the same thing in my view as punishing players with disadvantage or automatic failure for not saying an unreasonably specific thing. It's the latter that I would say makes for, in part, a "gotcha" DM.
Agreed. Marching order matters when it comes to resolving hidden threats at the front of the party since it's only those characters that have a chance of noticing it.
I do the same. Roll20 is quite useful in that way.
All very true in my experience. On the "plot-based game" bit, I will sometimes do a travel leg to determine other things and to get at a particular play experience. As an example, in a one-shot that I've run for multiple pick-up groups, the PCs are charged with traveling to the man-cave of a self-proclaimed hill giant lord who is hosting a conference of the regional forces of evil and busting the place up. The travel leg is simple Point A to Point B, but the outcome determines whether or not the PCs show up exhausted and how many villains are at the conference by the time they arrive (slow = more, fast = less). What this does is create something of a small puzzle to figure out as a group at the start of the session. The players often don't know each other, so it's an opportunity to strategize as a team outside of a more tense scene and to get familiar with the characters' strengths, weaknesses, and resources. Once they've organized their party for travel and we've landed on a result, then it's time to raid the dungeon with everyone having a better sense of how to work together going forward when the stakes are a great deal higher.
While playing 5E I am very much a narrative DM, with the expectation that actions "in-story" are accomplished to the best of a PCs ability without the player needing to say "I'm doing something really well!" Of course they are. I don't ever assume characters are intentionally doing something not to their best ability. Thus... in order to gain Advantage on a special task it's usually because of one of two things:
1) They have a special feature, ability, feat, or Bond/Ideal/Flaw/Trait that specifically says they are really good at something (over and above a normal other character)...
2) They give me a method for changing the parameters of the "story" to explain to me why they would gain Advantage on a particular check.
So using your "Watching out for an ambush" example... they could get Advantage on their Perception checks. But it would require more than just stating they were "watching out for an ambush", because of course the characters would be watching out for an ambush. In order to get Advantage they would need to have something over and above just being intelligent creatures that adventure.
In reference to point #1 above... if someone for example had a Personality Trait "Eyes In The Back Of Their Head", then that PC's whole narrative existence is expecting to be ambushed all the time. In this particular scenario, I'd give the player Advantage because the PC is always looking for ambushes. Now, of course someone is going to say "If you are giving a boon like that for just making it a Personality Trait, why wouldn't EVERY player write that on their sheet?" To which my response is that BECAUSE I am a "narrative-first" type of DM... I expect and pretty much demand my players to play that narrative choice all the time. In order for this PC to have this Trait... the character better be almost always paranoid, untrusting of most people, really and truly expecting to get shivved all the time. Basically if you want the narrative benefit when its useful... you have to accept the narrative penalties when it isn't. And my players understand that. That's what BIFTs get you... bonuses when the count, penalties when they are inconvenient.
The other possibility beyond BIFTs though are when they have specific bonus features from things like their Background, or class feature or a Feat. If a PC had an Urchin background and was in his/her home city... they absolutely would get to make Perception checks for ambushes because their Background Feature for Urchin specifically says they know their home turf backwards and forwards (moreso than another normal character.) Likewise... if someone took the Alert feat, then I'd usually also give them Advantage on many Perception checks to spot ambushes because they spent a character resource specifically to be really good at something over and beyond another normal character. And while the Alert feat already have game mechanics attributed to it... again because I run things from a narrative perspective first, I look at what the spirit of the feat is giving someone and applying it when it makes narrative sense, not just the three specific game mechanics it calls out (and those being the only things that the feat gives.)
As far as Point #2 is concerned... that's just gaining Advantage for good tactics and planning over and above standard "Well, duh!" actions. For the "looking out for ambush spots" in the example... a PC would actually do something to find those ambush spots. Perhaps going on ahead through the underbrush rather than the road so that they discover the enemies before the party arrives, and then alerting the party to the ambush. Or they went and found themselves an NPC who was intimately familiar with these roads and who already knew where the typical ambush spots were going to be. Or someone made a specific choice for where they thought ambush spots were going to be and thus would be extra-vigilant in only those places (for example "If the road travels alongside or between cliff faces, I'll keep my eyes pealed for the ledges above someone might be hiding on.") then I'd give it to them (and probably also give them Disadvantage when trying to Perceive areas that were NOT that, as they were not expecting ambushes to happen at those times.)
Basically... what makes sense narratively for who the characters are and what they are doing. What makes sense in the story of the world, and NOT what "game mechanics" you had written down on your sheet. Because to me... "game mechanics" are just set examples of the kind of things I CAN give and take from players to help change the story and make it less rote... and not hard and fast rules that ONLY do what they do to counteract or adjust other hard and fast rules. I played that style of "set game rules to adjust other set game rules" D&D when I played 4E. Which was great for playing THAT game... but I'm not playing 4E right now, I'm playing 5E. And its a different game with a different style. And so I embrace it as I play.
1) They have a special feature, ability, feat, or Bond/Ideal/Flaw/Trait that specifically says they are really good at something (over and above a normal other character)...
2) They give me a method for changing the parameters of the "story" to explain to me why they would gain Advantage on a particular check.
So using your "Watching out for an ambush" example... they could get Advantage on their Perception checks. But it would require more than just stating they were "watching out for an ambush", because of course the characters would be watching out for an ambush. In order to get Advantage they would need to have something over and above just being intelligent creatures that adventure.
In reference to point #1 above... if someone for example had a Personality Trait "Eyes In The Back Of Their Head", then that PC's whole narrative existence is expecting to be ambushed all the time. In this particular scenario, I'd give the player Advantage because the PC is always looking for ambushes. Now, of course someone is going to say "If you are giving a boon like that for just making it a Personality Trait, why wouldn't EVERY player write that on their sheet?" To which my response is that BECAUSE I am a "narrative-first" type of DM... I expect and pretty much demand my players to play that narrative choice all the time. In order for this PC to have this Trait... the character better be almost always paranoid, untrusting of most people, really and truly expecting to get shivved all the time. Basically if you want the narrative benefit when its useful... you have to accept the narrative penalties when it isn't. And my players understand that. That's what BIFTs get you... bonuses when the count, penalties when they are inconvenient.
The other possibility beyond BIFTs though are when they have specific bonus features from things like their Background, or class feature or a Feat. If a PC had an Urchin background and was in his/her home city... they absolutely would get to make Perception checks for ambushes because their Background Feature for Urchin specifically says they know their home turf backwards and forwards (moreso than another normal character.) Likewise... if someone took the Alert feat, then I'd usually also give them Advantage on many Perception checks to spot ambushes because they spent a character resource specifically to be really good at something over and beyond another normal character. And while the Alert feat already have game mechanics attributed to it... again because I run things from a narrative perspective first, I look at what the spirit of the feat is giving someone and applying it when it makes narrative sense, not just the three specific game mechanics it calls out (and those being the only things that the feat gives.)
As far as Point #2 is concerned... that's just gaining Advantage for good tactics and planning over and above standard "Well, duh!" actions. For the "looking out for ambush spots" in the example... a PC would actually do something to find those ambush spots. Perhaps going on ahead through the underbrush rather than the road so that they discover the enemies before the party arrives, and then alerting the party to the ambush. Or they went and found themselves an NPC who was intimately familiar with these roads and who already knew where the typical ambush spots were going to be. Or someone made a specific choice for where they thought ambush spots were going to be and thus would be extra-vigilant in only those places (for example "If the road travels alongside or between cliff faces, I'll keep my eyes pealed for the ledges above someone might be hiding on.") then I'd give it to them (and probably also give them Disadvantage when trying to Perceive areas that were NOT that, as they were not expecting ambushes to happen at those times.)
Basically... what makes sense narratively for who the characters are and what they are doing. What makes sense in the story of the world, and NOT what "game mechanics" you had written down on your sheet. Because to me... "game mechanics" are just set examples of the kind of things I CAN give and take from players to help change the story and make it less rote... and not hard and fast rules that ONLY do what they do to counteract or adjust other hard and fast rules. I played that style of "set game rules to adjust other set game rules" D&D when I played 4E. Which was great for playing THAT game... but I'm not playing 4E right now, I'm playing 5E. And its a different game with a different style. And so I embrace it as I play.
Last edited:
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]
It remains to be determined how prevalent overland travel will feature as a meaningful obstacle in this campaign. Session 0 is coming up in January and it's something we'll look at. We're presumably doing a points of light, dark fantasy setting (my homebrew), so overland travel will inevitably come up. Whether it's something that would even benefit from a detailed system of roll automation is what I'm in the process of examining.
Nothing is set in stone, but a sandbox or exploration themed game isn't what I had in mind. The presence of a ranger will definitely have an influence on how I approach travel as a meaningful obstacle, whatever the plot structure ends up being. Rangers are special little snowflakes.
It remains to be determined how prevalent overland travel will feature as a meaningful obstacle in this campaign. Session 0 is coming up in January and it's something we'll look at. We're presumably doing a points of light, dark fantasy setting (my homebrew), so overland travel will inevitably come up. Whether it's something that would even benefit from a detailed system of roll automation is what I'm in the process of examining.
Nothing is set in stone, but a sandbox or exploration themed game isn't what I had in mind. The presence of a ranger will definitely have an influence on how I approach travel as a meaningful obstacle, whatever the plot structure ends up being. Rangers are special little snowflakes.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Awesome.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Ok, so addressing “player skill vs. character skill” and which should be the determining factor in these situations... Both are needed. Compare to video games. It doesn’t matter how skilled Ezio is as an assassin, if I as a player suck at the game, Ezio will get killed, even if it’s not “what would happen” if you removed me from the equation. A game requires player input to be played, and if there is a degree of challenge, then that input will require a degree of skill on the part of the player. In D&D, the means by which the player interfaces with the game is by describing their character’s actions. So yes, whether or not you say “I search for an ambush” will have an impact on your character’s success, just like whether or not you press X has an impact on your character’s success in a video game.
That said, the example of gaining advantage if you say your character is looking for an ambush is not an interesting form of engagement, especially if you don’t prompt the player, “are you looking for ambushes?” That would be like a video game that sometimes gives you a powerup for pushing X, but never tells you when that’s an option. If you prompt the player, it’s not much more interesting. That’s the game telling you “push X to get a power up.” There’s no real choice to be made there. What’s better is if the game tells you early on that pushing X can give you powerups sometimes, and then uses context cues to indirectly indicate when those times are. Or if pressing X to get a powerup also comes at a cost. That’s where the conversation of D&D comes into play - The DM describes a scenario. The players describe what their characters do in response to that scenario. The DM determines what rules, if any, are appropriate to resolve the characters’ actions and adjudicates the results. The DM describes the new scenario, and the process continues.
That said, the example of gaining advantage if you say your character is looking for an ambush is not an interesting form of engagement, especially if you don’t prompt the player, “are you looking for ambushes?” That would be like a video game that sometimes gives you a powerup for pushing X, but never tells you when that’s an option. If you prompt the player, it’s not much more interesting. That’s the game telling you “push X to get a power up.” There’s no real choice to be made there. What’s better is if the game tells you early on that pushing X can give you powerups sometimes, and then uses context cues to indirectly indicate when those times are. Or if pressing X to get a powerup also comes at a cost. That’s where the conversation of D&D comes into play - The DM describes a scenario. The players describe what their characters do in response to that scenario. The DM determines what rules, if any, are appropriate to resolve the characters’ actions and adjudicates the results. The DM describes the new scenario, and the process continues.
Last edited:
Cyrinishad
Explorer
Can you let me know which product the "If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks" quote is from? I'm curious to read it to get some additional context, but my gut-reaction to it is very negative... It makes me wonder if the writer was conflating the advice in the DMG about Temporary Circumstances granting Advantage/Disadvantage (which is a Character driven in-game mechanic), versus awarding Inspiration (which is Player driven meta-game mechanic)... As a DM I would never directly apply Advantage to a Roll in the game based on Player commentary... That quote seems like a short slippery slope to the Players continually expecting to have Advantage on Attack Rolls, just because of how they're describing their PCs attacks... followed quickly by them expecting Advantage on ALL Rolls for PCs, just because the Players are using their Words at the table... I'm just not having it.
However, I certainly do utilize both of those mechanics independently of each other... If I were to reinterpret the quote using the Inspiration mechanic, it would read more like this:
"If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, award them with Inspiration for using their Sixth Sense"... I still don't think that is an adequate reason to award Inspiration (since it is a purely subjective determination), but I could at least rationalize it as an example of how a DM could award Inspiration...
Or, if I were to reinterpret the quote using Temporary Circumstances, it would read more like this:
"If the characters are approaching the ambush spot in the Morning, grant them with Advantage on associated checks because the Sun is at their back. But, if the characters are approaching the ambush spot in the Afternoon, grant them with Disadvantage on associated checks because the Sun is in their eyes."... This seems like a fairly reasonable scenario to apply Advantage or Disadvantage to a PC.
As a DM, when I hear the phrase "My character is always..." from my Players, my logic is similar to your quote above... I also interpret the phrase "My character is always..." as a scenario I can use to encourage a PC to Bite on a Plot-Hook, because they are telegraphing that their character would take the Bait if it was offered...
