For me one of the most obscure passage of the rules, is the "notice threats" travel stance. Every game I play with my players i apply inconsistent the rules, as everytime i play I get a different feeling of it, and is a rule that i use a lot. I have created many post trying to consolidate a view on it, but there where also many interpretations. So, my aim here, is to consolidate an interpretation of the rule, at least for me, that helps me implementing it consistent in my games, without going back and forth. Maybe it would also help other DM's that want to be consistent with the rules and that have with this rule(or maybe no, but who knows).
For me, after searching in many forums and reading all the responses in my posts, there are two main school of thought with this rule.
A) A player that is not noticing threats (because it's foraging or something like that) cannot use it's passive perception, so, if he is ambushed, he would automatically be surprised.
B) A player will always be able to use the passive perception to avoid being surprised, even if he is foraging or something similar. So the advantage of noticing threats, instead of doing something else, would be to be able to spot ambushes before they happen (passive wisdom vs stealth) giving him the option to warn his mates before the ambush takes place, an therefore, avoiding the surprise phase.
For me the problem is that option A doesn't seem completly right, as combat rules stablish that all players compare their passive perception with the stealth; but option B is also strange as it gives additional rules to notice threats stance and if you don't add that additional rules the stance would be almost useless, as it would only be usefull to avoid traps.
Thanks to anyone that answers, helps me consolidating this rule, as I said, I went to much back and forth in my games with it.
Short answer: B. "notice threats stance" isn't a thing. Adventurers in the wild are considered to be paranoid all the time.
Long answer
If I understand correctly, you're trying to sort out how to handle the following conditions:
One or more Characters in the Party is walking along normally, and someone is trying to Stealth up on them.
One or more Characters in the Party is actively scanning for threats ( this being "threat stance"? ), and someone is trying to Stealth up on them.
One or more Characters in the Party is actively engaged in some actively that would take some/most/all of their attention, and someone is trying to Stealth up on them.
How does this differ, mechanically?
My interpretation is possibly/probably not RAW, so take it with a grain of salt. However, it's how I think my real-world perception works.
To me Perception is always passive. Perception - to me, and this is not RAW - is your brain subconsciously integrating tiny cues/changes in your environment. Active perception is really just looking carefully at a scene, and/or thinking about the little things that you passively notice in the environment. You look longer at ( or a slower pan over ) your environment so you have a higher chance to notice something, and you're think about the little things you notice.
Thinking about what you perceive is Investigation.
Also, if your attention is taken up elsewhere, or you're not thinking about something else, then you are working at a disadvantage to notice things.
So - to me, a purely mechanically focused solution would be:
Have the creature attempting to sneak up on the Character roll Stealth using the Character's passive Perception as the DC.
Have the creature attempting to sneak up on the Character roll Stealth using an amalgamation of the Character's passive Perception and their passive Investigation as the DC. I'd use Investigation passively here - even though the idea of passive Investigation might not make much sense - merely to keep the roll strict in the hands of the creature sneaking, since Players get all paranoid if you ask them to roll for "no reason" and immediately have their Characters act differently. A nice GM could target whichever passive score was higher, but an average covers those cases where you have the skill scores are very different ( the smart Character just doesn't notice the clue, or the observant but dumb Character does notice the clue, but doesn't understand the implications). A nice GM might up the DC by a point or two to reflect that the Character is looking long and hard at the environment.
Have the creature attempting to sneak up on the Character roll Stealth using the Character's passive Perception as the DC, but roll at advantage.
If you have more than one Character being snuck up on, the sneaking creature rolls once and compares that against each Characters' target, and the target DCs will likely all be different.
That approach appeases the simulationist in me - however, it is more complex. As a GM I have all the Characters' Passive Perception scores noted down, if I went this route, I'd also jot down their Alert Perception score as well.
If you want a quick-and-effective solution, without having to do the math ( since it's questionable as to whether-or-not the added rule complexity is worth the result ) then just run with option B, and forget about "threat stance" entirely.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You could give the monster advantage on stealth if the players are foraging as they travel...or force them to move slower in order to use passive perception while foraging.
1) The rules in the PHB state that if the character is doing something else while traveling they don't use their passive perception.
"NOTICING THREATS Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot. While traveling at a fast pace, characters take a -5 penalty to their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to notice hidden threats."
"OTHER ACTIVITIES Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."
Other activities include navigating, mapping, tracking and foraging though there are others.
Characters performing these tasks don't get to contribute their passive perception to noticing threats.
2) However, just because some members of the party may not notice a threat does not necessarily give the opponents surprise. Surprise only happens when the DM decides it does especially when it is NPCs. In addition, if the character's passive perception is insufficient to notice the threat, the DM can choose to give the characters each an active roll if they want to increase the odds of the threat being noticed. It is entirely up to the DM and the narrative they are creating.
So, as far as I have seen, there is a wide consensus that you can always use passive perception in surprise rounds.
Still, it seems that there isn't any consensus on the advantages o search threats stance and, after revisiting lost mine of phandelver, it seems this stance is used only for trap detection, wich seems a bit mediocre, specially comparing with the others. As DM I could decide in every case if I should user their passive perception to see if I detect some danger. Still, I struggle do decide if in raw rules, in an ambush, notice threats stance serves any purpose.
When it comes right down to it, RAW is neither complete, nor consistent, in all cases. Given the complexity of the rules, this shouldn't be a surprise. Additionally, modules are not RAW; D&D is not a precedent law system.
Sometimes you just have to move beyond RAW. So long as everyone at the table is aware of this, and accepts this, I don't see an issue with that.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
The short reason is because I follow the raw rules because it avoids me feeling bad when I kill my pjs the long answer is the following paragraph.
I'm, in words of my players, a Saurom DM, I prepare hard tasks every session and I'm merciless when the odds stack against them. I like that it that way (I think they do too) as it keeps the world hard and realistic. That being sad, for me it is very important to commit to following the raw combat and encounter creation tool, as it allows me to take design weight out of my shoulders and trust the game designers, so, when an unfair unbalance strikes the player (which is going to happen with or without home rules), I can charge all the responsibility on the D&D rules instead of my design.
So, for me this rule is very important, as it can make the difference in an ambush.
For the moment, after receiving your feedback and reading lost mine I will just relegate notice threats stance to a detect traps and other situational issues stance.
Thanks to all who voted, and commented, if anyone comes in the future to give further insight of this topic, I will read it and be also thankful.
An interesting approach - and you are at least being responsible about it.
I tend to side with Matt Colville when it comes to balance: I don't try and balance at all. I'm all for building totally unbalanced and unfair encounters, if it makes sense from a sense of verisimilitude.
What I do try and do is provide opportunities for the Characters to find out what they are up against. I also am pretty insistent that the Players are completely aware of, and have signed off agreement on, how my world/game/home-brew works . I'm also all for telling the Players things outright that they might not know, but their Characters absolutely would: your Character has the equivalent of a doctorate in History, and you've grown up in this Kingdom, so you automatically know A,B, and C about the government power structures - no roll needed.
In short, I try and make it so that a careful thoughtful Player is able to make an careful informed choice as to their tactical decisions: whether they want to charge into battle, or stop and gather allies, or bypass the bad guys and go stealth, or whatever. Players often come up with completely novel ideas and tactics to deal with the unbalanced situations, and win on their own terms ( and I'm so proud of them when they do! :D ), once they understand the situation.
Unbalanced doesn't mean unsolvable, or unwinnable - it just means that your victory is in no way guaranteed, or even very high probability, so you'd better be smart and resourceful.
Pulling unfair, unbalanced encounters, where the Players & Characters have no way of knowing anything about what they're facing, and no way of finding out - that I avoid. Verisimilitude drives the encounter design, but the need for game balance means I put the knowledge/resources to deal with it within reach of the Characters ( they just might need to stretch a bit ).
I don't blame the rules, I blame the game world :) Or as Matt Colville would say "I'm not trying to kill your Character. This mind flayer is trying to kill your Character" ;)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'd say that noticing threats is for whether you wind up in an ambush situation to start with, but you'd probably need to tweak DCs or else any successful ambush automatically surprises everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi fellow DMs.
For me one of the most obscure passage of the rules, is the "notice threats" travel stance. Every game I play with my players i apply inconsistent the rules, as everytime i play I get a different feeling of it, and is a rule that i use a lot. I have created many post trying to consolidate a view on it, but there where also many interpretations. So, my aim here, is to consolidate an interpretation of the rule, at least for me, that helps me implementing it consistent in my games, without going back and forth. Maybe it would also help other DM's that want to be consistent with the rules and that have with this rule(or maybe no, but who knows).
For me, after searching in many forums and reading all the responses in my posts, there are two main school of thought with this rule.
A) A player that is not noticing threats (because it's foraging or something like that) cannot use it's passive perception, so, if he is ambushed, he would automatically be surprised.
B) A player will always be able to use the passive perception to avoid being surprised, even if he is foraging or something similar. So the advantage of noticing threats, instead of doing something else, would be to be able to spot ambushes before they happen (passive wisdom vs stealth) giving him the option to warn his mates before the ambush takes place, an therefore, avoiding the surprise phase.
For me the problem is that option A doesn't seem completly right, as combat rules stablish that all players compare their passive perception with the stealth; but option B is also strange as it gives additional rules to notice threats stance and if you don't add that additional rules the stance would be almost useless, as it would only be usefull to avoid traps.
Thanks to anyone that answers, helps me consolidating this rule, as I said, I went to much back and forth in my games with it.
Short answer: B. "notice threats stance" isn't a thing. Adventurers in the wild are considered to be paranoid all the time.
Long answer
If I understand correctly, you're trying to sort out how to handle the following conditions:
How does this differ, mechanically?
My interpretation is possibly/probably not RAW, so take it with a grain of salt. However, it's how I think my real-world perception works.
To me Perception is always passive. Perception - to me, and this is not RAW - is your brain subconsciously integrating tiny cues/changes in your environment. Active perception is really just looking carefully at a scene, and/or thinking about the little things that you passively notice in the environment. You look longer at ( or a slower pan over ) your environment so you have a higher chance to notice something, and you're think about the little things you notice.
Thinking about what you perceive is Investigation.
Also, if your attention is taken up elsewhere, or you're not thinking about something else, then you are working at a disadvantage to notice things.
So - to me, a purely mechanically focused solution would be:
If you have more than one Character being snuck up on, the sneaking creature rolls once and compares that against each Characters' target, and the target DCs will likely all be different.
That approach appeases the simulationist in me - however, it is more complex. As a GM I have all the Characters' Passive Perception scores noted down, if I went this route, I'd also jot down their Alert Perception score as well.
If you want a quick-and-effective solution, without having to do the math ( since it's questionable as to whether-or-not the added rule complexity is worth the result ) then just run with option B, and forget about "threat stance" entirely.
And - of course - this is in no way RAW.
My, $0.02
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You could give the monster advantage on stealth if the players are foraging as they travel...or force them to move slower in order to use passive perception while foraging.
<If it didn't die the first time, you didn't kill it hard enough> and <If percussion maintenance isn't working, you didn't hit it hard enough>
1) The rules in the PHB state that if the character is doing something else while traveling they don't use their passive perception.
"NOTICING THREATS
Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot. While traveling at a fast pace, characters take a -5 penalty to their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to notice hidden threats."
"OTHER ACTIVITIES
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."
Other activities include navigating, mapping, tracking and foraging though there are others.
Characters performing these tasks don't get to contribute their passive perception to noticing threats.
2) However, just because some members of the party may not notice a threat does not necessarily give the opponents surprise. Surprise only happens when the DM decides it does especially when it is NPCs. In addition, if the character's passive perception is insufficient to notice the threat, the DM can choose to give the characters each an active roll if they want to increase the odds of the threat being noticed. It is entirely up to the DM and the narrative they are creating.
So, as far as I have seen, there is a wide consensus that you can always use passive perception in surprise rounds.
Still, it seems that there isn't any consensus on the advantages o search threats stance and, after revisiting lost mine of phandelver, it seems this stance is used only for trap detection, wich seems a bit mediocre, specially comparing with the others. As DM I could decide in every case if I should user their passive perception to see if I detect some danger. Still, I struggle do decide if in raw rules, in an ambush, notice threats stance serves any purpose.
When it comes right down to it, RAW is neither complete, nor consistent, in all cases. Given the complexity of the rules, this shouldn't be a surprise. Additionally, modules are not RAW; D&D is not a precedent law system.
Sometimes you just have to move beyond RAW. So long as everyone at the table is aware of this, and accepts this, I don't see an issue with that.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Well, for me is a bit of an issue.
The short reason is because I follow the raw rules because it avoids me feeling bad when I kill my pjs the long answer is the following paragraph.
I'm, in words of my players, a Saurom DM, I prepare hard tasks every session and I'm merciless when the odds stack against them. I like that it that way (I think they do too) as it keeps the world hard and realistic. That being sad, for me it is very important to commit to following the raw combat and encounter creation tool, as it allows me to take design weight out of my shoulders and trust the game designers, so, when an unfair unbalance strikes the player (which is going to happen with or without home rules), I can charge all the responsibility on the D&D rules instead of my design.
So, for me this rule is very important, as it can make the difference in an ambush.
For the moment, after receiving your feedback and reading lost mine I will just relegate notice threats stance to a detect traps and other situational issues stance.
Thanks to all who voted, and commented, if anyone comes in the future to give further insight of this topic, I will read it and be also thankful.
An interesting approach - and you are at least being responsible about it.
I tend to side with Matt Colville when it comes to balance: I don't try and balance at all. I'm all for building totally unbalanced and unfair encounters, if it makes sense from a sense of verisimilitude.
What I do try and do is provide opportunities for the Characters to find out what they are up against. I also am pretty insistent that the Players are completely aware of, and have signed off agreement on, how my world/game/home-brew works . I'm also all for telling the Players things outright that they might not know, but their Characters absolutely would: your Character has the equivalent of a doctorate in History, and you've grown up in this Kingdom, so you automatically know A,B, and C about the government power structures - no roll needed.
In short, I try and make it so that a careful thoughtful Player is able to make an careful informed choice as to their tactical decisions: whether they want to charge into battle, or stop and gather allies, or bypass the bad guys and go stealth, or whatever. Players often come up with completely novel ideas and tactics to deal with the unbalanced situations, and win on their own terms ( and I'm so proud of them when they do! :D ), once they understand the situation.
Unbalanced doesn't mean unsolvable, or unwinnable - it just means that your victory is in no way guaranteed, or even very high probability, so you'd better be smart and resourceful.
Pulling unfair, unbalanced encounters, where the Players & Characters have no way of knowing anything about what they're facing, and no way of finding out - that I avoid. Verisimilitude drives the encounter design, but the need for game balance means I put the knowledge/resources to deal with it within reach of the Characters ( they just might need to stretch a bit ).
I don't blame the rules, I blame the game world :) Or as Matt Colville would say "I'm not trying to kill your Character. This mind flayer is trying to kill your Character" ;)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'd say that noticing threats is for whether you wind up in an ambush situation to start with, but you'd probably need to tweak DCs or else any successful ambush automatically surprises everyone.