D&D 5E Beast master wants to use pet to get +5 to passive perception

[Vaalingrade]

The important part is that we're limiting the monstrous power of top tier class, the ranger.

 

[Laurefindel]

Considering the animal companion is a character's class feature (i.e. not another character, not a sidekick, not a a hireling, not a magic item, not a spell) and that animals (both in-game and historically) were domesticated/tamed to assist humans, I would have no qualm about granting advantage to their master on rolls that tie into their function and training (mostly guarding and searching).

Should it be difficult to sneak past a ranger with alert feat and their animal companion? Yes. Yes it should. At any case, it shouldn't be easier than bypassing a wizard's alarm ritual...

 

[jgsugden]

From a practical perspective, Fluffy gets tired of being ever vigilant. I'd have them perform an animal handling role to determine how long they can keep Fluffy focused and providing advantage. DC 20 would make it continuous until they next rest, 15 would get you an hour, 10 would be 10 minutes and 5 would be Fluffy sniffing your butt.

 

[Flamestrike]

Id allow it, but rule he's giving up the Wolfs own Perception here (otherwise everyone in a party can 'Help' everyone else in the party with a Perception check always).

In effect, the Help action is the combined Perceptions of both PC and the Wolf.

Seeing as the Wolf (on its own) has a bonus of [3+the Rangers PB] to Perception checks (made with advantage 99 percent of the time due to keen senses), it's a reasonable trade off.

 

[iserith]

What I don't like about the approach is that the ranger is purposefully adding his own observant to the wolf's capabilities. Because this is what it comes down to, in the end.

You see, if they are both keeping watch, they would each have a roll, and that would give two rolls exactly like advantage. But when the ranger is asking for having advantage, it's because he wants to have the equivalent of two rolls, both of them benefitting from his observant feat. And even more, he is capitalising on the rule for advantage on passive by getting a straight +5, which is way more powerful than two rolls when looking at high-value.

So overall, it's a lot of metagaming here based on principles that are not really clear, and I dislike the attitude there.

So, OK for the wolf standing watch, but it's not really "helping" in the rules sense (which is not supported by the rules anyway), it's his own creature with his own bonuses, and he does not benefit from the ranger being observant.

Personally, I don't care about "metagaming" and don't really see how that applies here anyway. It's none of my business why a player makes particular choices for their character. Someone with a very high PP isn't going to change anything meaningful about my game.

That said, since this particular DM is wondering about what to do, I do think it is worth taking a step back to look at the player's motivations because that may indicate something about the game itself. Is the player just trying to get the biggest number possible because that's cool? Okay, no problem with that, go nuts. Or is the player basically responding to the way the game works at the table with that group? Perhaps passive Perception is being overvalued due to how it is handled in which case the "fix" in my view, if that's of interest to the DM, isn't to deny the player what they want, but to change how passive Perception is handled.

There's almost always a good reason why the players are making particular choices. Figuring that out can tell the DM a lot about how they are running the game and what, if anything, needs to be adjusted.

 

[Lyxen]

The important part is that we're limiting the monstrous power of top tier class, the ranger.

The important part is that we don't say that anything goes because someone took on a particular class, whatever that class maybe. There is no in-game logic from what the player is proposing, it's pure (ab)use of the rules, and not even a correct one at that.

Personally, I don't care about "metagaming" and don't really see how that applies here anyway. It's none of my business why a player makes particular choices for their character.

Strange, as you're saying the exact opposite just below.

Someone with a very high PP isn't going to change anything meaningful about my game.

Actually, it might, depending how the player goes about playing it. I've seen some player doing it in a nice fashion and corresponding to the character's role, and I've seen other players whining all the time about "should have been able to detect it", and pushing for even more abuse on the already abused perception skill. I've never seen a player do that kind of computation for Handle Animal, which would actually be even more appropriate for a beastmaster.

That said, since this particular DM is wondering about what to do, I do think it is worth taking a step back to look at the player's motivations because that may indicate something about the game itself. Is the player just trying to get the biggest number possible because that's cool? Okay, no problem with that, go nuts. Or is the player basically responding to the way the game works at the table with that group? Perhaps passive Perception is being overvalued due to how it is handled in which case the "fix" in my view, if that's of interest to the DM, isn't to deny the player what they want, but to change how passive Perception is handled.

There's almost always a good reason why the players are making particular choices. Figuring that out can tell the DM a lot about how they are running the game and what, if anything, needs to be adjusted.

Exactly, which is why I'm suggesting having a look at the way perception is run and (ab)used, in particular by combinations like this one which are not particularly legitimate, whether from a role or a technical perspective, that's all.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The important part is that we don't say that anything goes because someone took on a particular class, whatever that class maybe. There is no in-game logic from what the player is proposing, it's pure (ab)use of the rules, and not even a correct one at that.

Oh no! A bonus to passive perception actually using the existing rules that some people don't want to allow! What an abuse.

Seriously?

 

[iserith]

Strange, as you're saying the exact opposite just below.

Two different contexts - my game versus this other DM's game. In my game, it's likely the player never asks to do this in the first place and, if they did, I wouldn't bother to ask why. I'd just make a ruling per my first post: Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Actually, it might, depending how the player goes about playing it. I've seen some player doing it in a nice fashion and corresponding to the character's role, and I've seen other players whining all the time about "should have been able to detect it", and pushing for even more abuse on the already abused perception skill. I've never seen a player do that kind of computation for Handle Animal, which would actually be even more appropriate for a beastmaster.

Ultimately, if the DM is using the rules, the ranger is going to have to focus on keeping watch which means noticing hidden monsters to avoid surprise and perhaps noticing traps while in the front rank of the marching order. When in favored terrain, they can do one additional task like navigating, mapping, foraging, or tracking. (Most often that's navigating in my games so they have no chance of getting lost.) There's no other benefit. If the ranger instead wants to search for secret doors while traveling the dungeon (and not in their favored terrain), then the DM can say that is at least as distracting as navigating, mapping, foraging, or tracking in which case they can't also notice traps and are automatically surprised if a stealthy monster comes calling.

There's not much room for abuse in the above in my view.

Exactly, which is why I'm suggesting having a look at the way perception is run and (ab)used, in particular by combinations like this one which are not particularly legitimate, whether from a role or a technical perspective, that's all.

I just don't see it as abuse. Players will tend to do what is advantageous to them because we're playing a game and how the game is run incentivizes certain behaviors. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[overgeeked]

Relevant to the thread:


Point #1 about choosing your battles is solid gold.
"Our pets have plot armor so long as we aren't trying to use them as anything but pets."

Point #2 is a great reminder for the "convenient pets" issue.

We call that Schrödinger’s Pet. Always there when you want them around, always absent when you don’t, and somehow never needs to eat or drink or sleep, etc.

 

[Seramus]

Could always pay a skilled hireling 1gp a day and call him "Woof."