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

[Umbran]

The correct translation of what is happening in the real world ...

Clearly, you have a preferred translation. It is a bit much for you to claim that as "the correct" translation for everyone else.

There is no real world - there is an imaginary world. Many different imaginary worlds, really. The game rules are frequently not actually very good at simulation of minutiae of real-world processes, and often opt for mechanical abstractions to get to similar results.

We are quibbling over which mechanical abstractions we might use. Correctness is less important than choosing for preferred results.

 

[Lyxen]

Clearly, you have a preferred translation. It is a bit much for you to claim that as "the correct" translation for everyone else.

Hum, hum, everyone, you are sure ? Please have a read again through the messages before making such a claim...

There is no real world - there is an imaginary world. Many different imaginary worlds, really. The game rules are frequently not actually very good at simulation of minutiae of real-world processes, and often opt for mechanical abstractions to get to similar results.
We are quibbling over which mechanical abstractions we might use. Correctness is less important than choosing for preferred results.

And yet, I notice that you did not counter the argument that I made about the logic there. Once more, there is not reason in the world for the wolf to reinforce the already extremely high perception capabilities of the ranger, it's an independent creature, it can stand watch (which is already good since it has its own extremely good senses), but it's not actively helping the ranger by coordinating with him. In this, the rules are actually fairly clear and providing a reasonable level of simulation.

 

[Greggy C]

So here’s the scenario. I have a player who is a beast master ranger (knowing that they tend to be a bit weak).

Beast master ranger is an underpowered class... so definitely allow it..

 

[iserith]

And in all our campaigns, observant was taken exactly once by one character, because if fitted the personality and background of the character, and it was not a problem, because the player did not abuse it.

We simply do not use weapons of warning, because we think that things that give an absolute power are usually a mark of bad design. Giving advantage is relative and fine. As for alertness, our players realise that it's a stupid feat again because of that "absoluteness" and no-one has ever asked to take it.

What would it look like to you for a player to "abuse" the Observant feat? I'm not really following your train of thought on this except a general notion that you have some sensitivity to players being effective at playing the game.

Because it more or less invalidates the whole trap / exploration process (as well as secret doors), and at least one of the resources for exploration just go away, as well as the possible cleverness of thinking about it in the first place. Yes, I know, you can always design special workarounds, but doing it every single time has at least two drawbacks, that of requiring over-design and that of frustrating the player. As our players understand this, they don't try to bend the system back to front to get silly advantages like that.

Because it detracts from the general fun, including that of other players.

The game is a mix of a lot of things, but cutting out whole pans of things just because one player abuses the system is not for me the best way to go. Especially in this case since it's clearly an abuse, so for me it's way better to prevent it at start.

I don't understand what you mean by passive Perception "invalidating" the exploration process. The player establishes they are keeping watch for monsters and traps while traveling the adventure location. (Or, alternatively, secret doors.) Because this is a task being performed repeatedly, passive checks apply, if there's a check at all. If they are in the position to notice the monster, then they might avoid surprise. If they are in the position to notice the trap (usually front of marching order), then they might notice the trap. They can't do anything else during this time including tracking, foraging, navigating, mapping, or other tasks that are at least as distracting. And if they are in the front of the marching order, they may be at risk of being attacked more easily than other PCs.

So let's say they notice the trap. Great! Now it's on to the rest of the exploration challenge - figuring it out (perhaps requiring an Intelligence (Investigation) check) and disarming it (perhaps requiring a Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check). The exploration process, as you call it, begins at the detection or even before that at the establishing of the characters' ongoing tasks. It doesn't end there.

Where then is the invalidation occurring? Is a trap only valid if the PCs set it off? What am I missing?

Because natural selection does not work on individual cases as a general principle, it's statistical over generations of random mutations, for one. Second, it is abused, because the player is bending rules backwards (in particular the help action) to try and achieve something that the rules don't allow.

As for the world being made in a specific way, if it was that way, then ALL characters classes would have expertise in perception, otherwise no character would ever survive if he did not have that.

Observant is already a feat, and a powerful one, and one could argue that it's effectively already giving you advantage on passive perception. It's good enough, no need to double that, especially with bounded accuracy.

This reminds me of a player insisting that his owl familiar should have passive perception of 18 on the sheet, since it has 13 and advantage on rolls using sight or hearing, conveniently forgetting that some rolls might not be using these senses and that the owl, in the dark and even with darkvision would have disadvantage therefore cancelling the advantage. That's the part that bothers me, people with selective reading capabilities...

As I stated, I think the DM can rule either way here based on the particulars of the situation - sometimes the wolf can work together with the PC and other times not. What I am interested in is figuring out where your objection is to this exactly. The rules certainly allow for working together, so there's no abuse there, particularly as the DM can just say (per the rules for Working Together) that the wolf doesn't lend advantage to the task. And given that the game is based on imagination, there's plenty of ways to arrive at a reason for why it can help or why a particular PC's passive Perception is so high. I gave an example of natural selection as a potential reason to explain why a PC might be very perceptive, which you rejected. I guess it's easier to say it's "metagaming" and therefore "bad" and "abuse." Can you think of no other reason why it would make sense in the context of a world based on make believe?

 

[Lyxen]

What would it look like to you for a player to "abuse" the Observant feat?

Trying to impose it on all sort of situations, insisting that it is applicable, and using all sentences of the rules that support that while consciously ignoring the parts that invalidate it. And whining that "they should have been so detect that because of observant."

I'm not really following your train of thought on this except a general notion that you have some sensitivity to players being effective at playing the game.

No, and I find the last part actually demeaning, so I would appreciate you not making that kind of comment. Moreover, "being effective at playing the game" is not necessarily the aim of the game anyway. Once more: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

And while I have nothing against players being effective, I have something about players bending the rules in order to be even more effective, even if it detracts from other players' fun.

I don't understand what you mean by passive Perception "invalidating" the exploration process. The player establishes they are keeping watch for monsters and traps while traveling the adventure location. (Or, alternatively, secret doors.)

Not alternatively all of this can be done concurrently according to the rules. Moreover, they don't have to be establishing that. Passive applies to tasks being done repeatedly, but also for people not specifically doing anything. For example, in the stealth rule: "When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score."

Which players who want to abuse perception will quote you to point out that even when they are not searching for hidden creatures, their passive perception applies.

Because this is a task being performed repeatedly, passive checks apply, if there's a check at all. If they are in the position to notice the monster, then they might avoid surprise.

No, once more, they WILL avoid surprise, which again players wanting to abuse perception and passive one in particular will point out with: " If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side."

Notice that this is independent as to whether the creature on the opposing side is watching for monsters.

If they are in the position to notice the trap (usually front of marching order), then they might notice the trap. They can't do anything else during this time including tracking, foraging, navigating, mapping, or other tasks that are at least as distracting. And if they are in the front of the marching order, they may be at risk of being attacked more easily than other PCs.

Or a player will point out that there is no such thing in the rule as to say that people walking in front prevent one from observing ahead. And this is true, if you look at the RAW, there are no modifiers, nothing here (which caused one of our DMs to rule that you can as easily be noticed when stealthing invisible just in front of a winter wolf or 300 meters away).

I know how to take care of these at my table, but it does not prevent me from having difficulties with some DMs at some tables, or from having players cause trouble (although thankfully, we have very few of these, but the examples given in particular on the DDB forum are really instructive).

So let's say they notice the trap. Great! Now it's on to the rest of the exploration challenge - figuring it out (perhaps requiring an Intelligence (Investigation) check) and disarming it (perhaps requiring a Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check). The exploration process, as you call it, begins at the detection or even before that at the establishing of the characters' ongoing tasks. It doesn't end there.

That is assuming that there is something to disarm, that it's even interesting to do so, etc.

Where then is the invalidation occurring? Is a trap only valid if the PCs set it off? What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that this character basically invalidates most other characters' ability to interface in a more normal way with the environment in an exploration mode, taking the fun out of it and/or forcing the DM to design challenges specifically for him or around him.

As I stated, I think the DM can rule either way here based on the particulars of the situation - sometimes the wolf can work together with the PC and other times not.

Exactly what I'm saying. I'm all for doing things in combat (which is, by the way, where the beastmaster is maybe slightly les powered than other archetypes), because then it makes sense, but I'm not for doing it in situations where it does not, as explained.

What I am interested in is figuring out where your objection is to this exactly. The rules certainly allow for working together, so there's no abuse there, particularly as the DM can just say (per the rules for Working Together) that the wolf doesn't lend advantage to the task.

Then it's me who is lost, since this is exactly what I'm saying.

And given that the game is based on imagination, there's plenty of ways to arrive at a reason for why it can help or why a particular PC's passive Perception is so high. I gave an example of natural selection as a potential reason to explain why a PC might be very perceptive, which you rejected. I guess it's easier to say it's "metagaming" and therefore "bad" and "abuse." Can you think of no other reason why it would make sense in the context of a world based on make believe?

It's not only a game based on make believe, it's also a world based on two other things, which are actually more important to me:

• First, it's a collaborative game, and killing pans of the game for other players is not my way of playing the game.
• Second, it's not only make believe, there are rules, and I don't have respect for players who on the one hand cites rules to his advantage and on the other hand forgets the limits of those rules when they inconvenience him. I'm not saying that it's the case for that particular player, but it looks a lot like it.

Moreover, I don't begrudge a player for wanting his character to be very perceptive, we've had some of these, what I don't see is the justification for reinforcing that even more with a bizarre explanation of a wolf actually benefiting from his perceptiveness to be even more perceptive.

 

[Seramus]

To be clear about the rules being discussed, I'll repost some of them here. I believe these are openly available, and will adjust my post if I am wrong.

Activity While Traveling
As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group’s journey.

Marching Order​

The adventurers should establish a marching order. A marching order makes it easier to determine which characters are affected by traps, which ones can spot hidden enemies, and which ones are the closest to those enemies when a fight breaks out.

A character might occupy the front rank, one or more middle ranks, or the back rank. Characters in the front and back ranks need enough room to travel side by side with others in their rank. When space is too tight, the marching order must change, usually by moving characters to a middle rank.

Fewer Than Three Ranks. If an adventuring party arranges its marching order with only two ranks, they are a front rank and a back rank. If there’s only one rank, it’s considered a front rank.

Stealth​

While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they’re not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter. See the rules for hiding in the Using Ability Scores section.

SPLITTING UP THE PARTY
Sometimes, it makes sense to split an adventuring party, especially if you want one or more characters to scout ahead. You can form multiple parties, each moving at a different speed. Each group has its own front, middle, and back ranks.
The drawback to this approach is that the party will be split into several smaller groups in the event of an attack. The advantage is that a small group of stealthy characters moving slowly might be able to sneak past enemies that clumsier characters would alert. A pair of rogues moving at a slow pace are much harder to detect when they leave their dwarf fighter friend behind.

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.

Encountering Creatures. If the DM determines that the adventurers encounter other creatures while they’re traveling, it’s up to both groups to decide what happens next. Either group might decide to attack, initiate a conversation, run away, or wait to see what the other group does.

Surprising Foes. If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See the Combat section for more about surprise.

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. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission.

Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.)

Draw a Map. The character can draw a map that records the group’s progress and helps the characters get back on course if they get lost. No ability check is required.

Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for tracking.)

Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has rules for foraging.)

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

How exactly can the wolf Help the Ranger with a Perception task when the Wolf does not speak Common and will therefore be unable to effectively share information? Why will the Ranger know that "Howl, howl, howl" means "Enemies are approaching" and not "I'm hungry"? Are wolf companions trained to point at intruders the way some dogs point at game?

 

[jgsugden]

I dont know if you own a pet, but I can tell you every pet (minus the fish but including the ferret) I have ever owned has woken from a deep sleep and instantly appeared at my feet at the instant a bag crinkled or a cabinet opened anywhere in my house.

That is their perception check. Not whether they maintain the focus to assist you with your efforts. The dog that wakes at the crinkle of a bag may also wake, sneak down to the pantry, and 'crinkle a few bags' without notifying you.

 

[iserith]

Trying to impose it on all sort of situations, insisting that it is applicable, and using all sentences of the rules that support that while consciously ignoring the parts that invalidate it. And whining that "they should have been so detect that because of observant."

No, and I find the last part actually demeaning, so I would appreciate you not making that kind of comment. Moreover, "being effective at playing the game" is not necessarily the aim of the game anyway. Once more: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

And while I have nothing against players being effective, I have something about players bending the rules in order to be even more effective, even if it detracts from other players' fun.

Players can't actually bend rules though or even abuse them. The only one who has control over the rules is the DM who is tasked with arbitrating between the rules and the players. The player in this thread is asking if the wolf can work together with the PC for a bonus to passive Perception, not abusing the rules.

Not alternatively all of this can be done concurrently according to the rules. Moreover, they don't have to be establishing that. Passive applies to tasks being done repeatedly, but also for people not specifically doing anything. For example, in the stealth rule: "When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score."

Which players who want to abuse perception will quote you to point out that even when they are not searching for hidden creatures, their passive perception applies.

No, once more, they WILL avoid surprise, which again players wanting to abuse perception and passive one in particular will point out with: " If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side."

Notice that this is independent as to whether the creature on the opposing side is watching for monsters.

Or a player will point out that there is no such thing in the rule as to say that people walking in front prevent one from observing ahead. And this is true, if you look at the RAW, there are no modifiers, nothing here (which caused one of our DMs to rule that you can as easily be noticed when stealthing invisible just in front of a winter wolf or 300 meters away).

I know how to take care of these at my table, but it does not prevent me from having difficulties with some DMs at some tables, or from having players cause trouble (although thankfully, we have very few of these, but the examples given in particular on the DDB forum are really instructive).

Your interpretation of the rules appears to be, like many DMs, too generous which makes passive Perception overvalued. It's not always-on radar except in combat or setting up for combat (i.e. determining surprise). Players do have to declare their actions, whether they are one-offs or repeated actions. And some of those actions can be mutually exclusive with other actions. To do otherwise incentivizes maximizing Perception beyond what the game likely intends. To then suggest it's somehow wrong to maximize Perception in that context is a little weird in my opinion. The DM in this case sets the stage for it happen and then judges the player when they do what they are incentivized to do. Why wouldn't I want to detect creatures, traps, and secret doors much of the time with very little opportunity cost and no risk? That's a great deal if the DM is running the game that way!

That is assuming that there is something to disarm, that it's even interesting to do so, etc.

You are missing the fact that this character basically invalidates most other characters' ability to interface in a more normal way with the environment in an exploration mode, taking the fun out of it and/or forcing the DM to design challenges specifically for him or around him.

We're talking about traps and secret doors, right? Those are both things to be poked and prodded to figure out how they work and, in the case of traps, disarm (or at least bypass in some fashion). I'm not sure what you mean as to uncertainty about how interesting it is. Why would you include content in your game that isn't interesting?

Further, I don't see why this invalidates other characters' abilities to interface with the environment. Everyone is free to declare whatever actions they want while traveling the adventure location. There's no need for the DM to make any special preparation for highly perceptive characters either. I certainly don't. If you're keeping watch and in the front rank, you might avoid surprise and see the traps - great!

It's not only a game based on make believe, it's also a world based on two other things, which are actually more important to me:

• First, it's a collaborative game, and killing pans of the game for other players is not my way of playing the game.
• Second, it's not only make believe, there are rules, and I don't have respect for players who on the one hand cites rules to his advantage and on the other hand forgets the limits of those rules when they inconvenience him. I'm not saying that it's the case for that particular player, but it looks a lot like it.

Moreover, I don't begrudge a player for wanting his character to be very perceptive, we've had some of these, what I don't see is the justification for reinforcing that even more with a bizarre explanation of a wolf actually benefiting from his perceptiveness to be even more perceptive.

For the first bullet, I don't think you've established how this is invalidating parts of the game for others.

For the second bullet, it seems to me you are ignoring certain rules for reasons that are unclear when it comes to how you handle Perception, thus creating a situation where it is more useful than intended. To correct for this, you then have a social agreement that nobody should then avail themselves of the opportunity by investing in Perception accordingly unless they have some kind of good in-character reason for it (which is easy to just make up in my view). It seems easier to me to just run Perception as it says to and everything else will fall into place. @Seramus has helpfully posted a number of the related rules to take into account.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

How exactly can the wolf Help the Ranger with a Perception task when the Wolf does not speak Common and will therefore be unable to effectively share information? Why will the Ranger know that "Howl, howl, howl" means "Enemies are approaching" and not "I'm hungry"? Are wolf companions trained to point at intruders the way some dogs point at game?

If you had to guess....what would a wolf standing up, staring Intently into the darkness to the SouthWest, hair raised in fear, and emitting a low growl signify.

If you were on watch with this wolf do you think you might also stand up? Draw a weapon? Alert your sleeping allies? Look specifically SouthWest?