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

[Seramus]

1) Is it possible for an animal companion to use the help action on perception?
2) Can the help action provide a bonus to passive perception?

Technically the 2nd question is more universal. Could a fellow party member give a +5 bonus to another players passive perception, assuming they aren't really doing anything else?

If the animal is trained to do so, I have no problems allowing it to happen if a halfway reasonable explanation can be provided. And in the case of a trained wolf helping you watch out for hidden dangers, my answer is "That's definitely reasonable." I would flavor any help provided by the wolf as sight/smell/some other trick it was trained to do. And as mentioned earlier, I do make that take up the wolf's action in the whole Adventuring Activity / Marching Order part of the game. The decision is ultimately yours if you want to arbitrate the mechanic as two separate rolls or one roll with advantage (even using the passive equivalent)

As an aside, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, +5 Advantage and +5 Observant "only" cuts even against Pass Without Trace.

 

[iserith]

D&D Players seriously arguing about whether or not it is reasonable to use a dog as a guard animal.

I think the issue is actually deeper than that. Some people make Perception really, really powerful in their games already, so any attempt by a player to make it more powerful than that (e.g. a wolf working together to grant advantage to passive Perception) can sound to them like a Very Bad Idea.

My position is, don't make Perception so powerful in the first place by applying the trade-offs and risks already present in the rules. Then make a reasonable ruling about what the wolf can do here to at least meet the player halfway.

 

[Arilyn]

Ruling over rules until there's half an excuse to scream in someone's face.

Over dogs.

Exactly
Maybe we should all just play Pugmire.

 

[Lyxen]

Although I'm flattered someone would take the time to parse out so many individual statements and respond to each of them, I think your method causes you to miss vital context in what I'm saying. I encourage you to do less of that.

To address some of your points:

• Here's the rule you requested: "Character 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." (Basic Rules, p. 68, also in PHB Ch. 8) It then goes on to say what tasks it's referring to and suggests the DM may establish that other tasks have the same trade-off. So yeah, draw a map and you risk being automatically surprised. That is the trade-off for creating a navigational tool for advantage later (and potentially something valuable to sell, if there's a market for maps at the DM's discretion). In my game, Search for Secret Doors is on par with these tasks. To get the benefit of finding secret chambers with treasure in them or shortcuts around dangerous areas, you need to put yourself at risk of automatic surprise.
• The above rule is in the context of Activity While Traveling - itself in the context of Movement - which can be at the dungeon scale of feet and minutes or the wilderness scale of feet miles, hours, and days.

And I've already told you at least three times that you are reading this rule wrong, because:

1. It does not say that people turning their attention to other tasks don't get their passive checks for noticing hidden creatures or for surprise, just that they don't contribute to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats, which is completely different.
2. Moreover, it assumes that adventurers are idiots who, walking down a dungeon corridor, will actually be doing tasks other than keeping alive by watching their surroundings for danger. Obviously, the characters will NOT be doing such things unless they are in a safe place, preferably not moving, so it should not even apply to most of the cases.

As for searching, it's a completely different subject, again unless in very specific cases, you will do this in an area that you have secured. This is why I'm telling you that your method actually provides no benefit.

• Your position on having all monsters attempt to surprise the PCs makes Perception even more valuable to have in your game than may be intended. Every time you give us details about your game, it should be easy for everyone to see how way, way overvalued this skill is based on how you run things. You're not alone here though. Lots of DMs do this and then wonder why passive Perception is so strong.

I'm not wondering, I'm acknowledging that, by the RAW and by the RAI that I've shown you, it's indeed very strong. Despite that, in the hundreds of characters played in our 5e campaigns, only ONE has taken the observant feat, first because it's a feat and it's an OPTION already and therefore not allowed in all campaigns, and second because it had to fit to the character's profile.

After that, there are multiple ways of dealing with this. As mentioned, I don't like yours because it basically frustrates the players for no good verisimilitude reasons (it's absurd to think that two people waking 5 feet apart in front of you seriously obscure your view, for example), just because you are afraid that passive perception is strong. Or that you say "because you are mapping, or taking notes" (useful things for the group and for the players), you will always be surprised. It's a really bad way to discourage contributions.

But still you would allow combinations of a feat and a dubious interpretation of a combat rule on helping to get passive perception through the roof of bounding accuracy, therefore removing a serious part of the excitement of exploration, since that guy, for sure, will never be doing other useful tasks ?

On the other hand, I prefer to control properly such dubious uses (through limitations on OPTIONAL feats, and not allowing helping to apply outside of combat unless justified), making sure that bounded accuracy is kept properly intact, and therefore allowing everyone to have fun, since the gap between characters remains manageable in terms of DC.

• I'm not sure your LARP experience is relevant to what the rules of passive Perception are in D&D 5e. You seem to be making some kind of case for realism here to justify your interpretations, but I don't find that useful when discussing what the rules say.

The only thing I'm saying, along with the rules and the RAI, is that adventurers are seasoned professional, and will therefore not be doing stupid things like strolling down a dungeon corridor, whistling a tune and reading a book to make sure that they don't notice threats. And that was echoed by even non-professional adventurers in pseudo-dangerous situations.

 

[Lyxen]

My position is, don't make Perception so powerful in the first place by applying the trade-offs and risks already present in the rules.

And my position is that it's way better to prevent ONE character from trying to break the rules by using a dubious combination than struggling all along the game and making adventurers idiots.

Then make a reasonable ruling about what the wolf can do here to at least meet the player halfway.

Which is exactly what I proposed, instead of telling him "yes", tell him that his dog can actually stand watch properly on his own and give him some benefits, but not gain the benefit of his feat, because it's too strong and not justified.

 

[iserith]

And I've already told you at least three times that you are reading this rule wrong, because:

1. It does not say that people turning their attention to other tasks don't get their passive checks for noticing hidden creatures or for surprise, just that they don't contribute to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats, which is completely different.
2. Moreover, it assumes that adventurers are idiots who, walking down a dungeon corridor, will actually be doing tasks other than keeping alive by watching their surroundings for danger. Obviously, the characters will NOT be doing such things unless they are in a safe place, preferably not moving, so it should not even apply to most of the cases.

As for searching, it's a completely different subject, again unless in very specific cases, you will do this in an area that you have secured. This is why I'm telling you that your method actually provides no benefit.

The rules for Movement and Activities While Traveling work hand in glove with the rules for determining surprise.

The rules don't say anything one way or another about adventurers being "idiots." They just say that if you're doing anything like the listed tasks, you're not watching out for danger and you don't get to apply your passive Perception. When combined with the rules for surprise in context, that means you're surprised if a monster tries to surprise you. When you're surprised, you can't act during the first round except for reactions after your turn has passed. That's it. Any editorializing about someone making a meaningful choice to risk surprise in order to undertake a useful task being an "idiot" is all you.

I'm not wondering, I'm acknowledging that, by the RAW and by the RAI that I've shown you, it's indeed very strong. Despite that, in the hundreds of characters played in our 5e campaigns, only ONE has taken the observant feat, first because it's a feat and it's an OPTION already and therefore not allowed in all campaigns, and second because it had to fit to the character's profile.

After that, there are multiple ways of dealing with this. As mentioned, I don't like yours because it basically frustrates the players for no good verisimilitude reasons (it's absurd to think that two people waking 5 feet apart in front of you seriously obscure your view, for example), just because you are afraid that passive perception is strong. Or that you say "because you are mapping, or taking notes" (useful things for the group and for the players), you will always be surprised. It's a really bad way to discourage contributions.

But still you would allow combinations of a feat and a dubious interpretation of a combat rule on helping to get passive perception through the roof of bounding accuracy, therefore removing a serious part of the excitement of exploration, since that guy, for sure, will never be doing other useful tasks ?

On the other hand, I prefer to control properly such dubious uses (through limitations on OPTIONAL feats, and not allowing helping to apply outside of combat unless justified), making sure that bounded accuracy is kept properly intact, and therefore allowing everyone to have fun, since the gap between characters remains manageable in terms of DC.

The way you appear to run things makes Perception way stronger than may be intended. Hence the need to control "dubious uses," by way of requiring the investment in Perception to "fit the character's profile," whatever that means. That you also have most or all monsters try to surprise the PCs only makes Perception that much more critical in your games.

Contrast with how I do things: I don't care if the player invests in Perception and don't care if they have a passive Perception that is off the charts. Because I know that investment isn't free in terms of character creation and advancement, benefits every member of the party, and because it will also come with the trade-offs and risks the rules establish which are sufficient in my experience to keep Perception more in line with other good choices. And only about 30% of monsters on average will try to surprise the characters, so the players understand over time that they can risk having characters engage in tasks other than keeping watch for danger.

I'll leave it to those who are still reading to decide which scenario sounds better to them as DMs and players.

 

[Seramus]

And I've already told you at least three times that you are reading this rule wrong, because:

1. It does not say that people turning their attention to other tasks don't get their passive checks for noticing hidden creatures or for surprise, just that they don't contribute to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats, which is completely different.
2. Moreover, it assumes that adventurers are idiots who, walking down a dungeon corridor, will actually be doing tasks other than keeping alive by watching their surroundings for danger. Obviously, the characters will NOT be doing such things unless they are in a safe place, preferably not moving, so it should not even apply to most of the cases.

I do not believe he is reading the rules wrong. The rules do seem to suggest (by stating directly) that turning your attention to other tasks means they don't get their passive checks to notice hidden threats. I do not believe that is completely different. While many adventurer's do very questionable things, and staying generally vigilant is a good way to stay alive, the other listed adventuring activities (such as navigating, drawing a map, etc) are also conducive to staying alive in the long term. Yes, alternating periods of vigilance until an area is secure (if possible) and then performing adventuring activities is a good way to do things, but it can also be time intensive. I think this is an intentional trade-off made by the game designers, and every group will make their own choice on that spectrum.

I believe the Adventuring Activity game mechanics are intended to be used. I have no issue with groups that don't use them, don't use rules concerning Marching Order limiting what can and cannot be detected, or allow many activities to be done by a single individual. I make choices about what's fun and what's annoying in my games all the time. But they are there, I personally do use the majority of them, and I think not using them can create game balance issues that are very similar to the ones you describe.

And that's okay! It's your game. Maybe it's even the OP's game. But, I implore you to be more flexible when it comes to determining which rule interpretation is the One True Way.

 

[Lyxen]

The rules for Movement and Activities While Traveling work hand in glove with the rules for determining surprise.

They don't, not specifically. Surprise is individual. Travelling mentions specifically mention the group ( they don't contribute to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats). Moreover, they don't match the stealth rule either. These are general rules to manage the party over a long period of time in an exploration mode. At best, it's an edge case.

The rules don't say anything one way or another about adventurers being "idiots."

No, but your interpretation of the rules make them sound like idiots. Again, in your experience, in a dungeon, do adventurers walk down the corridor not paying attention ?

And if they are, are you even properly using the surprise rules ? Because if you do, even if the ranger notices the threat, all others are surprised, which is stupid for them.

They just say that if you're doing anything like the listed tasks, you're not watching out for danger and you don't get to apply your passive Perception.

Once more, read the rules, they don't say that. They say that if you're not paying attention, then you can do other tasks, which is completely different.

Once, do you say that because an adventurer is taling some notes for mapping, he gets no perception checks and is mandatorily surprised ?

When combined with the rules for surprise in context, that means you're surprised if a monster tries to surprise you.

You are, once more, not reading the surprise rules properly. It's not a question of wanting to surprise someone in particular, it's just seeing, on an individual basis, whether you are more perceptive than specific members of an opposing group.

When you're surprised, you can't act during the first round except for reactions after your turn has passed. That's it. Any editorializing about someone making a meaningful choice to risk surprise in order to undertake a useful task being an "idiot" is all you.

Considering that most 5e fights are over in 3-5 rounds, missing one is pretty significant, especially if a monster gets to act twice before you do. Once more, in your groups, do adventurers take risks like mapping and risk surprise. Yes or no ?

The way you appear to run things makes Perception way stronger than may be intended.

And once more, I've shown you that, contrary to you, I'm running things as intended. You are the one who has zero knowledge about the intentions there, as demonstrated many times so far.

Hence the need to control "dubious uses," by way of requiring the investment in Perception to "fit the character's profile," whatever that means. That you also have most or all monsters try to surprise the PCs only makes Perception that much more critical in your games.

Because my monstres are not idiots either, of course, they will try to surprise any adversary. Doing otherwise would be simply stupid.

Contrast with how I do things: I don't care if the player invests in Perception and don't care if they have a passive Perception that is off the charts. Because I know that investment isn't free in terms of character creation and advancement, benefits every member of the party

No, it does not, unless you are, as usual, not reading your rules but the way you would like them to sound. But they don't again as demonstrated constantly over our exchanges. Read the rules. Listen to the podcast. Then, maybe, you can talk about the actual rules and their intent.

In particular, having just one member to prevent surprise is not enough. Just read the surprise rules.

, and because it will also come with the trade-offs and risks the rules establish which are sufficient in my experience to keep Perception more in line with other good choices. And only about 30% of monsters on average will try to surprise the characters

Meaningless statistic based on you mistaking the training in stealth with what the monsters would do. Once more, do only characters trained in stealth ever try to be stealthy in your games ? Sheeesh...

, so the players understand over time that they can risk having characters engage in tasks other than keeping watch for danger.

Only if they, like you, don't read the rules about surprise and stealth. And if you muzzle them in telling them: "because you took a few notes for a map in the previous room, you are considered blind, deaf and stupid until I tell you so."

 

[Seramus]

Once more, read the rules, they don't say that.
You are, once more, not reading the surprise rules properly.
And once more, I've shown you that, contrary to you, I'm running things as intended.
No, it does not, unless you are, as usual, not reading your rules
Only if they, like you, don't read the rules

I implore you to be more flexible when it comes to determining which rule interpretation is the One True Way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I implore you to be more flexible when it comes to determining which rule interpretation is the One True Way.

It's easier to just not bother reading their rules interpretations... knowing full well that how they play the game doesn't impact the rest of us at all. We don't HAVE to engage with them about how we rule the rules you know.