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

[Lyxen]

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

Hmmm. Let me show you where this started, and who actually put "the one true way" on the table, with sentences like: "Yep, and given that I play by the rules", as if others were not...

As for me, I'm not saying that the way @iserith plays is a bad way, I'm just saying that contrary to his claims (and demonstrably so, see in particular the "passive perception is always on" where he first tried to say that it was not true, then tried to pretend that it was combat only, despite clear evidence to the contrary), the RAW and the RAI point in a different way to his claims.

After that, to each his own.

 

[iserith]

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.

I would say you may be giving too much weight to the word "group's" and not taking into account the scales of travel in the same section of the rules. The rules for hiding are accounted for here as well. Everything works together - the travel tasks, the rules for surprise, and the scale of movement in exploration. You don't have a chance of noticing a hidden threat if you're not keeping watch.

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.

Of course adventurers walk around paying attention in the fictional sense. But if they are doing any of the aforementioned tasks, they aren't paying attention well enough in a mechanical sense to avoid surprise if a monster tries to surprise them. If they don't want to take that risk, they need to keep watch for danger instead of mapping or whatever. In your game, that's a terrible trade-off to make because every monster apparently tries to surprise the PCs. Perhaps to mitigate that somewhat, you appear to put an interpretation on the rules in the travel activity section that removes the trade-off in tasks. In my games, about 30% of monsters try to surprise the PCs, so depending on the PCs' priorities and status, it might be a risk worth taking. It's another meaningful decision for the players to make. I find the more meaningful decisions a player makes, the more engaged they are in the game.

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.

Again, parsing posts to the extent you do is causing you to take things I'm saying out of context. A few is fine, but I encourage you to refrain from overdoing it. As an example, above you are responding to a point I made as if I was making it in the context of surprise rules, when I was referring to finding traps or the like (which you say invalidates other players), which is of benefit to everyone. That said, it's still of benefit to the party for another PC to not be surprised when someone else is surprised. That's more actions for Team PC for the round than there might have been.

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...

Perhaps your parsing also made you miss that I said it's training in Stealth and/or any lore that suggest they favor ambushes or the like. Nevertheless, the 30% is meaningful in that it creates a situation where there's a meaningful choice to be made: Do I risk being automatically surprised in order to draw a map? I certainly would not make that choice if it was 100% as in your game. (But anyway, that's not relevant in your game since there is no trade-off or meaningful decision to be made, thereby making Perception stronger than may be intended.)

 

[iserith]

Hmmm. Let me show you where this started, and who actually put "the one true way" on the table, with sentences like: "Yep, and given that I play by the rules", as if others were not...

Or you could be inferring something that isn't actually stated or intended.

 

[Seramus]

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.

I know, I know. I'm trying to be good. It just feels like such a big gulf between "I can see your perspective, and also have mine" versus "You're doing it wrong." I mean, one of the biggest issues (in my opinion) about 5E is deciding which rule is specific and which is general. Most of the time it can be argued either way. And then there's the rules for darkness, which are blatantly unlike how darkness works in real life. And there's just no rules for sleeping at all, except how long you should do it (whatever it is). Then there is Jeremy Crawford, who I respect a great deal, but occasionally says something away from his books that gets taken as holy gospel. We're pretty much all doing the best we can with what we have, haha.

 

[Lyxen]

I would say you may be giving too much weight to the word "group's"

You know what ? I'm not interested in discussing with someone who has to ignore words from the rules to discuss said rules. This part of the discussion is over.

Of course adventurers walk around paying attention in the fictional sense.

And I have even less interest in discussing with someone who actually ignores what is happening in the story to actually decide something else in terms of rules just because he thinks a skill might be overpowered. If my players tell me that they are alert (as they should be), then they will be. And if someone, in a safe location, scribbles a map, I will not penalise him by removing his passive perception, and neither will I create an encounter just at that instant to punish him from helping other players.

It's not what the RAW says (and not what the RAI explains either), and if you need to ignore words from the rules for the game to work for you, good for you, but please stop telling that you "follow the rules" (long travel rules do not apply generally in the game, just on long travel, and even then your interpretation, based on ignoring words, is valueess). So simply, please stop.

Finally, and once more, your "solution" solves nothing. Noticing threats should be the first order of priority to survive in dangerous situations. So there is actually no choice, or even worse, you will ignore the fiction that the character weave in order to trap them in a specific role forbidding them to notice things just to deal with your feeling that perception is overpowered.

 

[iserith]

You know what ? I'm not interested in discussing with someone who has to ignore words from the rules to discuss said rules. This part of the discussion is over.

I'm not ignoring them. My rulings take them into account. As well as all the other related rules. As far as the discussion, you're free to engage or not as you please.

And I have even less interest in discussing with someone who actually ignores what is happening in the story to actually decide something else in terms of rules just because he thinks a skill might be overpowered. If my players tell me that they are alert (as they should be), then they will be. And if someone, in a safe location, scribbles a map, I will not penalise him by removing his passive perception, and neither will I create an encounter just at that instant to punish him from helping other players.

It's not what the RAW says (and not what the RAI explains either), and if you need to ignore words from the rules for the game to work for you, good for you, but please stop telling that you "follow the rules" (long travel rules do not apply generally in the game, just on long travel, and even then your interpretation, based on ignoring words, is valueess). So simply, please stop.

Finally, and once more, your "solution" solves nothing. Noticing threats should be the first order of priority to survive in dangerous situations. So there is actually no choice, or even worse, you will ignore the fiction that the character weave in order to trap them in a specific role forbidding them to notice things just to deal with your feeling that perception is overpowered.

I'm also not ignoring what's going on in the story. If the PCs choose to engage in certain tasks, they're not as attentive at keeping watch for danger and are at risk of automatic surprise if a stealthy creature comes calling. That seems like a reasonable story to me and in line with what the rules say for all scales of exploration. It's up to the player if that's what they want their character to do in the face of this.

Further, I don't interpret these things on the belief that Perception is overpowered by default. It's just how I see the rules working together and, as a side effect, Perception doesn't seem to be as big an issue as it is in other DM's games who do interpret things in a way that makes Perception very strong.

 

[Ashrym]

Some of us are way over-thinking this.

The help action in combat is irrelevant. This is the working together rules.

A pet can only work together with someone if that pet has proficiency and it's reasonable. So things like investigation or arcana or survival for that should be used instead of perception cannot gain that advantage. A pet helping keep watch is reasonable.

The rules do indicate when passive perception applies. The result of using passive perception is this context is to not be surprised. Spending a feat for a bonus when the alert feat is automatic cannot be abusive or overpowered, making the pet argument bonus moot. The benefit of going with the high score in this case is for spies who remain hidden.

Most monsters don't actually have high stealth in the first place. The wolf is likely going to hear something with a passive perception that starts at 18 and goes up with the ranger's proficiency bonus. That's decent without additional investment and increasing beyond that with feats etc for the ranger turns into over-kill on the checks outside of situational relevance.

It's a trope that makes sense with limited impact. It seems silly not to allow it given the alertness alternative.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm not ignoring them.

Yes, you are. You are insisting that rules that are specific to travelling (it's written clearly as such) apply everywhere in the game, just because you are scared that perception is overpowered. They don't, they are, as written, specific to travelling, and they apply (again, clearly as written) to the group, with suggestions about sometimes making it specific to specific positions in a marching order.

If you want to play it that way, fine. However, once more, they don't solve anything at tables where adventurers are, rightly, not considered to be travelling all the time. Sometimes, you know, they engage in exploration (which is not necessarily travelling, you know, or you should), or social activity, or even combat. These are the three pillars of the game, and it's not "travelling".

Abnd, actually, I can't even remember when someone asked any of our groups for a "marching order" as required for "travelling". We just don't play that kind of game.

So can you please stop being high and mighty about you "applying the rules" ? You are not, anymore than anyone else, and actually if you actually insist on applying travel rules all over the game, you are applying them incorrectly compared to the RAW. And, I would add, once more, to the RAI, which I've clearly shown you.

 

[Lyxen]

The help action in combat is irrelevant. This is the working together rules.

Note that they are actually one and the same, here is the section: "Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort — or the one with the highest ability modifier — can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9, “Combat”)."

A pet can only work together with someone if that pet has proficiency and it's reasonable.

And this is where we don't agree. The rules also say: "Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive."

The ranger can stand watch. The wolf can stand watch. Are they really "working" together ? No, they are side by side, and they are not more "productive". For me, it simply does not give advantage.

So things like investigation or arcana or survival for that should be used instead of perception cannot gain that advantage. A pet helping keep watch is reasonable.

A pet keeping watch is reasonable. It then translates into the pet having its own roll, which is actually quite good.

The rules do indicate when passive perception applies. The result of using passive perception is this context is to not be surprised. Spending a feat for a bonus when the alert feat is automatic cannot be abusive or overpowered

Actually, feats are options, and are sometimes not used just because of that reason. They are overpowered, and in particular the stupid alert feat which, instead of giving a bonus or advantage as per the rule, makes it absolute. So, for me, this actually an argument against the case.

Most monsters don't actually have high stealth in the first place. The wolf is likely going to hear something with a passive perception that starts at 18 and goes up with the ranger's proficiency bonus.

And that should be more than good enough.

That's decent without additional investment and increasing beyond that with feats etc for the ranger turns into over-kill on the checks outside of situational relevance.

It's a trope that makes sense with limited impact. It seems silly not to allow it given the alertness alternative.

Which is not the default.

 

[iserith]

Yes, you are. You are insisting that rules that are specific to travelling (it's written clearly as such) apply everywhere in the game, just because you are scared that perception is overpowered. They don't, they are, as written, specific to travelling, and they apply (again, clearly as written) to the group, with suggestions about sometimes making it specific to specific positions in a marching order.

If you want to play it that way, fine. However, once more, they don't solve anything at tables where adventurers are, rightly, not considered to be travelling all the time. Sometimes, you know, they engage in exploration (which is not necessarily travelling, you know, or you should), or social activity, or even combat. These are the three pillars of the game, and it's not "travelling".

Abnd, actually, I can't even remember when someone asked any of our groups for a "marching order" as required for "travelling". We just don't play that kind of game.

So can you please stop being high and mighty about you "applying the rules" ? You are not, anymore than anyone else, and actually if you actually insist on applying travel rules all over the game, you are applying them incorrectly compared to the RAW. And, I would add, once more, to the RAI, which I've clearly shown you.

Traveling is just movement. It's in the same section of the rules. It applies to all scales of movement, whether in a dungeon or the wilderness - feet and minutes to miles per hour and day. That covers all exploration, which is defined as the movement of the PCs through the world and their interaction with objects and situations within it. Read the whole section and you'll see. Passive checks resolve repeated actions, like constantly checking for secret doors while moving around, whereas regular ability checks resolve single actions (when in either case there's uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure). That you don't apply these rules is your choice, but it's easy to see how much stronger Perception is in your game as a result as compared to what the rules intend. As a player, I would definitely maximize Perception in your game. It's too good and - given how you handle monsters - too risky not to, and it's easy to come up with a fictional reason why to meet your social agreement as to "character profiles" or whatever.