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

[Scott Christian]

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

In general he wants to use his wolf to stand sentry most of the time, “use the help action” to give him advantage on perception checks (which then translates to a +5 to passive perception).

he already has a very high passive perception (observant) so this would definately push him into the “very high” territory.

what do you think, is that a reasonable way to use an animal companion?

Yes.

 

[Lyxen]

Traveling is just movement.

No, movement is movement. Mixing up words which are used specifically in the rules (just as not seeing the difference between one character and the group) is just proof that you don't understand them and mix things up.

Once more, by all means, play the game the way you like, but if you want to discuss them, please read them properly.

It's in the same section of the rules.

And yet, it has its own section, because travelling is not movement, it's travelling. It's not movement, it's at best a subset of movement, it's not exploration, it's not social and it's not combat. It's an edge case, and a very small at that, since travelling is, in general, boring.

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).

Of course, because it's a well designed game, the small subset of travelling uses the same rules as the rest of the game (although applying to a group rather than to adventurers individually, just read the rules). Does it mean that it's general rules ? No, because it's just a small subset, lost in a subcategory of movement.

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.

You are not qualified to speak about the intent of the rules, as demonstrated many times before.

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.

And as a player, I would not play in your campaigns where you rob characters of vital rolls on the spurious principle that, as soon as they breathe, they are travelling....

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"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."

And then:
"While traveling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily."

And also:
"While traveling, a group of adventurers can move at a normal, fast, or slow pace, as shown on the Travel Pace table."

"Exploration includes both the adventurers' movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention. Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result."


I mean... is there really any way to read any of these lines (and more throughout the PHB) and not see how travel and movement are inextricably tied together? And that travelling is happening as part of exploration?

 

[Seramus]

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.

But... the rules specifically mention moving through dungeons under the category of travelling. "As adventurers travel through a dungeon." The provided example is literally a maze of tunnels, and the example danger is a stealthy creature. "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."

 

[iserith]

No, movement is movement. Mixing up words which are used specifically in the rules (just as not seeing the difference between one character and the group) is just proof that you don't understand them and mix things up.

Once more, by all means, play the game the way you like, but if you want to discuss them, please read them properly.



And yet, it has its own section, because travelling is not movement, it's travelling. It's not movement, it's at best a subset of movement, it's not exploration, it's not social and it's not combat. It's an edge case, and a very small at that, since travelling is, in general, boring.



Of course, because it's a well designed game, the small subset of travelling uses the same rules as the rest of the game (although applying to a group rather than to adventurers individually, just read the rules). Does it mean that it's general rules ? No, because it's just a small subset, lost in a subcategory of movement.



You are not qualified to speak about the intent of the rules, as demonstrated many times before.



And as a player, I would not play in your campaigns where you rob characters of vital rolls on the spurious principle that, as soon as they breathe, they are travelling....

It looks to me like you don't like whatever you think "traveling" is ("boring," you said) and are thereby setting it aside as a subcategory of rules that don't apply when they actually do. In the doing, you make Perception very strong in your games.

If you won't accept this from me for whatever reason, please consider listening to others who are saying the same thing above. Not that you need to change anything about your game, of course. You're free to make Perception as strong as you like. But the rules are there.

 

[Ashrym]

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”)."



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.



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



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.



And that should be more than good enough.



Which is not the default.

The ranger and wolf are not in combat and therefore the help action required in combat is not applicable. Bringing it up is pointless.

If you don't think they are being productive together as a DM then ask the player how the wolf is helping. Then decide. It's a reasonable approach but it's also reasonable to simply play by mechanics. A lot of tables do it.

The pet having it's own roll when the rules stipulate passive perception is moot. At that point there's no advantage. Opposed stealth check is based on that static passive perception DC. It's only a question if the wolf or ranger is also surprised or not. It's not possible to have a benefit from additional rolling that does not exist. Granting the bonus is the mechanic used with the rolls are replaced with static numbers.

Feats being options cannot be an argument in the case of benefits between two different feats. If feats aren't allowed then neither feat matters and if feats are allowed then the argument is valid.

Being enough most of the time is why the other times are a situational benefit and why it's a minor consideration to allow. It's also not different than any other class that uses similar mechanics. There are a lot of ways to gain advantage on a check that can be used with the same feat. There's no reason to gatekeep rangers out of it with this method just because it's not on your approved list.

You can call it a house rule if that makes you feel better, but the basic rules are the DM determines if what the players are doing is possible so if the player says "hey, my wolf is doing this to help me" and it sounds reasonable then the helping each other rule applies and the passive check bonus rule applies. That doesn't seem to be not the default to me at all.

It's not going to hurt anyone's game to let a beast master ranger make use of the beast he selected as part of the whole character concept.

 

[Maxperson]

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

In general he wants to use his wolf to stand sentry most of the time, “use the help action” to give him advantage on perception checks (which then translates to a +5 to passive perception).

he already has a very high passive perception (observant) so this would definately push him into the “very high” territory.

what do you think, is that a reasonable way to use an animal companion?

I would not allow that. Helping is active, not passive. The companion would have it's own passive perception to notice things, and the PC's passive would remain the same.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not going to hurt anyone's game to let a beast master ranger make use of the beast he selected as part of the whole character concept.

It's not going to make any sense, either. Passive rolls are not active rolls, so there's no way a pet can actively help(not help action, but help in any way) with it. Each would simply have their own passive perceptions.

 

[Umbran]

You are not qualified to speak about the intent of the rules, as demonstrated many times before.

Mod Note:
I am pretty sure you were not appointed Official Gatekeeper of Qualifications, so it would do for you to walk back the personal remarks several notches.

 

[Iry]

It's not going to make any sense, either. Passive rolls are not active rolls, so there's no way a pet can actively help(not help action, but help in any way) with it. Each would simply have their own passive perceptions.

I can see a bunch of ways it might make sense. "Back to back, old girl. I'll watch this side of the camp and you watch that side." or "She can pick up scents on the wind better than I can, so I focus on distance and color." Two beings cooperating in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts. At the very least, it makes more sense to me than a Sentinel Shield. It has an eyeball painted on it.