D&D 5E Beast master wants to use pet to get +5 to passive perception
Iry
Hero
Ok. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise.
Yes. I would. I definitely think of crawling around a dungeon, or a noble manner, or moving through the twisting alleys of a city, or navigating through a forest part of the Exploration Pillar. And for me, that means the Adventure rules. Pretty much, I'm always referencing those rules whenever my party is doing stuff outside the Combat Pillar or the Social Pillar.
So, exploring a dungeon and moving from room to room, clearing them of opponents? Yep. To me, that sounds exactly like the Activity While Travelling section in Chapter 8 between the combat moments. As in the combat ends, and we go back to travelling, then combat starts again (or a social situation), and then back to travelling, etc.
Last edited:
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
I'd like to propose an alternate setup to better explain my reasoning for a dog granting advantage on passive perception for standing watch.
1. A single character is standing watch with a PP of 14. A band of goblins is sneaking up on the cam and the GM has decided the goblins have a 15 stealth. They elude the sentry and surprise the party.
2. The next day, to avoid getting bushwhacked again the party decides to post an extra watchman. Now they have TWO characters with a PP of 14 guarding. Same goblins sneak up, get a 15 again, and once again bushwhack the party.
3. The next day the party KNOWS the goblins are going to surprise them, so all 8 of them (who all have a PP of 14) stand watch. Goblins once again gat a 15 and sneak up for the third time successfully.
The existing rules try to accommodate this ridiculous situation from happening by allowing combinations of characters to improve a passive skill. Two ment with a 14PP on watch should always be better than one man with a 14PP on watch. Moreso with 6 people on watch.
This is why, out of rounds, I think it's fair to allow a wolf and a man to combine for a + to Passive Perception. I wouldnt have an issue with houseruling the modifier (I think the rangers PROF modifier would be fair) but think it should be noticable.
1. A single character is standing watch with a PP of 14. A band of goblins is sneaking up on the cam and the GM has decided the goblins have a 15 stealth. They elude the sentry and surprise the party.
2. The next day, to avoid getting bushwhacked again the party decides to post an extra watchman. Now they have TWO characters with a PP of 14 guarding. Same goblins sneak up, get a 15 again, and once again bushwhack the party.
3. The next day the party KNOWS the goblins are going to surprise them, so all 8 of them (who all have a PP of 14) stand watch. Goblins once again gat a 15 and sneak up for the third time successfully.
The existing rules try to accommodate this ridiculous situation from happening by allowing combinations of characters to improve a passive skill. Two ment with a 14PP on watch should always be better than one man with a 14PP on watch. Moreso with 6 people on watch.
This is why, out of rounds, I think it's fair to allow a wolf and a man to combine for a + to Passive Perception. I wouldnt have an issue with houseruling the modifier (I think the rangers PROF modifier would be fair) but think it should be noticable.
We know tools can grant advantage on ability checks when situationally appropriate. I have no issues with tools being alive / living things counting as tools. So I can parse the mechanic as "The guard uses her [Trained Dog] tool to gain advantage during watch tonight."
I also know how intelligent a well trained dog can be, but my answer might be different with other animals. Training a first generation tyrannosaurus is probably a whole different kettle of fish with totally different instincts and capacity to be trained. Ultimately, it depends on how the player presents the scenario to me. I might allow them to Work Together, or I might ask them to roll separately. Whatever I decide, I try to be as consistent as possible so my players can make informed decisions in the future.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
In Basketball, traveling is two steps.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
Or...in the case of NBA star players...2ISH.In Basketball, traveling is two steps.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
You, sir and/or madam are being entirely too casual and reasonable in your approach to a hobby.
I award you zero points and may Tyr have mercy on your soul!
I also happen to 100% agree with all the words you speak.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Passive skills are used when the DM wants to be sneaking about things the players/PCs wouldn't know about. Day three would not use passive perception. At that point they are actively looking for the goblins they know are coming and would be rolling their perception skill.
The ridiculous situation is created by passive skills just existing. The passive number is just an average of rolls over a long period of time, and would not at all be representative of what is happening at the time the goblins are sneaking in. It's a ridiculous situation from the very first time it is used, which is why I ditch passive skill checks.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Not to mention that two steps is like half the court for people that tall.
Similar Threads
