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

[Lyxen]

You appear to be double dipping on the surprise factor, though. Assuming the threat is quite real and these hidden monsters are going to attack, you seem to advocate for giving the party a "group check" first to notice the monsters (with some PCs excluded from said check for doing other things/not being in front rank/whatever DM whim), and then you want to give an individual surprise check to every PC as combat begins. I (and it seems many others commenting on the lengthy exchange here) would not do that as a DM. What you are calling a "group check" is really not. It is each PC making a Passive Wisdom (Perception) check, as they are allowed, to avoid surprise. Some of them might be auto-failing. Combat then begins accordingly.

OK, I think we are progressing, let me try to clarify:

• My main goal here is to allow a party which is well organised a chance to actually notice threats in advance and react accordingly. Saying "you are ambushed" whatever the PCs did to avoid this seems to be severely ignoring the declaration of the PCs (I don't want to go into the player agency topic, as it's often overblown, but it's really the idea). So opening straight up with "you are ambushed" when not only is it logical, if you take the appropriate precautions, to have a chance to notice a threat, but there is a full support from the travelling rules there.
• As for the "double dipping", although it might seem that way, practically, it will not happen, let me explain why below.

Assuming that the PCs, as per the travelling rule, have a chance to notice a threat in advance, basically, two things can happen, there can be variants but overall only two possibilities, they notice the threat or they don't, right ?

But before going into the two possibilities, please remember that, in actuality, not all the people in the party will use their PP to notice hidden threats, only those actually watching for them, for once, and the marching order recommendation might even winnow that further, so it's not like everyone in the party will already have their PP taken into account, it's probably only a minority unless the party is in what they think a very dangerous area and have everyone looking for threats.

Now, about the two possibilities:

• If the party notices the hidden threat in advance, there will not be surprise at the start of the fight (assuming that there is one, the PCs might decide to avoid it), since the party will be aware of the threat. And note that it works perfectly RAW, the monsters' stealth checks will have been negated by their discovery ("Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested... etc.") so they will not, for the intent of the surprise rules, "be stealthy". So no double dipping here.
• If the party does NOT notice the hidden threat, the ambush will play out as normal. But this means that the characters watching for a hidden threat have ALREADY had their PP overcome by the stealth check of the ambushers, so any new PP check (which might be "double dipping" if you want) does not give them an additional chance. The PP is fixed, the stealth check has already been rolled and is still valid, so these characters who were watching for a hidden threat will be surprised (which is only normal, since they failed to notice it before anyway).

HOWEVER, there remains the case of the characters that were not specifically looking for a hidden threat in advance, either because they were at a bad position in the party or because they were doing other activities while travelling. Although the PP of these characters was NOT counted for the group's chance of success (as per the travelling rules), there is NO REASON for them not to have their surprise check.​

​

In all probability, they will fail as well, since they were not lookouts and their PP is probably lower than the people who were on the lookout. But they might succeed, and that is absolutely normal, at the last second, to register something or have an instinctual reaction, for a hero such as they are. And that's what I don't want to obliterate I don't want to autofail them at that stage, it's not fair and not supported by the rules. Note that if they react, at that stage, it will affect only themselves, not the others.​

​

And again, if the DM wants to autofail them or give them disadvantage for being distracted, he can always do whatever he wants. But for me, it's not what the rules say, and it's also not only not fair to the character, but also very discouraging to take up interesting tasks like mapping or foraging.​

​

Anyway, as you can see, it's completely aligned with all aspects of the RAW, very logical, but also supportive of intelligent play, where characters make choices and take decisions, while at the same time not spelling out a death sentence either, these are heroes after all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

OK, I think we are progressing, let me try to clarify:

• My main goal here is to allow a party which is well organised a chance to actually notice threats in advance and react accordingly. Saying "you are ambushed" whatever the PCs did to avoid this seems to be severely ignoring the declaration of the PCs (I don't want to go into the player agency topic, as it's often overblown, but it's really the idea). So opening straight up with "you are ambushed" when not only is it logical, if you take the appropriate precautions, to have a chance to notice a threat, but there is a full support from the travelling rules there.
• As for the "double dipping", although it might seem that way, practically, it will not happen, let me explain why below.

Assuming that the PCs, as per the travelling rule, have a chance to notice a threat in advance, basically, two things can happen, there can be variants but overall only two possibilities, they notice the threat or they don't, right ?

But before going into the two possibilities, please remember that, in actuality, not all the people in the party will use their PP to notice hidden threats, only those actually watching for them, for once, and the marching order recommendation might even winnow that further, so it's not like everyone in the party will already have their PP taken into account, it's probably only a minority unless the party is in what they think a very dangerous area and have everyone looking for threats.

Now, about the two possibilities:

• If the party notices the hidden threat in advance, there will not be surprise at the start of the fight (assuming that there is one, the PCs might decide to avoid it), since the party will be aware of the threat. And note that it works perfectly RAW, the monsters' stealth checks will have been negated by their discovery ("Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested... etc.") so they will not, for the intent of the surprise rules, "be stealthy". So no double dipping here.
• If the party does NOT notice the hidden threat, the ambush will play out as normal. But this means that the characters watching for a hidden threat have ALREADY had their PP overcome by the stealth check of the ambushers, so any new PP check (which might be "double dipping" if you want) does not give them an additional chance. The PP is fixed, the stealth check has already been rolled and is still valid, so these characters who were watching for a hidden threat will be surprised (which is only normal, since they failed to notice it before anyway).

HOWEVER, there remains the case of the characters that were not specifically looking for a hidden threat in advance, either because they were at a bad position in the party or because they were doing other activities while travelling. Although the PP of these characters was NOT counted for the group's chance of success (as per the travelling rules), there is NO REASON for them not to have their surprise check.​

​

In all probability, they will fail as well, since they were not lookouts and their PP is probably lower than the people who were on the lookout. But they might succeed, and that is absolutely normal, at the last second, to register something or have an instinctual reaction, for a hero such as they are. And that's what I don't want to obliterate I don't want to autofail them at that stage, it's not fair and not supported by the rules. Note that if they react, at that stage, it will affect only themselves, not the others.​

​

And again, if the DM wants to autofail them or give them disadvantage for being distracted, he can always do whatever he wants. But for me, it's not what the rules say, and it's also not only not fair to the character, but also very discouraging to take up interesting tasks like mapping or foraging.​

​

Anyway, as you can see, it's completely aligned with all aspects of the RAW, very logical, but also supportive of intelligent play, where characters make choices and take decisions, while at the same time not spelling out a death sentence either, these are heroes after all.

In your game:

Outcome A: of those PCs watching for danger, more than half succeed on the group check (passive perception vs stealth). Party as a whole succeeds. Ambush is a complete failure. Combat ensues with no one surprised.

Outcome B: of those PCs watching for danger, less than half succeed on the group check (passive perception vs stealth). Now, those not watching for danger get a check (passive perception vs stealth). Combat ensues with all those previously watching for danger surprised and those not watching for danger possibly surprised or possibly not based on the passive check.

Does this represent how it plays out at your table?

 

[Lyxen]

In your game:

Outcome A: of those PCs watching for danger, more than half succeed on the group check (passive perception vs stealth). Party as a whole succeeds. Ambush is a complete failure. Combat ensues with no one surprised.

I think that there is a bit of confusion here about the "group check". When I mention this, it's because it's a check that benefits the group, in - if it's successful - providing information to the whole group, not only the characters succeeding.

After that, it's often an option to use the actual "group check" rule, but in this case, it's a bit complicated, since the PCs are not making the ability check, they are actually simply providing the DC for the stealth check of the monsters. So if anyone would be doing a group check there, it's actually the monsters, if more than half succeed against the DC set by the PP of the characters (and only those watching an in a position to watch), then the PCs don't notice them.

It could be reversed if the PCs were actually making active perception checks, but the assumption of the travel rules is that they are not, they're juste "routinely" watching ahead on the path of their travel to notice hidden threats.

But thanks for rewording, you are basically correct, with maybe a precision for the conclusion, which depends when the ambush is located, because if for example the PCs notice the orcs on top of the ravine, they will probably not engage the orcs on that basis and there might not even be a fight, and certainly no surprise.

Outcome B: of those PCs watching for danger, less than half succeed on the group check (passive perception vs stealth). Now, those not watching for danger get a check (passive perception vs stealth). Combat ensues with all those previously watching for danger surprised and those not watching for danger possibly surprised or possibly not based on the passive check.

Does this represent how it plays out at your table?

Yes, that is a fair summary . There are a few details in there, for example see above about the "group check", or about the fact that characters who failed at the "notice hidden threat" might still succeed at the surprise check because of situational modifiers, but these are clearly edge case.

What do you think ?

 

[Raduin711]

Ignoring the beastmaster for a second...

Suppose you had a party of four players, and instead of the usual (each character offering their passive perception) two of the characters announced that they were helping the other two on their passive perception checks.

Is this RAW legal?

Supposing this party were ambushed, and one pair succeeded, and the other failed, who would be surprised?

Would both members of the successful pair avoid being surprised, or just the one that was helped? (since the helper seems to be forgoing their own perception roll to help another's...)

What exactly is happening differently in the game's fiction than normal?

If passive perception should not be ran this way, why are we running it this way for the beastmaster? Is the animal companion "part of the character" or is it it's own creature? Because part of the game treats it as an extension of the character, and another part treats it as it's own creature. Where do we draw the line?

 

[Lyxen]

Suppose you had a party of four players, and instead of the usual (each character offering their passive perception) two of the characters announced that they were helping the other two on their passive perception checks.

Is this RAW legal?

Helping another is absolutely at the hands of the DM: "Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive."

So it depends whether the DM thought it would be productive.

As for me, I would rule that it's not. Perception is instinctive, and doing it passively makes it even less "productive". So no, I would not allow it.

Supposing this party were ambushed, and one pair succeeded, and the other failed, who would be surprised?

As seen above no, I would not allow it, so this section is N/A. to me.

Would both members of the successful pair avoid being surprised, or just the one that was helped? (since the helper seems to be forgoing their own perception roll to help another's...)

What exactly is happening differently in the game's fiction than normal?

If passive perception should not be ran this way, why are we running it this way for the beastmaster? Is the animal companion "part of the character" or is it it's own creature? Because part of the game treats it as an extension of the character, and another part treats it as it's own creature. Where do we draw the line?

See above, I'm drawing the line as far as allowing people to help each other on perception anyway. As for the dog, it's another matter. It is very efficient already as a guard dog, and it gives one more character that can be used by the party to notice hidden threats, so it's already a good asset on its own.

 

[iserith]

Ignoring the beastmaster for a second...

Suppose you had a party of four players, and instead of the usual (each character offering their passive perception) two of the characters announced that they were helping the other two on their passive perception checks.

Is this RAW legal?

Supposing this party were ambushed, and one pair succeeded, and the other failed, who would be surprised?

Would both members of the successful pair avoid being surprised, or just the one that was helped? (since the helper seems to be forgoing their own perception roll to help another's...)

What exactly is happening differently in the game's fiction than normal?

If passive perception should not be ran this way, why are we running it this way for the beastmaster? Is the animal companion "part of the character" or is it it's own creature? Because part of the game treats it as an extension of the character, and another part treats it as it's own creature. Where do we draw the line?

Assuming "helping the other two on their passive perception checks" means "working together to keep watch for hidden threats," then it's entirely up to the DM whether working together would be productive here. (For my part, the answer here in most cases is "It isn't.")

If the DM does rule that is productive and thus grants advantage to the passive Perception check, the DM would then have to rule whether the effort is at least as distracting as navigating, foraging, tracking, or drawing a map. If the DM says it is, then the character attempting to work together with another PC would not have their passive Perception apply to noticing hidden threats, if a check is called for at all. If the DM says that it is not as distracting as those tasks, then the character's passive Perception applies to noticing hidden threats, if a check is called for at all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think that there is a bit of confusion here about the "group check". When I mention this, it's because it's a check that benefits the group, in - if it's successful - providing information to the whole group, not only the characters succeeding.

After that, it's often an option to use the actual "group check" rule, but in this case, it's a bit complicated, since the PCs are not making the ability check, they are actually simply providing the DC for the stealth check of the monsters. So if anyone would be doing a group check there, it's actually the monsters, if more than half succeed against the DC set by the PP of the characters (and only those watching an in a position to watch), then the PCs don't notice them.

It could be reversed if the PCs were actually making active perception checks, but the assumption of the travel rules is that they are not, they're juste "routinely" watching ahead on the path of their travel to notice hidden threats.

But thanks for rewording, you are basically correct, with maybe a precision for the conclusion, which depends when the ambush is located, because if for example the PCs notice the orcs on top of the ravine, they will probably not engage the orcs on that basis and there might not even be a fight, and certainly no surprise.



Yes, that is a fair summary . There are a few details in there, for example see above about the "group check", or about the fact that characters who failed at the "notice hidden threat" might still succeed at the surprise check because of situational modifiers, but these are clearly edge case.

What do you think ?

Now that it is very clear to me how you'd run it, I really do think you are misinterpreting the intersection of the rules for traveling, noticing hidden threats, and surprise.

A few issues in particular come up when run this way, including:

1. This style nerfs the Ranger's ability that states:
"Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger."
The way you have it, everyone in the group has passive perception that is "always on" - in other words, everyone is individually alert to danger.

2. You could have a situation where the "watching for danger" subgroup has a one or two successes but more failures. Those PCs whose passive perception on their own would have succeeded kinda get a raw deal here (but not RAW ) and are lumped in with the subgroup fail. Meanwhile, some in the "watching out for danger" subgroup might actually have the same or lower passive perception yet somehow succeed in the fiction because the group fail didn't apply to them. That is a very wonky outcome for the party as a whole.

3. The group can start "gaming" this methodology. It would likely benefit every party to only have the one or two PCs with the highest passive perception scores do the "watching for danger" while the rest of the PCs do "other activities" to then be excluded from the "group check". Now we just need the one, or one of the two, high perception PCs to succeed and, voila!, no surprise for anyone. That makes high Perception extra powerful as has been mentioned before - one PC with very high perception can keep everyone in a party from virtually ever being surprised.


A plain reading of all the rules indicates that the PCs who are involved in other activities are specifically not watching for danger (with certain specific exceptions such as: Rangers and PCs with the Alert Feat). Their passive perception does not apply. Those characters will not spot well-hidden traps and will be surprised by stealthy monsters looking to attack.

 

[Lyxen]

1. This style nerfs the Ranger's ability that states:
"Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger."
The way you have it, everyone in the group has passive perception that is "always on" - in other words, everyone is individually alert to danger.

No, an actually this reinforces my position very strongly, I had forgotten that sentence about the ranger. Why ?

• Even though characters always keep their PP, this PP (and I've been very clear about this) does NOT contribute to the group's chance of noticing the hidden threat if they are conducting another activity (although it remains for surprise, if the hidden threat is combat that is not avoided).
• However, the sentence for the ranger above exactly show that my interpretation is correct, as the ranger's advantage is that, contrary to the other characters in the paragraph above, is still alert to danger when engaging in other activities, so his PP DOES contribute to the groups' chance to notice the hidden threat.

Logical, consistent and in line with my interpretation/

2. You could have a situation where the "watching for danger" subgroup has a one or two successes but more failures.

I think you did not read the part where I said that although it's a check that determines success for the group, it's NOT a group check as per the rules on those in general because the characters are NOT active. The characters are actually providing the DC for the threat's stealth check, and this (for example if there are many orcs) might be a group check for them. See in particular this post.

Those PCs whose passive perception on their own would have succeeded kinda get a raw deal here (but not RAW ) and are lumped in with the subgroup fail. Meanwhile, some in the "watching out for danger" subgroup might actually have the same or lower passive perception yet somehow succeed in the fiction because the group fail didn't apply to them. That is a very wonky outcome for the party as a whole.

As it's not a "group check" in the way you mention it, the strange things above will not occur. But note that this is a side effect of the group check mechanic, people who would have succeeded on their own get a raw deal if they are outnumbered by the failures. It has nothing to do with the travel rules.

3. The group can start "gaming" this methodology. It would likely benefit every party to only have the one or two PCs with the highest passive perception scores do the "watching for danger" while the rest of the PCs do "other activities" to then be excluded from the "group check". Now we just need the one, or one of the two, high perception PCs to succeed and, voila!, no surprise for anyone. That makes high Perception extra powerful as has been mentioned before - one PC with very high perception can keep everyone in a party from virtually ever being surprised.

And I would not call it gaming, it's a realistic situation in real life, where when you have someone who is good at something, they usually end up doing it for the group. As for the others, being generally inefficient, they might as well perform other tasks.

However, what happened in the rare cases where we played this RAW during the Hexcrawl in Tomb of Annihilation, was that the barbarian of the group was always torn between keeping alert for danger, foraging and tracking. And therefore, depending on the urgency of the tasks, and what help he could get from the others, roles switched depending on the circumstances. Overall, it worked well.

Note that it's way worse with the other proposed implementation, by the way, first because it removes any choice from the party (if you are not alert, basically, you will always be surprised), so everyone should just be alert and forego the other activities, the risk would be way too great.

A plain reading of all the rules indicates that the PCs who are involved in other activities are specifically not watching for danger (with certain specific exceptions such as: Rangers and PCs with the Alert Feat). Their passive perception does not apply.

Again, this is not what the RAW says, the words are very specific and match exactly the description of the travel: "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." to be compared to "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat.".

Those characters will not spot well-hidden traps and will be surprised by stealthy monsters looking to attack.

Yes, they will not spot well-hidden traps, but no, again, nothing in the RAW says that they completely lose their PP for the purpose of surprise. This has been the weakness all the time for the counter argument, which has failed to provide any evidence that this is in the rules. Again, the rules only do what they say they do. Stealth Rules and Surprise Rules are complete and clearly written and there are no exceptions written in the rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm cutting out a lot of what you said because I would like to focus on what you are doing with the group check concept in relation to a subgroup of a party "watching for danger":

I think you did not read the part where I said that although it's a check that determines success for the group, it's NOT a group check as per the rules on those in general because the characters are NOT active. The characters are actually providing the DC for the threat's stealth check, and this (for example if there are many orcs) might be a group check for them. See in particular this post.

What is the DC for a group of 4 PCs who are "watching for danger"? So we have some numbers to work with, let's say the 4 PCs have passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of 12, 14, 15, and 16

Let's say there are 5 orcs attempting to ambush the party. How does their group Dexterity (Stealth) check provide a total to put up against the characters' DC?

 

[Lyxen]

I'm cutting out a lot of what you said because I would like to focus on what you are doing with the group check concept in relation to a subgroup of a party "watching for danger":

No worries.

What is the DC for a group of 4 PCs who are "watching for danger"? So we have some numbers to work with, let's say the 4 PCs have passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of 12, 14, 15, and 16

If all of them are watching for danger, then the DC is 16, because if they beat 16, none of the PCs will have seen them. This comes from "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." If anyone in the group notices the threat, then that's it, it's no longer hidden.

However, if the character with a PP of 16 is not watching for danger, he doesn't "contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.". So the DC goes down to 14.

Let's say there are 5 orcs attempting to ambush the party. How does their group Dexterity (Stealth) check provide a total to put up against the characters' DC?

For a group check to succeed, at least half the group must succeed, so at least 3 orcs must roll 16 or more (14 if the highest PP in the group is doing another activity).

After that, note that there is a bit am ambiguity at that level of the rules. This is a contest, and "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." This is why I say that the orcs were hidden and remain hidden if the roll is equal. But on this, it's up to each DM's appreciation.