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

[Swarmkeeper]

No worries.



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.



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.

Say the orcs are well-hidden on the side of the trail and there simply is no possible way to be able to spot them until the party is within about 10 feet. The orcs then jump out of the bushes to attack. Let's say all 5 orcs roll a 16 on Stealth and we have the one PC with a 16 passive perception. Are you ruling that all of the PCs, those "watching for danger" as well as any other PCs not watching for danger, are not surprised?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is the way it works in my game, and the way that the current rules seem to be set up.

Let's imagine that the following encounter is happening. The DM has set up an ogre ambush at a ravine the party is about to go through. If the players say nothing other than they are going through, then they will receive passive perception chances to detect the ambush as it happens. Surprise! There's no reason to give them any further chances to detect the ambush.

However, if the following happens it would be different.

DM: "The road you are following twists and turns. As you round this last turn, you see that the road straightens out as it enters a ravine."
Wizard player: "I'm going to read the new spellbook we found in the ruined tower and see what spells it contains."
Fighter player: "Hmm. This ravine looks like a good place for an ambush. I'm going to watch the ridges on both sides carefully for signs of enemies."

Now I have something besides the passive perception as the ambush happens to work with. I know that the wizard is distracted and won't get either an active perception check or a passive one if/when the ambush happens. However, since the fighter is actively looking for an ambush, I will give him an active perception roll vs. the ogre's stealth check to detect the ambush before the attack begins. If he succeeds he can warn the group. If he doesn't, well he still has his passive perception to see if he is surprised.

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.

This is not how passive checks work. Passive checks happen with the assumption that the activity is routine and the people involved are just doing their every day thing. People who are declaring that they are specifically watching for threats aren't passively perceiving. They are actively perceiving.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I would rule no, for the same reason I wouldn't allow the companion to help. It makes no sense. Helping for things that someone else can actually help you with. You're trying to lift a boulder and another PC says, "I will help him lift the boulder." Two people can do that together. When it comes to something like perception or knowledge checks, another PC isn't going to be able to help you mentally. Saying, "You can remember! Rah! Rah!" isn't going to have an effect.

 

[iserith]

Passive checks resolve actions performed repeatedly over time (or the DM wants to make a secret check for some reason), when the actions have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. They aren't actively or passively perceiving. They are keeping watch for hidden threats repeatedly over time and passive Perception is used to resolve uncertainty as necessary (e.g. determining surprise or noticing a trap along the party's path).

 

[Maxperson]

Passive checks resolve actions performed repeatedly over time (or the DM wants to make a secret check for some reason), when the actions have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. They aren't actively or passively perceiving. They are keeping watch for hidden threats repeatedly over time and passive Perception is used to resolve uncertainty as necessary (e.g. determining surprise or noticing a trap along the party's path).

Yeah. I'm using the differentiation to note the difference between, "I'm carefully watching the ravine ridges for possible ambush(action on the part of the PC)" and "I'm just going to look every which-a-way in my usual repeated pattern without actually saying anything to the DM(passive perception)." The former warrants a roll if the outcome is still in doubt. Passive perception doesn't cover declared actions.

 

[Li Shenron]

know, it's ALWAYS ON. That's the baseline.

That is true, with the caveat that there is always an even more fundamental baseline called rule zero that takes precedence, which allows the DM to decide whether a character has a success chance in the first place that warrants a check, and it applies also to passive checks because they're still ability checks even without a dice roll.

Indeed the PHB and DMG frequently rely on the fact that the DM will normally grant that check. But because the passive checks represent "the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again", the DM can certainly choose within the rules to require the character to be explicitly repeating the task over and over AND that doing another significant task simultaneously is incompatible.

 

[Lyxen]

This is the way it works in my game, and the way that the current rules seem to be set up.

Let's imagine that the following encounter is happening. The DM has set up an ogre ambush at a ravine the party is about to go through. If the players say nothing other than they are going through, then they will receive passive perception chances to detect the ambush as it happens. Surprise! There's no reason to give them any further chances to detect the ambush.

Indeed, which is why I've always insisted that the PCs get earlier chances only "if they take the appropriate precautions", which is what the travelling rules are about. And it's a good thing that they are in the PH, so that in particular beginning players can understand the advantage of a good marching order, of posting sentries, of having people doing different tasks, but also of assigning the right people to the right task.

However, if the following happens it would be different.

DM: "The road you are following twists and turns. As you round this last turn, you see that the road straightens out as it enters a ravine."
Wizard player: "I'm going to read the new spellbook we found in the ruined tower and see what spells it contains."
Fighter player: "Hmm. This ravine looks like a good place for an ambush. I'm going to watch the ridges on both sides carefully for signs of enemies."

Now I have something besides the passive perception as the ambush happens to work with.

And on this, I agree again, just pointing out that this is a slightly different discussion than the travelling rules, as this is a specific situation set-up and not the "routine" travelling from point A to point B (relatively far away, a days travel along the road, but maybe only a few minutes away on the other side of a dungeon complex). In effect, what you are setting above is already an encounter, since there is that suspicious ravine.

I know that the wizard is distracted and won't get either an active perception check or a passive one if/when the ambush happens. However, since the fighter is actively looking for an ambush, I will give him an active perception roll vs. the ogre's stealth check to detect the ambush before the attack begins. If he succeeds he can warn the group. If he doesn't, well he still has his passive perception to see if he is surprised.

We agree, with (I hope) just the precision that although the Wizard will not get any check to detect the ambush in advance, he would get his PP for surprise like anyone else.

This is not how passive checks work. Passive checks happen with the assumption that the activity is routine and the people involved are just doing their every day thing. People who are declaring that they are specifically watching for threats aren't passively perceiving. They are actively perceiving.

For me, this is because you have clearly set-up the ravine as more than "just travel", it's presented as an encounter in its own right, and therefore shifting out of the pure travel rules to encounter mode is justification enough for the change.

Contrast the difference with the description of a travel that says "you are travelling in what looks like the shattered plains (from Stormlight Archives), almost always at the bottom of chasms." In which case, a particular ravine would not draw particular attention, and the travel rules could be used with passive perception only for the people looking out for danger. It's the difference (well noted in the rules) between specific encounters and "routine use" of a skill, multiple ravines make the checks routine.

After that, you could have a group that is so stressed by the possibility of ambushes, that they would treat each ravine as a possible encounter, which is fine as well, just let them know that the precautions that they are taking are efficient (they get active checks), but that it makes their journey much longer.

Yeah. I'm using the differentiation to note the difference between, "I'm carefully watching the ravine ridges for possible ambush(action on the part of the PC)" and "I'm just going to look every which-a-way in my usual repeated pattern without actually saying anything to the DM(passive perception)." The former warrants a roll if the outcome is still in doubt. Passive perception doesn't cover declared actions.

I think we agree about the general principle, the thing is that the travel rules cover the part where there are not declared actions other than general watchfulness, because it's a long activity, mostly routine.

 

[Lyxen]

That is true, with the caveat that there is always an even more fundamental baseline called rule zero that takes precedence, which allows the DM to decide whether a character has a success chance in the first place that warrants a check, and it applies also to passive checks because they're still ability checks even without a dice roll.

Of course, there is rule 0, which I'm a great fan off, but which people tend to leave aside for discussion of the RAW, otherwise there is even less common ground to discuss, the circumstances (which are rarely properly explained over an internet post) becoming preponderent for the DM's choice.

That being said, as I've mentioned many times in this thread, this is why I don't believe that there's any reason to call the travel rules flawed with the way I explain them. Indeed, if the DM does not want someone who is not specifically looking for threats top have his PP if an ambush occurs (after no-one in the group detected it in advance), the DM can very well do that with the RAW, saying "you were very much distracted, you have disadvantage on your PP" or even "autofail on the PP because of heavy distraction".

As explained before, I would tend not to do this, because I don't want to have parties consisting of paranoid characters who never do other activities while travelling, but also because for me it's not the spirit of the rules, in particular as explained by JC. Doing it would be too much of a "gotch'a" moment for the DM, and the game is not about DM/Player conflict.

Indeed the PHB and DMG frequently rely on the fact that the DM will normally grant that check. But because the passive checks represent "the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again", the DM can certainly choose within the rules to require the character to be explicitly repeating the task over and over AND that doing another significant task simultaneously is incompatible.

And on this, I would also agree. For me, there is a difference between looking for the danger of an ambush and looking for a secret door or hidden object. I've noticed that many times in particular in LARPs, exploring caverns with very little light, and being so focussed on listening that we could miss items which where more or less in plain sight. Another anecdote is about playing a monster in a group, catching a party of 6 players at night in a short and nasty fight, and after mopping up the floor with them, finding only 5 bodies on the ground. We were sure that he had not ran away, and we beat the bushes for a good 5 minutes to try and find him, and we did not. What he had done was simply to embrace a tree, and not move at all. We were so focussed on looking for movement and listening that we did not see him and he was right there in front of us, immobile and silent...

Which is why maybe it would be interesting to add another type of "activity while travelling", especially in dungeons, looking for secret doors or hidden things, which might actually be more linked to investigation then perception, and saying that whoever does this has its full passive, but is considered otherwise distracted for the purpose of noticing ambushes.

 

[Lyxen]

Say the orcs are well-hidden on the side of the trail and there simply is no possible way to be able to spot them until the party is within about 10 feet. The orcs then jump out of the bushes to attack. Let's say all 5 orcs roll a 16 on Stealth and we have the one PC with a 16 passive perception. Are you ruling that all of the PCs, those "watching for danger" as well as any other PCs not watching for danger, are not surprised?

No, I would not, again, this is a specific circumstance where the ambush is really not detectable in advance. As I've discussed with @Maxperson, I'm not saying that it can't happen, what I was saying is that it should not happen all the time, as it is a bit boring and discouraging for the PCs.

Moreover, the "so well hidden" is usually a function of the stealth of the creatures. It might be proper for some creatures like assassins, but doing it all the time would be quite unfair to the players. For orcs, it's unlikely that they would be that well hidden, and remember that many things can give them away, whether the glint on a weapon because they are not careful enough, or some noise they made (again, from LARP experience, it's really hard to stay very quiet, in armor, weapons ready, for a long time, you start to fidget, move your feet, etc.) or even their smell.

Or it might be the other way round, the adventurers are heroes "a la Conan", and they feel a tingle along their spine, they just feel the presence of ambushers in advance through their sixth, seventh or even eighth sense. Of course, only the people looking for danger...

So lots of opportunities for the DM to create a nice narrative, one that fits well within the genre.

 

[iserith]

That is true, with the caveat that there is always an even more fundamental baseline called rule zero that takes precedence, which allows the DM to decide whether a character has a success chance in the first place that warrants a check, and it applies also to passive checks because they're still ability checks even without a dice roll.

Indeed the PHB and DMG frequently rely on the fact that the DM will normally grant that check. But because the passive checks represent "the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again", the DM can certainly choose within the rules to require the character to be explicitly repeating the task over and over AND that doing another significant task simultaneously is incompatible.

That's more the "core mechanic" of D&D 5e than what is commonly known as "rule zero."