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

[Lyxen]

The problem with this interpretation is that you have basically told 3/4 of the players that they may as well have their characters build Legos or play cards narratively because their decision to help keep watch didn't result in a world where the party was more alert than if they hadn't been doing so.

It might seem so, but it's not really the case. But first, it's not a bad thing, since it also encourages players to do something constructive during their travels, whether it's one of the actions described in the travel rules or something more "roleplaying" like "I don't feel useful with all these guards around, so I'll just go and try to seduce the caravan master", etc.

Second, as mentioned even in the travel rules, the applicability of the people on watch might depend on the circumstances. Some threats might be in front, others in the back for example. It then becomes a question of who wants to be where, and do what. It also comes up if the main "perception" resource wants to do something else, like forage or track. And even if it's a ranger who can do two things at once, if he is foraging or hunting, see applicability just above, it might be better to have another lookout with the party. Or escorting a large caravan, there might be need for people front, back and on each side, etc.

So I have never found this a problem, honestly, although I must also say that I've not used these rules a lot, since we tend to summarise the travel. But when we have used them, the players have enjoyed the repartition of tasks, including who cooks dinner (old joke from Eddings), who does the washing, etc. It can be roleplayed very enjoyably, and when the DM creates encounters that build on the variety of tasks, it's even more enjoyable. And players are happy when their secondary task provides something useful: "you encounter another river, but from the mapping done by Aphitéa, you are pretty sure that it's one that you've seen, only a bit more downstream since it seems to be larger, etc."

 

[Maxperson]

Can I, as a player, say up front in a campaign that "any time I'm not doing something that takes my attention I'm always actively perceiving for danger"?

No. That's what passive perception is for. If you want to be actively looking, you would need to describe it to me in the moment. For instance, in the afore mentioned ravine if you were looking behind boulders on the floor of the ravine for the ambush, you'd just get passive perception for the ogres above. It's a bonus for when things are called out.

 

[iserith]

I was asking someone that said they give a PC an active skill check roll for an activity they were doing over a period of time (like walking through a ravine). My question was do I have to declare I'm being cautious at each and every possibly dangerous situation or can I say I'm always cautious for my waking hours?

In my opinion that is exactly what your PP score is...how cautious you are over a long term stretch of time.

Right. It's a pretty safe assumption that the characters are keeping watch for danger while adventuring. Now, I don't actually like to assume what PCs are doing as it pertains to me adjudicating what happens to them, so I'm going to have the players establish this periodically when it needs to be absolutely clear. But, if they are tracking, foraging, drawing a map, or navigating, or a task that I deem to be as distracting as that, then they are not keeping watch for hidden threats and their passive Perception does not apply. They are surprised automatically or run afoul of traps. That's their meaningful decision to make as players: "Do I take X risks to potentially gain Y benefits?" That's an engaging choice in my view. For a ranger in favored terrain, there's a little perk in there for them.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

No. That's what passive perception is for. If you want to be actively looking, you would need to describe it to me in the moment. For instance, in the afore mentioned ravine if you were looking behind boulders on the floor of the ravine for the ambush, you'd just get passive perception for the ogres above. It's a bonus for when things are called out.

Thanks for clarifying it. That's also my interpretation as well. Passive is on but calling something specific out gi es you a shot at a skill roll (and a minimum +1 result because of my house rule).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It might seem so, but it's not really the case. But first, it's not a bad thing, since it also encourages players to do something constructive during their travels, whether it's one of the actions described in the travel rules or something more "roleplaying" like "I don't feel useful with all these guards around, so I'll just go and try to seduce the caravan master", etc.

Second, as mentioned even in the travel rules, the applicability of the people on watch might depend on the circumstances. Some threats might be in front, others in the back for example. It then becomes a question of who wants to be where, and do what. It also comes up if the main "perception" resource wants to do something else, like forage or track. And even if it's a ranger who can do two things at once, if he is foraging or hunting, see applicability just above, it might be better to have another lookout with the party. Or escorting a large caravan, there might be need for people front, back and on each side, etc.

So I have never found this a problem, honestly, although I must also say that I've not used these rules a lot, since we tend to summarise the travel. But when we have used them, the players have enjoyed the repartition of tasks, including who cooks dinner (old joke from Eddings), who does the washing, etc. It can be roleplayed very enjoyably, and when the DM creates encounters that build on the variety of tasks, it's even more enjoyable. And players are happy when their secondary task provides something useful: "you encounter another river, but from the mapping done by Aphitéa, you are pretty sure that it's one that you've seen, only a bit more downstream since it seems to be larger, etc."

I didn't refer to travelling. Specifically I'm talking about keeping watch in camp. A group that posts extra watch should get an advantage at noticing an ambush in my opinion. In your scenario they do not.

 

[Lyxen]

I didn't refer to travelling. Specifically I'm talking about keeping watch in camp. A group that posts extra watch should get an advantage at noticing an ambush in my opinion. In your scenario they do not.

Just vocabulary, but for me, when you are in camp, you can't be ambushed, you can be attacked from stealth, but it's slightly different.

After that, seeing your answer above, 5e has almost completely banished small bonuses like this because:

• They are insignificant on one dice roll.
• They cause players to start hunting them and collect them for future use.
• IN turn, this slows down the game a lot.

This is why adv/dis (which is way more significant) is the standard mechanic, and we have never looked back.

After that, if it really bothers you, you can also say that, depending on the camp's location and configuration, if they put only one watchman, he will be at a disadvantage because of the size of the perimeter that he has to watch. Or that he has no chance to fall asleep on his watch because there's someone else. Or that (as per the marching order rules), there are some areas to watch that a single watchman cannot check at the same time. Or just say that the extra vigilance earns them one active perception check.

Just apply the level of verisimilitude that you want in your game, but it's not "my scenario" since I was not talking about keeping watch anyway. I'm just applying the rules as I see fit, and for me (and for many others here), you can't help each other on something instinctual like passive perception, that's all. That rules about "help" is completely at the DM's call anyway.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This means that I don't roll twice. I roll once, and as long as the ambushers are not discovered, the same roll applies. Moreover, since the "DC" is the passive, it does not change, so if they have passed the test, the only thing that might change the result is a change in the conditions (for example, a PC creates a light, removing the disadvantage that he had on spotting enemies, etc.).

Ok, maybe I'm starting to understand better how you run it at your table...
If the stealth roll of the orcs beats the highest passive perception in the subgroup that is "watching for danger", the orcs remain undetected. Then what? You compare that same set of orc stealth rolls against the passive perception of each individual in the subgroup that is "doing other things". So now there are a number of passive "DC"s based on however many PCs are in the "doing other things" subgroup. Yes?

 

[Lyxen]

Ok, maybe I'm starting to understand better how you run it at your table...

This is strictly according to the rules, you know ? That being said, I agree that the rules are very general, and the podcast helps a lot understand the spirit in which they were written. It's a lot about doing things quickly and recognising that the circumstances are really critical in determining what happens. And, as the DM is the only one who has all the information, he is the only one who can make quick calls and rulings.

If the stealth roll of the orcs beats the highest passive perception in the subgroup that is "watching for danger", the orcs remain undetected.

Indeed.

Then what?

Then, since the adventurers have not detected the upcoming ambush, the next paragraphs in the travelling rules come into effect. The DM determines that the characters encounter the creature, since the PCs are not aware of the ambush, the orcs decide to attack (note that, had they been noticed, they might decide to take another course of action, like running away).

Then it's the final paragraph in "noticing threats", the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, and might be surprise, go to chapter 9.

You compare that same set of orc stealth rolls against the passive perception of each individual in the subgroup that is "doing other things". So now there are a number of passive "DC"s based on however many PCs are in the "doing other things" subgroup. Yes?

No, as mentioned in the travel rules (and reminded above), this goes straight to the surprise rules: "The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

So let's see:

• The characters are not trying to be stealthy (if they are, it's another scenario, we can explore that later if you wish), so they are automatically noticed by the orcs.
• As the orcs are stealthy, we compare their Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side.

If a PC does not notice the orcs, they are surprised. This is where the "stealth had already been rolled and the PP does not change" part comes in handy, because it has not changed from the "noticing hidden threats" from the travel rules, so barring any change on the conditions, the people who were looking for threats are already known to have their PP below the orcs' rolls, and don't need to be checked again, so you can in general assume that you only need to check for those who were conducting other activities.

Note that, depending on the circumstances, it might get slightly more complicated than that. For example if you rolled a group check for the orcs, you might want to see what it does to the surprise. The PCs are certainly going to be surprised, since to avoid surprise, they must have noticed all the threats and you know that some orcs are still unseen (Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter). It's all in the circumstances and how you choose to describe things.

Note that this thing about surprise can actually become fairly complicated, but it has nothing to do with the travel rules, it's when you have a mixed group, for example, the PCs might know that they are attacked by orcs, but might have failed to notice the assassin at the back, which means that they can still be surprised.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is strictly according to the rules, you know ?

According to your interpretation, right?

If a PC does not notice the orcs, they are surprised. This is where the "stealth had already been rolled and the PP does not change" part comes in handy, because it has not changed from the "noticing hidden threats" from the travel rules, so barring any change on the conditions, the people who were looking for threats are already known to have their PP below the orcs' rolls, and don't need to be checked again, so you can in general assume that you only need to check for those who were conducting other activities.

It appears to me, in the end, that it all comes down to these differences in interpretation:

• Several of us believe the rules say that the PCs who are carrying out Other Activities while traveling no longer have their passive perception for noticing threats. They are distracted with doing the Other Activities. A stealthy enemy looking to get the jump on the group will automatically surprise the subgroup of the party who are engaged in Other Activities. Those Watching for Danger may or may not be surprised, based on the opposed check.
  
  
• You (and we haven't seen anyone else agreeing with you here - not that we have a large sample size, so we should take that for what it is worth) believe the rules say that PCs who are carrying out Other Activities while traveling still have their passive perception available to notice threats. They are not so distracted by the Other Activities that they wouldn't get a chance to thwart surprise. Further, your reading of the rules allows those Watching for Danger, and specifically the one with the highest PP, to potentially eliminate the possibility of surprise for the entire party, regardless of what everyone else is up to.

I've not seen persuasive enough evidence that you have the right interpretation therefore I'll keep playing it the way I and others here espouse - which, to me, is the simpler reading of the rules.

Happy gaming

 

[Lyxen]

According to your interpretation, right?

No. The rules are perfectly clear and I'm applying the 100% out of the box. They are also very customisable, so there are other ways to apply them. But it's honestly not a question of interpretation.

It appears to me, in the end, that it all comes down to these differences in interpretation:

• Several of us believe the rules say that the PCs who are carrying out Other Activities while traveling no longer have their passive perception for noticing threats.

And again, there is ZERO support from this from the RAW. It never says that they don't have passive perception for noticing threats, and it certainly does not say that they don't have it for surprise. If you think that they say this somewhere, you'd better show me the proof. And it'd better not be the famous "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.", because I'm sorry but "the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats" has nothing to do with the individual's capability to be surprised, especially after what @Maxperson (rightly) said about these checks being individual ones.

Nothing prevents you, RAW, from applying auto-failure to some rolls if you think it's deserved, but the rules certainly suggest nothing of the kind, and the lead developper's view on the subject says that it's not the intent either.

• They are distracted with doing the Other Activities. A stealthy enemy looking to get the jump on the group will automatically surprise the subgroup of the party who are engaged in Other Activities.

If that is your way of playing it, that's fine, but I'm still waiting for even a shred of rules supporting this.

• Those Watching for Danger may or may not be surprised, based on the opposed check.
  
  
• You (and we haven't seen anyone else agreeing with you here - not that we have a large sample size, so we should take that for what it is worth) believe the rules say that PCs who are carrying out Other Activities while traveling still have their passive perception available to notice threats. They are not so distracted by the Other Activities that they wouldn't get a chance to thwart surprise. Further, your reading of the rules allows those Watching for Danger, and specifically the one with the highest PP, to potentially eliminate the possibility of surprise for the entire party, regardless of what everyone else is up to.

Honestly, the whole section is called "noticing threats", and the first sentence is "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." If you say, straight out, that there is no chance that a threat will be noticed before it pops in the party's face, what exactly is the point of all that section ?

I've not seen persuasive enough evidence that you have the right interpretation therefore I'll keep playing it the way I and others here espouse - which, to me, is the simpler reading of the rules.

Again, play it in whatever way you want, but once more I have not seen a shred of rules supporting this. Not one. So you might think that it's simpler to just pop up threats in the party's face and to have characters mandatorily surprised, and indeed, using autofail rules at the DM's discretion can do exactly that, but that "simpler" reading of the rules also gives, IMHO, a game which is way more arbitrary and in which the decisions taken by the characters don't really matter, since there is no way to protect the group from the nasty hidden surprises that the DM concocts. It also discourages from doing other activities, since it leads to automatic surprise, it's really a suicidal in a game in which most combats are over in 3 rounds, so losing a complete one is more than dangerous.