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

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I agree with most of what you said....however that just takes us all the way back to the OP and to my original post ton this thread in which I said I would grand a character advantage to their passive perception if other characters were helping them to keep watch outside of rounds.

I disagree that PP is some sort of individualized innate thing that can't be influenced by another. To me it's simply a baseline score of how aware they are about what's going on around them. The old witch at the previous village telling the party to watch out for giant frogs in the bog is enough for me, as a GM, to give a character advantage on PP to notice hidden giant frogs in the bog.

 

[iserith]

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.

The rules have been quoted to you before. Only now it appears to be your position that it's not a matter of interpretation when it comes to your, well, interpretation. Only yours is the right way to read the rules which, of course, must be read via "natural language" except when other people read it with "natural language" in mind in which case they are wrong because that bit must be read "precisely." It's quite an exceptional position you've staked out here. It shifts and changes more than JC's rulings. I hope others can see what I'm seeing.

Further, there's nothing arbitrary about playing the game as the rules for travel indicate. The players always decide if they want to take the risk for whatever benefit those tasks provide in context. That's an informed choice the player is making, not something based on the DM's whim. Anyone who has played this way could also tell you that, in fact, it does not discourage other activities. Players tend to be willing to risk it if the benefits are useful to them. Further, it's not "suicidal" to risk automatic surprise given the survivability of D&D 5e characters outside of apprentice tier. Anyone who has seen this play out time and again can tell you that you're exaggerating here. Maybe it looks suicidal to you because you always have monsters try to surprise the PCs. But that's your choice to run the game that way. There's nothing in the rules that suggests this must be true.

 

[Lyxen]

I agree with most of what you said....however that just takes us all the way back to the OP and to my original post ton this thread in which I said I would grand a character advantage to their passive perception if other characters were helping them to keep watch outside of rounds.

And that's fine, we are different DMs with different sensibilities and tastes, and running for different tables. We are just discussing what we find best for our games, it does not make any solution superior to another one.

I disagree that PP is some sort of individualized innate thing that can't be influenced by another. To me it's simply a baseline score of how aware they are about what's going on around them. The old witch at the previous village telling the party to watch out for giant frogs in the bog is enough for me, as a GM, to give a character advantage on PP to notice hidden giant frogs in the bog.

And I would do something totally different in my games, probably because we just play differently, and the fun at our tables doesn't run in the same direction and use the same ingredients.

For me PP is something individual but very strong, like the instincts that we see all the time in the genre. I would give advantage to survival and/or investigation in the bog, when looking for giant frogs, since characters know that they frequent the place. But I would not give a bonus on perception, which is more instinctual in my book.

 

[Seramus]

To me it's simply a baseline score of how aware they are about what's going on around them. The old witch at the previous village telling the party to watch out for giant frogs in the bog is enough for me, as a GM, to give a character advantage on PP to notice hidden giant frogs in the bog.

Specific situations like your frog example are great for that kind of thing. When it comes to helping with PP I usually ask myself "could they keep it up for hours?" to see if it would apply.

Being told information about specific threats to look out for (and doing so) is definitely something that could be done for hours. Holding someone in the air for hours generally is not, unless someone is passing some Con rolls.

 

[Lyxen]

The rules have been quoted to you before.

It's funny, because this is the usual answer, but, in truth, no such rule has been quoted, ever. If you think it has, either give the rule again or give a pointer to the post that showed the actual rules.

Further, there's nothing arbitrary about playing the game as the rules for travel indicate. The players always decide if they want to take the risk for whatever benefit those tasks provide in context. That's an informed choice the player is making, not something based on the DM's whim. Anyone who has played this way could also tell you that, in fact, it does not discourage other activities. Players tend to be willing to risk it if the benefits are useful to them. Further, it's not "suicidal" to risk automatic surprise given the survivability of D&D 5e characters outside of apprentice tier. Anyone who has seen this play out time and again can tell you that you're exaggerating here. Maybe it looks suicidal to you because you always have monsters try to surprise the PCs. But that's your choice to run the game that way. There's nothing in the rules that suggests this must be true.

And I've played at all tiers and if anything, at least in our games, surprise is deadlier at higher level due to damage output but also special abilities. After that, many other factors come into consideration so I don't think any statistics can be done about that. But the statistics about the average duration of a fight is well-known, so missing a round is certainly a significant drawback, not to mention the damage just above.

 

[Maxperson]

And again, there is ZERO support from this from the RAW.

This is not true. You may not agree with the very straight forward interpretation, but the support is absolutely there.

"Characters who turn their attention t o other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."

There is no group check for noticing threats and you have yet to show why your interpretation of "...scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats." is the correct one, when it can apply to both sides of the argument, but only fails to contradict rules when it is applied to our side.

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.

It doesn't have to. The designers assume that people are going to understand context and know that the subsection of other activities also deals with the subsections on surprising foes and noticing threats. They are intertwined. You can only be correct when you take it out of context like you do. In the proper context, your position fails.

 

[Maxperson]

The old witch at the previous village telling the party to watch out for giant frogs in the bog is enough for me, as a GM, to give a character advantage on PP to notice hidden giant frogs in the bog.

For me there has to be another step. I mean, how many times in your life has someone given you good advice and you failed to heed it until it was too late or until after you did something the wrong way first and had to redo it? In my game the party or at least a player would have to let me know that his PC was watching for giant frogs once they got to the bog. THEN I'd do something like give a bonus or advantage, or something else. If nobody told me they were watching out for giant frogs, then it's just normal perception.

 

[Lyxen]

This is not true. You may not agree with the very straight forward interpretation, but the support is absolutely there.

"Characters who turn their attention t o other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."

So that "straighforward interpretation" is actually reading that "the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats" actually means "the individual's chance to be surprised".

And you call this "the support is absolutely there" ? Honestly...

There is no group check for noticing threats and you have yet to show why your interpretation of "...scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats." is the correct one, when it can apply to both sides of the argument, but only fails to contradict rules when it is applied to our side.

It does not contradict rules, it contradicts any sensible reading of "the group's chance of noticing hidden threats", since this is a group thing as SPECIFICALLY written, when you absolutely insist everywhere else that all checks are individual.

As for my interpretation, I've shown you that all the travel rules are abouta group. Do you deny this ? Do you deny in particular this: "
SPLITTING UP THE PARTY
Sometimes, it makes sense to split an adventuring party, especially if you want one or more characters to scout ahead. You can form multiple parties, each moving at a different speed. Each group has its own front, middle, and back ranks.
The drawback to this approach is that the party will be split into several smaller groups in the event of an attack. The advantage is that a small group of stealthy characters moving slowly might be able to sneak past enemies that clumsier characters would alert. A rogue and a monk moving at a slow pace are much harder to detect when they leave their dwarf fighter friend behind."

Everything in there is about groups, it never talks about individuals, the only thing that you are making are smaller groups...

Also this, which is the first and most critical sentence about the whole section: "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat."

So no, I'm sorry, but in the whole section that talks about groups, a sentence reading "the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats" obviously refers to the group.

It doesn't have to. The designers assume that people are going to understand context...

It's funny you saying that when the WHOLE CONTEXT of the section is, as demonstrated, about the group. So yes, the designers assume that people will understand that context, but obviously, they were not clear enough...

 

[Lyxen]

Also, from the DMG: "The rules on travel pace in the Player’s Handbook assume that a group of travelers adopts a pace that, over time, is unaffected by the individual members’ walking speeds. "

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For me there has to be another step. I mean, how many times in your life has someone given you good advice and you failed to heed it until it was too late or until after you did something the wrong way first and had to redo it? In my game the party or at least a player would have to let me know that his PC was watching for giant frogs once they got to the bog. THEN I'd do something like give a bonus or advantage, or something else. If nobody told me they were watching out for giant frogs, then it's just normal perception.

Yes to this.

The players just need to be reasonably specific about what their characters are doing in a scene. It is not on the DM to assume anything. If the players ignore (or some simply didn't hear b/c they were on their phones) the advice about watching out for giant frogs, and no one spots the one up ahead (perception vs stealth opposed roll), then that's on them when the halfling artificer who was mapping their journey gets surprised and swallowed whole.