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

[Maxperson]

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. "

You are ignoring all the actual rules in the DMG that specify that travel rates are based on racial movement. We've been through this.

 

[Seramus]

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. "

It's very clear TO ME that group isn't referring to anything specific. It's just a phrase that could be replaced by "the party" or "the characters" or "adventuring schmucks" or any other general phrase representing one or more folk doing some traveling.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I tend to assume the characters are of a heroic level of competency and the characters are better at adventuring safely than their human otherworldly controllers. Even if Sarah was busy getting pretzels when I told the rest of the players there are frogs in the bog, I give her rogue Samson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying to determine if they accounted for knowing frogs are in the bog.

In mechanical terms....the players challenge would have been getting the info from the witch and the advantage to PP is the "treasure" for succeeding at that encounter.

 

[Maxperson]

I tend to assume the characters are of a heroic level of competency and the characters are better at adventuring safely than their human otherworldly controllers. Even if Sarah was busy getting pretzels when I told the rest of the players there are frogs in the bog, I give her rogue Samson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying to determine if they accounted for knowing frogs are in the bog.

In mechanical terms....the players challenge would have been getting the info from the witch and the advantage to PP is the "treasure" for succeeding at that encounter.

Not that there's anything wrong with the way you run it(there isn't), but you're more generous with shared information than I am.

PCs sometimes forget to say something. They overlook things. Sometimes they just aren't that talkative and/or are secretive. If there's important info to share in my game, the players need to roleplay it being shared.

I also want to avoid playing their PCs, and assuming they share information is very borderline there.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I tend to assume the characters are of a heroic level of competency and the characters are better at adventuring safely than their human otherworldly controllers.

I'm on board with this. Which is part of why I typically give the DC and the stakes when an ability check comes up in the game. That represents the PCs being capable adventurers who have a reasonable idea of the difficulty (and consequences for failure) for what they are about to attempt.

Even if Sarah was busy getting pretzels when I told the rest of the players there are frogs in the bog, I give her rogue Samson the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trying to determine if they accounted for knowing frogs are in the bog.

I'd just let Sarah quickly know (assuming we're in person or she let me know that she'd "brb" when playing online) what the witch told the party. Most likely, I'd have another player let her know - perhaps a good opportunity for PC to PC roleplaying and I get to take a momentary breather as DM. At our table, though, it's up to her to tell me how her PC uses that info.

In mechanical terms....the players challenge would have been getting the info from the witch and the advantage to PP is the "treasure" for succeeding at that encounter.

I like this perspective. Not how I run things necessarily, but it is a good-spirited approach.

I also want to avoid playing their PCs, and assuming they share information is very borderline there.

Very much this.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not that there's anything wrong with the way you run it(there isn't), but you're more generous with shared information than I am.

PCs sometimes forget to say something. They overlook things. Sometimes they just aren't that talkative and/or are secretive. If there's important info to share in my game, the players need to roleplay it being shared.

I also want to avoid playing their PCs, and assuming they share information is very borderline there.

I had an epiphany of sorts a few years ago. I was gaming with an old HS buddy from out of state and he is much more into indie and alternative smaller game systems than I am. He was running a session of Torg Eternity and just straight up put a card with all the villain defenses and skill numbers out on the table for everyone to see.

It struck me as really odd but he explained to me that his game ran better when the players had the information they needed in front of them to make the decisions they needed to for their turn. Knowing a bad guy is really hard to hit meant the players as a group were much more likely to take a take actions to help another hit, or to take non standard acts which targeted other things about the bad guy than the norm.

At the end of the session I saw myself how knowing what I was up against encouraged me to be more variable and creative with my choices in the game, which led to a much better and more interesting session.

Its not my place to tell everyone that they should change their game up to embrace being open, but I do encourage all to designate a session to try it out. Why are we, as GMs, writing all this lore and then locking it away behind doors we deliberately make it hard for the players to access. The lore is what makes the world intriguing, so serve it up with a giant ladle, not a tweezer.

But this digression has little to do with the OP so sorry for the quick digression.

 

[Lyxen]

You are ignoring all the actual rules in the DMG that specify that travel rates are based on racial movement. We've been through this.

Some people have gone through a lot of nonsense, and first no, the travel rate is not based on racial movement but, as stated "is unaffected by the individual members’ walking speeds" meaning that individual racial movement is ignored, and second, what do the racial movement have to do with the important fact that the group is moving as a group ?

It's very clear TO ME that group isn't referring to anything specific. It's just a phrase that could be replaced by "the party" or "the characters" or "adventuring schmucks" or any other general phrase representing one or more folk doing some traveling.

Fine then, please explain how "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.", even transformed to " the party’s chance of noticing hidden threats." or even to "the adventurers' chance of noticing hidden threats" means that ONLY for THAT adventurer, he gets no Passive Perception ?

This is ridiculous, the effect is clearly upon the group, the party, all the adventurers, not towards a single one. Why insist on that reading ? Why do you insist on changing words on a simple sentence that is clear and absolutely not ambiguous just to support your views ?

Honestly, you can behave the way you like at your tables, you can be as harsh as you want with your players because you want your level of verisimilitude, or want to run a tough environment or whatever. But please, assume that and live by it, and stop trying to modify the sentences in the RAW to give it another meaning. What would you say if I started changing other sentences in the rules, for example, that in the sentence in fireball "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw.", it's not really each creature, it's an individual creature, and it does not really mean "make a saving throw", it means "dodge" ?

This is exactly what you are doing, replacing "the group's chance of success" by "that specific adventurer's chance of success" and "doesn't contribute" by "automatically fails".

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Maybe this isn't adding anything new, but it was a helpful exercise for me to tie it all together for my own edification. When someone is so... passionate... about a rule in a way that is contrary to how I play, it gives me pause to really dig deep to make sure I haven't missed anything...


"Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot."

"scores" as in: look at all the scores of the party members not just the highest one of those ably Watching for Danger.

"Anyone in the group" as in: any individual.


"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission."

"group's chance" as in: a character engaged in Other Activities won't uncover the hidden trap or spot the ambush and therefore has no way to alert the group to its presence.

"a character not watching for danger" as in: that character is not going to spot that hidden trap on the trail or the ambush in the alley, hence that character is also susceptible to surprise should stealthy enemies be on the prowl.


"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."

"Any character... that doesn't notice a threat is surprised" as in: if your character is engaged in Other Activities, they do not notice the threat and... are surprised.


Now, that said, it is possible that those characters Watching for Danger might sense the hidden ambush from a distance in which case that loss of a round of combat for those engaged in Other Activities is not going to be as big a deal. Or, maybe the whole party is sacrificing speed for stealth while traveling, so we have the hidden ambush perhaps not being as aware of the party approaching. Or, maybe.... etc

Seems pretty plain to me how all these rules work together. No need to change any words. No need to declare this unfair as long as everyone is playing in good faith. It is what it is. Of course, a DM is always free to rule otherwise. And that's ok, too.

 

[iserith]

Maybe this isn't adding anything new, but it was a helpful exercise for me to tie it all together for my own edification. When someone is so... passionate... about a rule in a way that is contrary to how I play, it gives me pause to really dig deep to make sure I haven't missed anything...


"Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot."

"scores" as in: look at all the scores of the party members not just the highest one of those ably Watching for Danger.

"Anyone in the group" as in: any individual.


"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission."

"group's chance" as in: a character engaged in Other Activities won't uncover the hidden trap or spot the ambush and therefore has no way to alert the group to its presence.

"a character not watching for danger" as in: that character is not going to spot that hidden trap on the trail or the ambush in the alley, hence that character is also susceptible to surprise should stealthy enemies be on the prowl.


"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."

"Any character... that doesn't notice a threat is surprised" as in: if your character is engaged in Other Activities, they do not notice the threat and... are surprised.


Now, that said, it is possible that those characters Watching for Danger might sense the hidden ambush from a distance in which case that loss of a round of combat for those engaged in Other Activities is not going to be as big a deal. Or, maybe the whole party is sacrificing speed for stealth while traveling, so we have the hidden ambush perhaps not being as aware of the party approaching. Or, maybe.... etc

Seems pretty plain to me how all these rules work together. No need to change any words. No need to declare this unfair as long as everyone is playing in good faith. It is what it is. Of course, a DM is always free to rule otherwise. And that's ok, too.

Yes, the process is really quite simple.

1. DM describes the environment. Asks what tasks the characters are doing in that context.
2. Players describe what the characters do.
3. DM decides some monsters will confront the PCs.
4. DM determines surprise:

(a) If the monsters aren't trying to be stealthy, nobody is surprised, even if the PC isn't keeping watch for danger.​

(b) If the monsters are trying to be stealthy, roll Dexterity (Stealth) for the monsters. If a character is engaged in a task like navigating, foraging, tracking, or drawing a map (or something as distracting), they are surprised unless a ranger in favored terrain. Otherwise, check the monsters' checks against the PCs' passive Perception scores to figure out who is surprised.​

5. Establish position.
6. Roll initiative.

 

[Seramus]

Fine then, please explain how "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.", even transformed to " the party’s chance of noticing hidden threats." or even to "the adventurers' chance of noticing hidden threats" means that ONLY for THAT adventurer, he gets no Passive Perception ?

This is ridiculous, the effect is clearly upon the group, the party, all the adventurers, not towards a single one. Why insist on that reading ? Why do you insist on changing words on a simple sentence that is clear and absolutely not ambiguous just to support your views ?

Honestly, you can behave the way you like at your tables, you can be as harsh as you want with your players because you want your level of verisimilitude, or want to run a tough environment or whatever. But please, assume that and live by it, and stop trying to modify the sentences in the RAW to give it another meaning. What would you say if I started changing other sentences in the rules, for example, that in the sentence in fireball "Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw.", it's not really each creature, it's an individual creature, and it does not really mean "make a saving throw", it means "dodge"

Dude. I am reading the same thing as you and coming to a conclusion that is clear and absolutely not ambiguous to me. At no point do I think I'm changing a rule to suit my desires. I just read it, and that's what I understand it to be. It's clear as a cloudless sky to me. No manipulation, no twisting or word acrobatics on my part, no trying to win an argument on the internet. I genuinely think it's natural language and not a specific term.

And I think the same thing about the world travel being natural language for explore, adventure, poke around, etc.