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

[Arilyn]

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.

Yep. This is how we've always done it too.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

And this is the problem right there. It does not matter what the character do, the monsters will confront the PCs. Whatever they do, however they plan, it does not matter since the DM has decided that there will be a combat.

This is rail-roading and negation of player agency.

For me, it's rather:

• DM checks whether there are encounters (of any kind, by the way) on the road chosen by the PCs.
• DM checks if the PC detect the encounter in advance ("Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. ") and can decide to encounter it or do some other action, and even if they encounter it, how they proceed (while of course at the same time checking what NPCs/Monsters are doing).

Very different state of mind, and exactly what is in the travel rules, by the way: "Either group might decide to attack, initiate a conversation, run away, or wait to see what the other group does."

 

[Lyxen]

Dude. I am reading the same thing as you

So, you are reading "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.".

Please explain how you deduce from the above that characters who do not specifically spend all their time looking for threats are automatically surprised if combat starts ?

Because that is the single step that is missing from all these reasoning. I understand that some people as a DM, think that people not specifically watching for a threat should be distracted and therefore be automatically surprised. And indeed, the rule framework allows them to do this, as surprise is a check and a DM is free to autofail him if he thinks that the character deserves it.

The only thing that I'm saying is that there are NO RULES that say this, no suggestion to do this, and it's the contrary, both the stealth rules and the surprise rules tell to check EVERYONE on EVERY side of the conflict. And the example from the lead dev tells you SPECIFICALLY that a distracted character, so engrossed in a play that he does not see an enemy come out of hiding and move close to him, has his FULL passive perception.

 

[Seramus]

So, you are reading "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.".

Please explain how you deduce from the above that characters who do not specifically spend all their time looking for threats are automatically surprised if combat starts ?

It looks (to me) like you're saying the same thing twice?

Like the top one is "Situations where you don't get your PP to notice hidden threats." Then "Please explain how you deduce from the above that there are situations where you don't get your PP to notice hidden threats."

If the combat involves a hidden threat like an ambushing monster, that is.

 

[Lyxen]

Like the top one is "Situations where you don't get your PP to notice hidden threats." Then "Please explain how you deduce from the above that there are situations where you don't get your PP to notice hidden threats."

Again, please explain where, in the sentence "Those characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats", it says that you:

• Don't get your PP.
• Don't notice the hidden threats YOURSELF.

The ONLY thing it's saying, is that you don't "contribute [your] passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." (which, by the way, explicitely says that the character HAS a passive perception, just that it doesn't contribute to the group).

This is very basic english, honestly.

If the combat involves a hidden threat like an ambushing monster, that is.

And, again, why do you assume that there is going to be a combat ? Even if there are hidden threats, where does it say that your group will not notice them in advance, even if some in the group don't contribute to that advance detection ?

Or are you one of these DM who decide that there is going to be a combat with hidden foes, and that nothing the characters declare in advance will allow them to detect the ambush before it's sprung ?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If only someone would Tweet to JC to get to the bottom of this.

 

[Irlo]

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.

And this is the problem right there. It does not matter what the character do, the monsters will confront the PCs. Whatever they do, however they plan, it does not matter since the DM has decided that there will be a combat.

This is rail-roading and negation of player agency.

The decision to confront is in Step #3. It's not unreasonable to suggest that @iserith would use the descriptions provided by the players in Step #2 to inform that decision to confront without rail-roading and without negating player agency. Of course it matters what the characters do.

 

[iserith]

The decision to confront is in Step #3. It's not unreasonable to suggest that @iserith would use the descriptions provided by the players in Step #2 to inform that decision to confront without rail-roading and without negating player agency. Of course it matters what the characters do.

No, we must apparently assume the worst of other posters. It couldn't be that my post was in the context of surprise rules in which combat is already assumed as part of the situation under discussion. Nah. Couldn't be that. It must be that I'm railroading in my games.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No, we must apparently assume the worst of other posters. It couldn't be that my post was in the context of surprise rules in which combat is already assumed as part of the situation under discussion. Nah. Couldn't be that. It must be that I'm railroading in my games.

I, and many others, have read your How to Adjudicate Actions in 5e.
I mean, "choo choooooo!"

 

[Seramus]

Again, please explain where, in the sentence "Those characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats", it says that you:

• Don't get your PP.
• Don't notice the hidden threats YOURSELF.

The ONLY thing it's saying, is that you don't "contribute [your] passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." (which, by the way, explicitely says that the character HAS a passive perception, just that it doesn't contribute to the group).

This is very basic english, honestly.

I'm part of the group? The group is composed of us. A bunch of individual characters. I don’t see "The Group" as a separate game mechanic with its own rules or monster stat block. I just read that as us as people.

And, again, why do you assume that there is going to be a combat ? Even if there are hidden threats, where does it say that your group will not notice them in advance, even if some in the group don't contribute to that advance detection ?

I have no problem with someone noticing a hidden threat beforehand and revealing it, if they aren't distracted and their PP is high enough.