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

[Lyxen]

The decision to confront is in Step #3.

Please explain how there is player decision in "DM decides some monsters will confront the PCs". Once more, wording is important, and the way things are phrased is often revealing.

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.

No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. First, if it was only within the context of surprise, why does the DM describe the environment, why ask the players, just decide surprise and roll for initiative. Second, we were discussing the travel rules, in which surprise is not even described, it's just referred to, "see chapter 9".

 

[Lyxen]

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 then, you still have failed to explain why having one's one PP not counted for the group's success (or for the bunch of individuals or whatever you seem to call it) auto-fails surprise.

5e rules are written simply. Don't you think that, it it had been the intent, the rule would have very simply said "Those characters automatically fail all their passive Wisdom (Perception) checks." Much simpler and straight to the point. But the sentence says the exact opposite, it says that they HAVE passive Wisdom (Perception) checks, just that they are not taken into account for the "bunch of people".

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.

And again, where in the rules does it say that being distracted lowers your PP apparently so much that you autofail at surprise ? Nothing appears in the rules about this, and the lead designer, in a very specific instance tells you that it's not the intent ?

Once more, you can rule whatever you want in your game, but I find it strange that you insist that the rules are built that way when there is every evidence to the contrary.

 

[iserith]

Please explain how there is player decision in "DM decides some monsters will confront the PCs". Once more, wording is important, and the way things are phrased is often revealing.



No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. First, if it was only within the context of surprise, why does the DM describe the environment, why ask the players, just decide surprise and roll for initiative. Second, we were discussing the travel rules, in which surprise is not even described, it's just referred to, "see chapter 9".

You've already shown yourself to be someone who frequently misunderstands contexts, both in the rules and in this discussion. Further, that a group of monsters confronts the PCs doesn't mean the players can't have their characters try to "attack, initiate a conversation, run away, or wait to see what the other group does" even if the monsters do intend to attack them (which the word "confront" doesn't even necessarily mean).

 

[Seramus]

And then, you still have failed to explain why having one's one PP not counted for the group's success (or for the bunch of individuals or whatever you seem to call it) auto-fails surprise.

What am I supposed to do when I show you the rule and you say I didn't show you the rule?

Imagine someone asks you to show them cheese. So you show them cheese. And they say you didn't show them cheese. What would you do?

 

[Lyxen]

You've already shown yourself to be someone who frequently misunderstands contexts, both in the rules and in this discussion.

Anm you've shown yourself to be someone that can't even read properly a single english sentence without replacing words by others. You continue to dissemble, since, despite numerous requests, you have not been able to provide ONE SINGLE PROOF of your claims.

Moreover, you've also shown what you say can't be trusted, will you really continue to claim that this post was "in the context of surprise rules" as you later claimed ? That the following was only in the context of surprise, when you actually go over the main game loop at start (but then decide somehow to describe the consequences of the action of the PC, jumping straight into confrontation) ?:
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.

And once more, Step 4b is just your preferred way of playing, nothing in the rules EVER says that a character loses his PP when doing another task. If it's your preferred way, just say so, but stop pretending that it's what the rules mandate.

Further, that a group of monsters confronts the PCs doesn't mean the players can't have their characters try to "attack, initiate a conversation, run away, or wait to see what the other group does" even if the monsters do intend to attack them (which the word "confront" doesn't even necessarily mean).

That's exactly what I was saying, as a DM, you decide that there is no way for the PCs to avoid the confrontation, whatever their actions prior to that confrontation. Railroading, removal of player agency, not taking into account what they do since the DM has decided.

Again, my version of step 3 si extremely different, properly takes into account the travel rules, and actually gives the player's credit and proper consequences for their actions. Much better than asking who might be distracted, deciding that monsters will attack from stealth, and then explaining that whoever was distracted is automatically surprised, "gotch'a"!

 

[Lyxen]

By the way, on the chapter of surprise, you can read Sly Flourish's article, which is very well done and which I completely agree with. He even dredged up one thing that I had forgotten from the SAC, that you are not surprised if you see ANY of the attackers, not all the attackers. And And you will notice the use of group checks, of passive stealth as I advocated, etc. But NOTHING in there about depriving anyone of their surprise checks.

Note in particular this, which I 100% agree with: "And since Broadchest missed all of the gnolls, they're truly "surprised". They can't move or act on their turn and can't take reactions until that turn is over. This is pretty harsh. Players hate losing actions. While it makes sense, we should use this sparingly; only when it really reinforces a key aspect of the game."

Doing this because a player is MAPPING is not only harsh in my view but also really encouraging players not to participate in group-benefitting activities.

You can also check this article about trap detection (clearly a hidden threat) and passive perception, which refers (rightly) to the podcast on stealth and passive perception that you continuously ignore despite craving endorsement from the devs.

 

[iserith]

Anm you've shown yourself to be someone that can't even read properly a single english sentence without replacing words by others. You continue to dissemble, since, despite numerous requests, you have not been able to provide ONE SINGLE PROOF of your claims.

Moreover, you've also shown what you say can't be trusted, will you really continue to claim that this post was "in the context of surprise rules" as you later claimed ? That the following was only in the context of surprise, when you actually go over the main game loop at start (but then decide somehow to describe the consequences of the action of the PC, jumping straight into confrontation) ?:
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.

And once more, Step 4b is just your preferred way of playing, nothing in the rules EVER says that a character loses his PP when doing another task. If it's your preferred way, just say so, but stop pretending that it's what the rules mandate.

As @Seramus said, we've shown you the cheese. More than one poster and in multiple posts. The core mechanic for task resolution, surprise rules, travel rules. You just don't accept what is plainly written in the books and quoted here.

That's exactly what I was saying, as a DM, you decide that there is no way for the PCs to avoid the confrontation, whatever their actions prior to that confrontation. Railroading, removal of player agency, not taking into account what they do since the DM has decided.

Again, my version of step 3 si extremely different, properly takes into account the travel rules, and actually gives the player's credit and proper consequences for their actions. Much better than asking who might be distracted, deciding that monsters will attack from stealth, and then explaining that whoever was distracted is automatically surprised, "gotch'a"!

I'm not sure you understand what a "gotcha" is either in a D&D context. Players making a reasonably informed choice to take a risk for a benefit and the consequences of that risk occurring isn't a "gotcha." It would be a "gotcha" if they had no reasonably informed choice. But they did.

 

[Lyxen]

What am I supposed to do when I show you the rule and you say I didn't show you the rule?

Because the rule does not say what you say it does. Again, where does this rule say that you don't get passive perception when you engage in an activity when travelling. I'm still waiting for you to prove that is does that.

Imagine someone asks you to show them cheese. So you show them cheese. And they say you didn't show them cheese. What would you do?

Actually give them cheese instead of giving them milk. A group is not an individual. Not taking someone's PP into account for the group's success does NOT mean removing the PP of one character from his ability to detect hidden creatures or his surprise roll.

 

[Lyxen]

As @Seramus said, we've shown you the cheese. More than one poster and in multiple posts. The core mechanic for task resolution, surprise rules, travel rules. You just don't accept what is plainly written in the books and quoted here.

No, I don't accept that you modify words in a simple sentence to mean something completely different.

I'm not sure you understand what a "gotcha" is either in a D&D context. Players making a reasonably informed choice to take a risk for a benefit and the consequences of that risk occurring isn't a "gotcha." It would be a "gotcha" if they had no reasonably informed choice. But they did.

But they don't, if they read the rules properly, they will never see that they weave away their right to having PP on all the time. The same if they listen to the devs or read any of the articles on the web that I've pointed you to.

YOU decide to use harsher rules at your tables, you assume the consequences, and maybe your players, if they are specifically informed, will too. But don't say that you have the rules support on this, you don't. Just read the articles that I've posted, just listen to the devs, just read that damn sentence properly.

As for me, my players know that there is a trade off, and that they won't contribute to the group's success of noticing hidden threats, EXACTLY AS WRITTEN IN THE RULES. But that's all. It's still trade-off, you know, just a much less harsher one since the characters are the heroes of the stories, and they are not that easily taken unaware even when their attention is slightly distracted, that's all.

 

[iserith]

No, I don't accept that you modify words in a simple sentence to mean something completely different.



But they don't, if they read the rules properly, they will never see that they weave away their right to having PP on all the time. The same if they listen to the devs or read any of the articles on the web that I've pointed you to.

YOU decide to use harsher rules at your tables, you assume the consequences, and maybe your players, if they are specifically informed, will too. But don't say that you have the rules support on this, you don't. Just read the articles that I've posted, just listen to the devs, just read that damn sentence properly.

As for me, my players know that there is a trade off, and that they won't contribute to the group's success of noticing hidden threats, EXACTLY AS WRITTEN IN THE RULES. But that's all. It's still trade-off, you know, just a much less harsher one since the characters are the heroes of the stories, and they are not that easily taken unaware even when their attention is slightly distracted, that's all.

I decide to use the rules at my table. That it means Perception is not as strong as in your game where you don't only brings us back to the beginning of this thread where you already listed all the various ways you boost Perception and incentivize investing heavily into it in your games.

Also, it's interesting that here you say your players understand there's a trade-off, but upthread you indicated you never really use these rules and haven't outside of traveling in ToA. That appears to be another shifting position worth noting in my view for anyone still reading.