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

[Lyxen]

I decide to use the rules at my table.

Great, then read them properly, and listen to the devs' advice about using them, or the hundred websites out there that tell you that PP is always on.

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.

Contrary to you, I'm not gimping perception because I'm afraid of it, I'm just using the RAW and have no problem about it. The RAW tell you that PP is always on (there are no exceptions to the rules on stealth and surprise), the Devs tell you it's always on.

Obviously, YOU have a problem here with the rules, not me.

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.

So what ? We use the rules when it's justified to use them. Since most of the time, travel is summarised (as advised by the PH), we don't use these rules. But when we do, we use them, there is trade-off, and players were happy with them ? Where exactly is the problem with that ?

After that, when NOT travelling, we simply apply the normal rules on stealth and surprise, and AGAIN, none of these rules mention anything about depriving the characters of PP. NOT ONE SINGLE RULE DOES THIS. THE DEVS TELL YOU THAT IT'S ALWAYS ON.

So now, who is applying the rules here, exactly ?

 

[iserith]

Great, then read them properly, and listen to the devs' advice about using them, or the hundred websites out there that tell you that PP is always on.



Contrary to you, I'm not gimping perception because I'm afraid of it, I'm just using the RAW and have no problem about it. The RAW tell you that PP is always on (there are no exceptions to the rules on stealth and surprise), the Devs tell you it's always on.

Obviously, YOU have a problem here with the rules, not me.



So what ? We use the rules when it's justified to use them. Since most of the time, travel is summarised (as advised by the PH), we don't use these rules. But when we do, we use them, there is trade-off, and players were happy with them ? Where exactly is the problem with that ?

After that, when NOT travelling, we simply apply the normal rules on stealth and surprise, and AGAIN, none of these rules mention anything about depriving the characters of PP. NOT ONE SINGLE RULE DOES THIS. THE DEVS TELL YOU THAT IT'S ALWAYS ON.

So now, who is applying the rules here, exactly ?

Right, it's always on, until it's not, and the rules tell us when that is. When it's not, characters fail to notice hidden threats. Fail to notice a hidden threat and you run afoul of the trap or you're surprised. Again, all these rules work together seamlessly.

Also, the rules don't "advise" that travel be summarized or suggest a frequency for doing that. It just says that it can be done.

 

[Seramus]

Because the rule does not say what you say it does.

I genuinely think it does. Several posters have expressed similar opinions about what it means.

Your position is that the rules are clear and obvious, and that they align with your interpretation.

What do you think is the underlying reason for this difference of opinion?

 

[Lyxen]

Right, it's always on, until it's not

It's funny how you can't even provide ONE SINGLE SOURCE justifying your claim when I have provided you with all sorts, from the rules, to the devs, to well-recognised authors of advice. There's even one on this site, and although it does not pretend to be exhaustive about what affects surprise, it certainly does not say anything about characters not having their PP on.

So no, the "until it's not" does not exist elsewhere than in your own game. That's fine, you can play any way you want. Just don't claim that it's the standard way of playing.

When it's not, characters fail to notice hidden threats.

No, GROUPS (Remember the GROUP'S CHANCE OF SUCCESS), within the TRAVEL RULES, don't notice hidden threats IN ADVANCE. Very different. But for that, you need a game where the characters' actions are taken into account

Fail to notice a hidden threat and you run afoul of the trap or you're surprised. Again, all these rules work together seamlessly.

Yes, they work seamlessly as written, with the travel rules REFERENCING but not replacing in particular the rules on surprise. But because you confuse everything in a loop that is too simple, that makes it hard for you to perceive the difference. There are rules for travel and noticing threats in advance, and there are rules for combat and surprise. And although they indeed work together seamlessly, it's not in the way you claim, since you are unable to provide any rule making the link.

Also, the rules don't "advise" that travel be summarized or suggest a frequency for doing that. It just says that it can be done.

No, actually, it's the other way around. The section begins with summarising as the default way of doing it. It just says that "sometimes it's important, though, to know how long it takes to get from one spot to another, whether the answer is in days, hours, or minutes."

The funny thing is that because the only line that you think is supporting your claim (it does not) is in the travel rules, in leads you to the absurdity of forcing characters to be travelling all the time so that you can inflict the penalty you think the game needs on your players. But it's not the way the system works, and it's not necessary anyway.

 

[Lyxen]

I genuinely think it does. Several posters have expressed similar opinions about what it means.

Again, that does not mean anything, I have provided you with way more respectable references outside of this forum that show you that your interpretation is incorrect. You have shown nothing expect the misreading of a single sentence. And it IS a misreading, nothing in that sentence removes the PP from a character, nothing makes it not applicable to surprise in particular. The sentence in question does not even link to the surprise rules.

Your position is that the rules are clear and obvious, and that they align with your interpretation.
What do you think is the underlying reason for this difference of opinion?

For me, there are two reasons:

• Not understanding the stealth and surprise rules. They are clear and simple (especially in the area that we are considering), but they require a lot of DM input, again as explained by all the sites that I've pointed out. Passive Perception in particular can be a bit tricky to understand, which is why there are so many sites out there explaining it exactly the way I do (and none the way you think). Just read them.
• Being afraid that perception is too powerful and unbalances the skills, and absolutely wanting more balance in the game. 5e is not a balanced game, it was not designed that way, the devs say it explicitly. So why would you expect the skills to be equally useful ?

But maybe you can tell me why you insist, in front of so much overwhelming evidence from all the sites and advice out there, that it has to be your way ?

 

[Seramus]

But maybe you can tell me why you insist, in front of so much overwhelming evidence from all the sites and advice out there, that it has to be your way ?

Maybe we are both guilty? Those sites don't seem to say (to me) what you are saying they do. They seem to agree with my interpretation.

But it doesn't have to be my way. That was never my position. I just couldn't understand why you thought there was no other way. That we were wrong, didn't read the rules, etc instead of just having a different interpretation.

 

[Lyxen]

Maybe we are both guilty? Those sites don't seem to say (to me) what you are saying they do. They seem to agree with my interpretation.
But it doesn't have to be my way. That was never my position. I just couldn't understand why you thought there was no other way. That we were wrong, didn't read the rules, etc instead of just having a different interpretation.

OK, let's take one step back here. I was assuming that you were like @iserith, supporting the position that if you are travelling, and are turning your attention to other tasks, you give up your passive perception and are automatically surprised by any combat happening.

Is that the case ? Or is your position different than this ?

Because, just in case it is, I'm very curious what you think supports your interpretation in the sites that I've provided...

My position, just to be clear, is that, like any other check, the DM is free to put in any modifier that he likes, adv/dis or even auto-success/failure, but turning this into "and surprise happens all the time because the rules say so" is incorrect and absurd. So I'm not arguing FOR a specific position, I'm just arguing AGAINST the interpretation above being a direct consequence of the rules.

And the main reason for that is that although you can do shortcuts like @iserith mentions and say "when monsters attack from stealth it's directly combat and it's just about surprise", my perspective is that there is way more to the game than this.

And in particular, there are two distinct phases:

1. Travel: the party is considered as a group, they decide on the route to take, they assign tasks to characters, some people watch for danger, and if there is a hidden threat, the GROUP has a chance to notice it in advance, it's just that people doing other tasks than watching for danger don't contribute to THAT chance to notice it in advance (just as, by the way, so might people who are not at the right position in terms of marching order).
2. Combat: It's individual, and everyone checks against everyone on the opposite side (with possible use of passives and/or group checks) to see who is surprised.

The problem is that @iserith only considers the second one, but absolutely wants to apply one rule from the first case to the second one (and the rules make it clear that these are two very different activities, not in the same section, just one pointing to the other IF AND WHEN it occurs). And honestly, it's fairly pointless, because if people are NOT travelling, there are no reasons to apply the rules for travelling (clearly restricted to "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels") to people being simply distracted from reading, or talking or watching a play.

And the simple fact is that all the sites and in particular JC are extremely clear on the fact that your PP is always on, unless you are unconscious (or the equivalent, for example petrified since it "is unaware of its surroundings."). Note that he mentions specifically THAT condition (and equivalent), and no other condition like Incapacitated, Paralysed, Stunned, etc.

So if your PPis on when you are incapacitated, paralysed or stunned, why would it be affected when you are just taking notes now and then to trace the route on a map ?

So, once more, I have nothing about individual DMs using circumstances to adjust rolls, including auto-success/failure, but saying that you mandatorily autofail any passive perception as soon as you are distracted is certainly not present in any rule in the book nor is it mentioned in all the sites that I've provided (whereas the opposite is certainly clear from all of them PP is always on).

Is our mutual understanding getting better or did I miss anything ? Do you want me to explain more about the first phase above ?

For me, that first phase is extremely important, by the way, because it's the "freedom phase" for the players in the sense that THEY decide how they are travelling, by which route, taking which precautions, etc. And therefore, for the DM, playing ALONG with them and making sure that their actions are taken into consideration for what happens on the route is paramount to making clear that the players and their PCs matter, that it's THEIR adventure, and that the DM is not just arbitrarily creating fights because he can or because he lacks the will or the imagination to manage more complex situations.

 

[Seramus]

And the simple fact is that all the sites and in particular JC are extremely clear on the fact that your PP is always on, unless you are unconscious (or the equivalent, for example petrified since it "is unaware of its surroundings."). Note that he mentions specifically THAT condition (and equivalent), and no other condition like Incapacitated, Paralysed, Stunned, etc.

I will write a bigger reply after work, but I want to mention that JC lists several other distractions where someone does not get their PP against hiding creatures:

Curtains being on fire, being engrossed in the performance of minstrels, a barbarian screaming in someone's face, a rogue lighting gunpowder barrels and causing an explosion, and a rogue being able to melee sneak attack an evil sorcerer because "they were so distracted."

 

[Lyxen]

I will write a bigger reply after work, but I want to mention that JC lists several other distractions where someone does not get their PP against hiding creatures:

Curtains being on fire, being engrossed in the performance of minstrels, a barbarian screaming in someone's face, a rogue lighting gunpowder barrels and causing an explosion, and a rogue being able to melee sneak attack an evil sorcerer because "they were so distracted."

He does not say that they lose their PP, and that's exactly my point. The curtains on fire, the party is not even trying stealth, they are just saying "we're going to dash out of the Dukes grandball". There's no stealth, no combat, no surprise here.

For the "engrossed", it's just the example that I'm always providing, and it actually says the the target has his PP, just that he does not notice someone come out of hiding in the open: "And they might be so engrossed by the performance that even though it's broad daylight. There's no fog. And you're just walking right up behind the person. The DM might decide, well, you know your dexterity. Spell check was good enough, and this person is so distracted I'm going to let you do this right out in the open. Now the DM might decide though, okay, this guys distracted, so I'm going to let you just. I'm going to let you attempt this, but you might get a lousy roll. Which means maybe you bumped into somebody you tripped, you did something to give your position away, or even if you don't mind aside, maybe you didn't give your position away, but it just means you utterly failed to sneak up on this person. So again, this is a great example of the environment really plays a big role in the attentiveness of other people. It makes sense now going back to passive perception. This is, as its name implies, passive. And it's considered to be always on, unless you're under the effect of a condition like the unconscious condition that says you're not aware of your surroundings that really the practical effect of that is basically your passive perception is shut off. "

The gunpowder barrel thingie is about losing track of invisible people, because the standard rule is that, unless they successfully hide (which they can almost always do since they are, by definition, out of sight), you know where they are. But of course the DM can make exceptions about this.

And the sneak attack of the rogue on the evil caster is again about coming out of hiding to attack.

So, no, in none of these cases are creatures being denied their PP, and certainly not on the basis of rules.

That being said, my point is not that it cannot be done depending on the circumstances, It can certainly be done (although sparingly, see below). I'm not even saying that it's wrong, at a table, to create a house rule that says that people who are distracted lose their PP.

What I'm objecting to is some people claiming that this is a rule that is present in the RAW, so that they can enforce their point of view. This is simply not the case, there is no rule in the RAW that says this, the RAW says quite the opposite, that you always have your PP for the purpose of surprise and detecting hidden creatures, and it's simply a local DM's ruling, based on the circumstances, that will modify that for you.

And as Sly Flourish mentions, having people being surprised is NASTY. Not only is it nasty to the character, as it's dangerous, but it's also really annoying to the player, who has to wait even longer to get a turn in which he can act. So his advice, which I echo, do it very sparingly. And creating a rule that says that it happens as soon as someone is distracted goes against that advice, I would certainly not do it at our tables.

My perspective is way more open, just refusing to be boxed in by people believing something which is not only incorrect from the purely RAW perspective, but which is also clearly shown as wrong from the examples in the RAI.

 

[Seramus]

He does not say that they lose their PP, and that's exactly my point. The curtains on fire, the party is not even trying stealth, they are just saying "we're going to dash out of the Dukes grandball". There's no stealth, no combat, no surprise here.

See, to me he is saying they don't get to use their PP to notice because he literally says their PP is the baseline to notice something. If their PP was not suspended because of distraction or circumstance then they would have noticed.

This is also exactly what I mean by reading the same thing and coming to a different conclusion.