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

[Maxperson]

I can see a bunch of ways it might make sense. "Back to back, old girl. I'll watch this side of the camp and you watch that side."

So separate perceptions. The pet is watching in one direction and you the other. There's no direct help for the PC happening there.

or "She can pick up scents on the wind better than I can, so I focus on distance and color."

So her scent ability allows HER to pick it up and you're oblivious until your perception kicks in. Again, that's separate perceptions. You still have no direct help to your perception.

Two beings cooperating in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts.

That can't happen with perception, other than to cover more directions individually or options individually, like you describe above.

At the very least, it makes more sense to me than a Sentinel Shield.

It at least has magic to make YOU more perceptive. The shield isn't doing its own perceiving like the pet you describe above.

 

[Iry]

So separate perceptions. The pet is watching in one direction and you the other. There's no direct help for the PC happening there.

So her scent ability allows HER to pick it up and you're oblivious until your perception kicks in. Again, that's separate perceptions. You still have no direct help to your perception.

That can't happen with perception, other than to cover more directions individually or options individually, like you describe above.

But you don't have to rule it that way. It's perfectly valid to give advantage to someone with perception for exactly the same reasons. It's just a DM preference.

It at least has magic to make YOU more perceptive. The shield isn't doing its own perceiving like the pet you describe above.

It's magic. It doesn't make sense by definition. It has an eyeball painted on it. That's the only explanation we are given besides 'magic item'.

 

[Lyxen]

I mean... is there really any way to read any of these lines (and more throughout the PHB) and not see how travel and movement are inextricably tied together?

Of course, travelling is a sort of movement. But just one sort, not a frequent one at that.

It's exactly as if you said that because grappling is a form of combat, all combat is grappling. It's not the case, and neither is all movement "travelling".

For example, I'm not going to travel to the loo, it's not going to be a journey.

And that travelling is happening as part of exploration?

Again, the key word it "part of". It can be part of, or it can be glossed over, and it's frequently the case actually, in most campaigns.

This is why insisting that the travelling rules are the basis for the whole game is nonsense in my opinion.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

...because travelling is not movement....

...travelling is a sort of movement...

Thanks for clarifying?

 

[Lyxen]

But... the rules specifically mention moving through dungeons under the category of travelling.

No, they mention traveling as its own category: "As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness,..." First, most of our adventures don't even take place in a dungeon these days. And second, unless I'm mistaken, "travelling" and "journey" have specific meaning in english, and most of the activities that take place even in a dungeon is NOT travelling. It can happen for sure, when for example you "travel" back to the stairs to go back to the surface.

But, honestly, will you be calling exploring a dungeon and moving from room to room, clearing them of opponents "travelling" ? I know I would not. Merriam Webster: to go on a trip or journey : to go to a place and especially one that is far away

"As adventurers travel through a dungeon." The provided example is literally a maze of tunnels, and the example danger is a stealthy creature. "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."

Yes, you can travel through a dungeon, see the example above. And it's not happening often, at least to us, and I'm pretty sure to you as well if you are honest about it.

The very definition of travelling is restrictive, it's happening extremely infrequently in the game, and insisting that it applies to all the game just because one is afraid of one skill is complete over-reaction, especially since it is done with the aim of depriving characters of their survival instincts on the spurious pretext that, once in a while, they take note on a map.

 

[Lyxen]

Thanks for clarifying?

Thanks for the selective quote, sniping half of an 8-words sentence is really a proof of good faith... For your reference, the original quote was "because travelling is not movement, it's travelling", meaning that travelling is not equivalent to movement either in general or in the D&D rules.

 

[iserith]

Yes, everybody knows that traveling involves no movement.

 

[Lyxen]

It looks to me like you don't like whatever you think "traveling" is ("boring," you said) and are thereby setting it aside as a subcategory of rules that don't apply when they actually do.

Only they don't, since they are travelling rules, they apply, guess when, yes, when travelling. Are you really traveling all the time in your life ? I sure am not...

In the doing, you make Perception very strong in your games.

No, just by following the rules as written, but also the extremely clear RAI (JC: "Passive perception is always on").

If you won't accept this from me for whatever reason

What I don't accept is you pretending to follow the rules and implying others are not, and pretending to know the RAI when you clearly are not either. After that, as I've said from the beginning, you are free to play the way you want in your games, but I would not play in there with arbitrary impositions on players based on rules clearly not applicable most of the time we are playing.

Unless in special cases, by the way, lots of D&D sources advocate just summarising travel unless there is a scenaristic reason for it. Some people love hexcrawl, and it's a good opportunity and the only occasion that we ever used them.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, everybody knows that traveling involves no movement.

Maybe, you should read the PH. Just once. And realise that there is a large section on movement, of which only one subsection is about travelling. So will you now pretend that all movement is travelling. Go on, I'm waiting...

Otherwise, please stop misquoting me. Or actually, please continue, just to show how the only way for you to debate is actually putting words of your own invention in my mouth. But it you think that I wrote the above, why don't you prove it ?

 

[AtomicPope]

So separate perceptions. The pet is watching in one direction and you the other. There's no direct help for the PC happening there.

So her scent ability allows HER to pick it up and you're oblivious until your perception kicks in. Again, that's separate perceptions. You still have no direct help to your perception.

This is exactly what I meant when I said that Rangers need a permanent Beast Bond with their Animal Companion. There are too many commonplace situations where the interaction between the Ranger and their pet doesn't makes sense because it's just a guy and his dog. Even if his pet spots something, he can't ask what it just noticed. Despite "exceptional training" it's still an animal and it's not going to pantomime precise details.