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

Lyxen

Great Old One
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." or "She can pick up scents on the wind better than I can, so I focus on distance and color." Two beings cooperating in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts.

But that's basically it, it's not greater than the sum of their parts, if one watched one direction and the other in another direction.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
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...
It doesn't matter what we do in real life or, say, in a LARP. We're talking about what the rules say.

No, just by following the rules as written, but also the extremely clear RAI (JC: "Passive perception is always on").
Except when it isn't "on," which is laid out clearly in the rules.

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.
The rules don't make any distinction between when they apply because all scales of movement are covered in the section under discussion. They apply all the time as the characters explore the world. Do something other than stay alert for danger and your passive Perception doesn't apply unless you're a ranger in favored terrain. Failing to take that into account boosts the power of Perception.

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 ?
I've read the PHB a lot. The DMG, too. This part of the rules I have down since I use them every time I play plus they've been discussed a great deal on these forums since the inception of D&D 5e. Now, lots of DMs don't read, understand, or apply these rules, so you're not alone, and that's okay. But in cases where these rules are not applied, we see plenty of examples on this forum and others of DMs concerned about the strength of Perception, passive in particular. It may lead them to remove passive Perception altogether or, for example, to be concerned about an animal companion turning a ranger's already "high" passive Perception to "very high." For anyone employing the rules that have been quoted, this probably isn't much of a concern. My ruling on the original question is based on the wording of Working Together, not on any particular concern about Perception.
 

Iry

Hero
But that's basically it, it's not greater than the sum of their parts, if one watched one direction and the other in another direction.
Splitting up the task means you can put more focus into your own work. Or be lazy and do less, but I'm assuming that's not the case. :ROFLMAO:
Of course, travelling is a sort of movement. But just one sort, not a frequent one at that.
As far as I'm concerned, the only time movement is not traveling is when you're in combat / initiative has been rolled. Maybe some other specific event like a skill challenge or the like. Otherwise, you're pretty much always traveling. Even in a big social scene in the middle of a fancy ball in Jrusar, you might have people keeping watch for threats, while others socialize with nobles, or engage in dancing.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
I don't think it makes any sense at all to rule it the other way.
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'. :ROFLMAO:
It would still function if it had a horses rear end painted on it, though. The eye isn't an explanation. The eye is the clue.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
If there was some sort of mystical bond, then I could see an increase in perception. However, if that were the case and I'm taking the bonus seriously, +5 is way too high. Ranger spells are based on wisdom, so the ranger probably has a 14 or so there. Perception is totally a ranger thing, so most will also be proficient. The passive perception is already 14 at 1st level and will go up from there. If I were going to allow a mystical link to add a bonus to perception, it would probably only be +2. Bounded accuracy means that creatures aren't going to be rolling ridiculously high numbers, so +5 is going to be too powerful. Also, the animal isn't going to be that useful in detecting traps and stuff like that, so I'd probably limit the bonus to creatures.
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.
Ah, but I have evidence that says otherwise. I spent years watching Lassie convey precisely that Timmy was in the well and you needed to follow her, with nothing more than a few barks.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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...
Travel is just movement on a larger scale. Look at the travel pace chart on page 182 of the PHB. In a minute(10 rounds) you go 300 feet at normal speed. That's a 30 move. 3 miles an hour is a 30 move for 1 hour. 24 miles a day is just moving at your 30 feet a round for 8 hours. If your PC spends 1 round in a fight moving 30 feet, 30 feet is how far he traveled. It's all the same.
 

Iry

Hero
I don't think it makes any sense at all to rule it the other way.
It would still function if it had a horses rear end painted on it, though. The eye isn't an explanation. The eye is the clue.
Sure! But it's a reason that doesn't make sense. "A wizard did it!"
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Sure! But it's a reason that doesn't make sense. "A wizard did it!"
It absolutely makes sense. This shield is imbued with divination magic that augments your perception. The reason isn't "a wizard did it." The reason is "divination magic specifically designed to improve perception."
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
Sounds like the dog using his own perception to detect a threat and then waking you up to me.
Yes...and in the context of "not rounds" this can be modeled by giving the human an advantage on a score as opposed to having the canine be a separate character and taking things in six second increments.
 

Iry

Hero
It absolutely makes sense. This shield is imbued with divination magic that augments your perception. The reason isn't "a wizard did it." The reason is "divination magic specifically designed to improve perception."
And you firmly believe that makes more sense than "My dog helped"?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top