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

[Lyxen]

You're entire argument boils down to a very broad and vague rule that says, "5e usually uses the common definition of things." to overrule the very specific rules that say that travel is based on racial movement. The game doesn't work that way. Specific beats general, not the other way around.

I don't deny that there is a rule about travelling, what I'm saying is that it does not apply to exploration in general. What I'm saying is that (and it's always been that way, whatever the edition), it goes along the lines of:

• DM: "You enter the tomb, what do you do ?"
• P1: "I go to the door at the end of the room and listen."
• P2: "I stay by the exit and draw a quick map."
• P3: "I go to the sarcophagus and inspect it"
• DM: "There is some noise down the passage at the other end of the room"
• P1: "I whisper to the others that I'm going to scout, and I stealthily go down the passage."

No marching order, no group movement, no use of travel speed, no assignment of role, NOTHING in there resembles in any way the travelling rule, and it's the absolutely standard playing loop including movement.

What might happen is that, sometimes, it might go along the lines of:

• P1: "We need to go back to the entrance" or "we are travelling to the next town"
• DM: "OK, do you have a marching order, are you doing something special while you travel?"

And then the travelling rules kick in, and I'm fine with them.

Are your games different from the above ?

 

[Lyxen]

So, by your ruling, the PC could notice a threat with their passive Wisdom (Perception) but, as long as they are doing some other activity like navigating or tracking, they somehow would then be unable to communicate that threat to the group?

First, notice that the wording is quite clear: "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." They are not focussed on watching for danger does not mean that they are completely oblivious to their surroundings. It's not specifically their task, but they are seasonned adventurers, and survivors.

Now, the only thing that the rule says is that the passive perception does not contribute to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. Since it's about the group, switch to the group activities, what does it say ?

• "To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails." That what it means "contributing to success, having a roll that matters in counting the result.
• Then, there's the example: "Group checks don’t come up very often, and they’re most useful when all the characters succeed or fail as a group. For example, when adventurers are navigating a swamp, the DM might call for a group Wisdom (Survival) check to see if the characters can avoid the quicksand, sinkholes, and other natural hazards of the environment. If at least half the group succeeds, the successful characters are able to guide their companions out of danger. Otherwise, the group stumbles into one of these hazards."

Now, translate this into detecting an ambush by orcs. It's exactly the same thing, if enough people of the group succeed, they will know about the ambush as a group, and therefore no-one risks being surprised, since everyone is aware that there is a group of orcs ahead. But if they fail, either because their scores are too low, or because some people are not focussing enough on the threats (and their passive score is simply not counted as per the rule), then the group is not aware that there is an orc ambush ahead.

So when combat starts, everyone will check for surprise, using their passive perception, which has not been magically turned off, simply not counted in the group result.

It's mostly about timing and determination for the group, since it's travelling and it's focussed on the group, not on single characters.

 

[Lyxen]

PSA: Spamming the thread with endless repetitions of this same, tired old "argument" isn't persuasive, isn't moving discussion forward, and isn't earning you any respect.

You know what, I don't care at all about your respect, because I'm tired about people boasting that they have solved the perception problem (which is their problem, not a general one) by using rules, all of that based on an incorrect reading of the rules, as well as claiming that they follow the intent of the designers, while at the same time having no idea what they actually said. So when the boastful claims die down, which seems to be the case, the argument will indeed be over. And in any case, you don't have to read me or anything here.

 

[Lyxen]

That a rule is one sentence or multipage pages is irrelevant. The rules in the section under discussion work hand in glove with the rules for surprise and hiding. It all works together seamlessly.

Of course they do, since it's a well designed system and that section directly refers to other sections and applies them directly. It even refers the group check section, but you are not seeing this since you insist on misreading that sentence and forgetting words on purpose.

In any case, we are clear, you have not been able to provide any proof that the passive checks suddenly disappear and do not apply to surprise and detecting individuals (especially, since, as you point out above, the travelling section directly refers to these rules, totally unmodified), and that I'm actually playing 100% by the rules when following the advice of the lead designer saying that Passive Perception is always on. Case closed.

In any case, nothing's being taken away from the players. They are making the meaningful choice to risk failing to notice hidden threats in exchange for doing other activities that may be useful to them in context. If they don't want to take that risk, then they don't engage in those activities. This is all in their hands.

RAW, they are not taking any such risk. The only thing that they are doing, is NOT "risk failing to notice hidden threats", the wording is clear, they are simply "not focused on watching for danger", and the only risk that they are taking is simply having their (still existing) passive Wisdom (Perception) score no contributing to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. It does not prevent them from noticing hidden threats as per the rule on stealth, and it does not force them to be surprised if combat starts, as per the standard rules of surprise.

You might be doing things differently in your campaign, but it's not RAW. If it's your solution to make perception less valuable in your campaign and it works for you, that's cool. It's just that at our tables we don't need such solution because we don't have a problem (as long as we are not inflating perception's power by allowing unrequited advantage, which we are not doing anyway).

 

[iserith]

Of course they do, since it's a well designed system and that section directly refers to other sections and applies them directly. It even refers the group check section, but you are not seeing this since you insist on misreading that sentence and forgetting words on purpose.

In any case, we are clear, you have not been able to provide any proof that the passive checks suddenly disappear and do not apply to surprise and detecting individuals (especially, since, as you point out above, the travelling section directly refers to these rules, totally unmodified), and that I'm actually playing 100% by the rules when following the advice of the lead designer saying that Passive Perception is always on. Case closed.



RAW, they are not taking any such risk. The only thing that they are doing, is NOT "risk failing to notice hidden threats", the wording is clear, they are simply "not focused on watching for danger", and the only risk that they are taking is simply having their (still existing) passive Wisdom (Perception) score no contributing to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. It does not prevent them from noticing hidden threats as per the rule on stealth, and it does not force them to be surprised if combat starts, as per the standard rules of surprise.

You might be doing things differently in your campaign, but it's not RAW. If it's your solution to make perception less valuable in your campaign and it works for you, that's cool. It's just that at our tables we don't need such solution because we don't have a problem (as long as we are not inflating perception's power by allowing unrequited advantage, which we are not doing anyway).

The rules say if the PCs turn their attention to certain tasks other than keeping watch for danger, their passive Perception doesn't apply. That naturally plays into surprise and hiding. If the DM decides that a group check is necessarily using passive checks instead of regular ability checks, it works there, too. This all works together. I wouldn't go so far to say it's a well-designed system as a whole, but at least this section is pretty tight. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to try to carve out traveling as if it's this separate thing except that perhaps you just don't like it, as you stated.

You keep quoting JC as well as if the guy is somehow infallible and not just another DM who was shooting from the hip on a podcast. The rules say what they say and that is that passive Perception is on most of the time, until it's not and when that is. Play how you like, but understand when you ignore that, you make Perception more powerful than may be intended.

 

[Iry]

I don't deny that there is a rule about travelling, what I'm saying is that it does not apply to exploration in general. What I'm saying is that (and it's always been that way, whatever the edition), it goes along the lines of:

• DM: "You enter the tomb, what do you do ?"
• P1: "I go to the door at the end of the room and listen."
• P2: "I stay by the exit and draw a quick map."
• P3: "I go to the sarcophagus and inspect it"
• DM: "There is some noise down the passage at the other end of the room"
• P1: "I whisper to the others that I'm going to scout, and I stealthily go down the passage."

No marching order, no group movement, no use of travel speed, no assignment of role, NOTHING in there resembles in any way the travelling rule, and it's the absolutely standard playing loop including movement.

The marching order is P1 at the door at the end of the room, P2 at the exit, and P3 at the sarcophagus. The assignment of roles are P1 watching for hidden dangers, P2 drawing a map, and P3 investigating the sarcophagus. P1 gets their passive, while P2 and P3 are doing other activities.

The adventuring chapter is pretty much always present, unless you're in the thick of combat or something.

 

[Lyxen]

The rules say if the PCs turn their attention to certain tasks other than keeping watch for danger, their passive Perception doesn't apply

No, it does not. Once more, just read the sentence for me, from beginning to end: "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."

Case closed, you are not reading the sentence, just interpreting it according to your wishes.

 

[Lyxen]

The marching order is P1 at the door at the end of the room, P2 at the exit, and P3 at the sarcophagus. The assignment of roles are P1 watching for hidden dangers, P2 drawing a map, and P3 investigating the sarcophagus. P1 gets their passive, while P2 and P3 are doing other activities.

This is not a marching order, they are not even marching, some of them are not even moving, while others are. Pray tell where are the ranks in this "marching order", as described in the "marching order" section of the travelling rules ?

This is a totally standard play loop, the characters are not travelling and in particular not at any sort of pace. If you think they are, please let me know, I'd be interested to see which one and why.

 

[Iry]

No, it does not. Once more, just read the sentence for me, from beginning to end: "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."

Case closed, you are not reading the sentence, just interpreting it according to your wishes.

I'm pretty sure that sentence says what @iserith is saying.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm pretty sure that sentence says what @iserith is saying.

Hear hear.