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

[iserith]

And yet, because my interpretation takes into account the sentence (while yours does not) including the specific use of the word group (which is used all over the section in travelling, but almost nowhere else in the rules), it is valid whereas yours is not.



My interpretation works way better than yours, because it is 100% in line with the stealth and surprise rules, without introducing a clunky exception of removing a character's passive perception, which appears nowhere in the rules (once more, that sentence CONFIRMS that a character has a passive perception, only that it does not apply to the groups' success), and which the lead designer has expressly told you does not appear.



Where ? There has not been a single one posted out. Now, this is your last chance, show me a rule in which passive perception is not in effect, I dare you. And failing to do that will just put the nail in the coffin.



Once more after totally failing on the "intention" (ignoring the podcast on stealth, then pretending that it applied only to combat), you have still failed to produce any evidence supporting what you think the intent is, whereas I have shown you direct evidence that the lead designers fully support "Passive Perception is Always On". Do you deny it ? Do you have even a shred of support for that the "intention" that you think is there in the rules ? Produce it, this is your last chance.

Something tells me this won't be my "last chance," as you say, on this topic. Many DMs run the game as you do and make Perception very strong. Some of them then wonder what's going awry. For those people, the solution can be found in the rules.

As before, we've quoted you the said rule. You've quoted it yourself, so at least we know you're aware of it. You've argued for "natural language" interpretations, but don't seem to apply that argument to the line under discussion. So I'm not sure where we can go from here.

 

[Lyxen]

Something tells me this won't be my "last chance," as you say, on this topic. Many DMs run the game as you do and make Perception very strong. Some of them then wonder what's going awry. For those people, the solution can be found in the rules. As before, we've quoted you the said rule. You've quoted it yourself, so at least we know you're aware of it. You've argued for "natural language" interpretations, but don't seem to apply that argument to the line under discussion. So I'm not sure where we can go from here.

No, sorry, the rule in question does not support your interpretation, for three simple reasons that you have never been able to disprove:

• You have never been able to explain the part in red: These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats.
• You continue to say that such characters don't have a passive wisdom (perception) score despite the fact that the sentence explicitly says they have one (just that it does not count for the group).
• And you continue to say that, despite all the evidence above that you are ignoring the ACTUAL rule, they support your intent of passive perception being shut off despite having no support for said position and being disproved by the lead developer who tells you that passive perception is always.

Try again, this time with some actual rule or dev support, because so far, you have absolutely nothing. And repeating again and again that that rule supports your view just shows this time after time.

And the reason for you being wrong in this from the start is that your "solution" is unfair to the players, and not conducive to fun. Basically, you are forcing them to choose between survivability and helping out during the travel phase. The REAL intent behind the rules is way better, it does not put the characters in mortal danger by removing their PP and making them automatically surprised, it just prevents them from helping spot threats in advance with the rest of the group. It's way more balanced, less fatal to characters, and way more conducive to fun. At least characters can try and do something useful without having a death sentence hanging over their head.

If perception really bothers you so much, start by not handing out advantage to it when inappropriate. We don't have a problem with perception at our tables, and all the characters don't have it. So maybe the problem is elsewhere at your tables.

 

[Iry]

Even if the phrase was referring to a specific mechanic about "the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.", I don't know what that mechanic would be. I assume either the Surprise rules or some kind of custom skill challenge, but the Surprise rules are pretty clear that each person is getting checked individually.

To me, the phrase "group's chance" is being used casually.

 

[Maxperson]

This is not what the travel pace section says. You are speaking about movement here, travel pace is clearly defined as "normal, fast, or slow on the table.

View attachment 151834\

So if you are not using the travel pace, how can you claim to be using the travel rules ?

That normal pace is by RAW, based on racial norms for speed.

 

[iserith]

No, sorry, the rule in question does not support your interpretation, for three simple reasons that you have never been able to disprove:

• You have never been able to explain the part in red: These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats.
• You continue to say that such characters don't have a passive wisdom (perception) score despite the fact that the sentence explicitly says they have one (just that it does not count for the group).
• And you continue to say that, despite all the evidence above that you are ignoring the ACTUAL rule, they support your intent of passive perception being shut off despite having no support for said position and being disproved by the lead developer who tells you that passive perception is always.

Try again, this time with some actual rule or dev support, because so far, you have absolutely nothing. And repeating again and again that that rule supports your view just shows this time after time.

And the reason for you being wrong in this from the start is that your "solution" is unfair to the players, and not conducive to fun. Basically, you are forcing them to choose between survivability and helping out during the travel phase. The REAL intent behind the rules is way better, it does not put the characters in mortal danger by removing their PP and making them automatically surprised, it just prevents them from helping spot threats in advance with the rest of the group. It's way more balanced, less fatal to characters, and way more conducive to fun. At least characters can try and do something useful without having a death sentence hanging over their head.

If perception really bothers you so much, start by not handing out advantage to it when inappropriate. We don't have a problem with perception at our tables, and all the characters don't have it. So maybe the problem is elsewhere at your tables.

As the subsequent poster pointed out, it's pretty clear using "natural language" that the "group's chance" distinction is a casual term, not a game term. Odd that you don't apply your own argument for "natural language" here despite being the first to broach that matter in this thread (as I recall).

Further, I have never said they don't have a passive Perception score, not once. What I'm saying is that their score doesn't apply to resolving what happens when they run afoul of a trap or hidden monsters while engaged in certain other tasks. It means there is no passive check at all - they simply fail to notice. Checks, passive or otherwise, only come into play when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The rule in this case takes away the uncertainty as to the outcome - they just fail. No uncertainty, no check.

As well, JC failing to mention the times when passive Perception doesn't apply means nothing where the rules are concerned. They say what they say, regardless of what JC said extemporaneously on a podcast. If you know anything about the history of JC's rulings (and reversals of those rulings and the reversals of the reversals), by the way, you might not be so quick to assert his words as evidence of what the rules actually say.

Finally, Perception doesn't "bother" me as you keep erroneously saying. I've never said that, not once. Some DMs have issues with it often because they aren't taking all the rules into account and therefore making it stronger than may be intended. For those DMs, a solution is to simply include meaningful trade-offs as laid out in the rules. Another solution might be to keep it strong - or even make it stronger by having every monster try to surprise the PCs (watch out for that mammoth hiding behind the tree!) - then institute a social agreement that players should not invest in the things the DM is incentivizing without some kind of veneer of characterization or backstory. For my part, that is an unnecessary kluge that works against the natural human inclination to do what is incentivized.

 

[Maxperson]

So now that you don't find support in them, they are irrelevant ? Interesting step back...

Step back from what? My saying that they are irrelevant to your claim isn't a step back from anything.

There is no such thing as automatic surprise. Sorry, if you think there is, please point the rule that says so.

Yes. Yes there is. ALL ability checks(surprise being one of them) have three states. Auto success. Auto failure. And roll if the outcome is in doubt. This is in the ability check section of the PHB.

Assuming the outcome is in doubt, the surprise rules use passive perception to figure out what the roll is. The travel rules give you a rule whereby you don't get your passive perception to notice threats if you are distracted. Since your passive perception doesn't apply to the surprise check, you are automatically surprised.

Yep, so they apply to every single person in the group, as per any group check. Anything else ?

You do know that individual checks also apply to every single person in the group, right? Everyone rolling is not any kind of proof of it being a group check.

In any case, this is just to see if anyone in the group notices the threat. You can treat it as a group check or you can treat that as a series of individual ones, the fact is that they apply to everyone in the group. And that is just to notice the threat in advance. Before someone falls into a trap. Before entering into an ambush.

No. The surprise rules have no rules for a group surprise check. You can house rule that if you like, but they are in fact individual checks.

Nope, sorry, show me ONE RULE that tells that someone can't use it individually in any situation. Just ONE. I dare you.

We already have. Dozens of times at this point. Sticking your head in the sand and yelling, "Lalalalala!" doesn't change the rules we've shown you into what you wish they were saying.

The only thing that the rules say is that it still is still there (and therefore applicable to them) but that it does not count towards' the group's success. It's not that they can't use it. It's ONLY towards the group's success. Prove that it's not the case.

There is no group surprise check. Your insistence on misinterpreting that statement isn't going to alter how the game functions. That same section tells you that it uses chapter 9 for surprise. Only the individual specific exceptions of, "Distracted PCs don't get to use their passive perception." is different.

100% false and absurd, since what you bolded not only shows that they HAVE a Passive Perception, and you are just forgetting half of the sentence, that does not mean auto fail. How can it say "autofail" on anything ? It's not even in the sentence !

No passive perception = no notice of threat. No notice of threat = surprise according to surprise rules. They automatically fail. This is really easy peasy stuff to understand.

It tells you to apply the surprise rules of chapter 9, which starts with "determining surprise by pp vs. steath check". Where does it say "autofail exactly" ?

Right here where you don't get passive perception.

"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats." And yes, I know you're going to say, "But I'm totally misinterpreting what "the group's" means in this context, so it doesn't really say that."

 

[iserith]

Wait a minute, is all this actually stemming from that poster not understanding what a group check is?

 

[Maxperson]

Wait a minute, is all this actually stemming from that poster not understanding what a group check is?

All? No. Part? Yes. The other part is his misunderstanding that travel and movement are synonymous.

 

[Lyxen]

As the subsequent poster pointed out, it's pretty clear using "natural language" that the "group's chance" distinction is a casual term

Despite being in natural language, the 5e rules are fairly precise, and that interpretation is plainly absurd. If that "reading" is all that you have to offer for depriving individual characters of their individual checks, and despite the very clear advice from the lead developer. I don't think there's anything left to discuss.

 

[Lyxen]

All? No. Part? Yes. The other part is his misunderstanding that travel and movement are synonymous.

And that is even more absurd. Do you realize that if they are synonymous:

• If I'm not moving, I'm not travelling, so I can map or examine a sarcophagus to my heart's content and I won't be distracted since the travelling rules don't apply (I'm not moving !).
• When I move in combat, I should be able to do tons of other activities, since they would be considered activity when moving/travelling.

Again, if it's all that you have as a justification for imposing penalties on characters, I don't think there's anything less to discuss.