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

[Lyxen]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more twisted this seems. I understand your goals as means to improve the way the system works for your players, according to your playstyle and your values. But honestly, for me, one of the reasons 5e was so successful was because there is no specific jargon. But when I look at the way you try to use the rules, I'm struck by the following facts:

• @iserith absolutely wants the word "group" to mean "individual"
  • For me, a group is a group, and it's not the individual. The travel rules are all about the group, see in particular the insert about "splitting the party"
• @Maxperson absolutely wants the word "travel" to mean the same thing as the word "movement"
  • For me, this is even more bizarre, as for me, I'm sticking with the examples in the PH:
    • "You travel through the forest and find the dungeon entrance late in the evening of the third day."
    • "After killing the guardian at the entrance to the ancient dwarven stronghold, you consult your map, which leads you through miles of echoing corridors to a chasm bridged by a narrow stone arch."

And that's the core of my problem. If you want to reduce the role of perception in your games and rebalance skills and their use (5e is not balanced, I agree, it was not an important design goal), by all means, use whatever you think you need to use in terms of rules.

But am I the only one shocked by the process that wants to claim "the rules say what I think it says" by first changing completely the meaning of the words in the rules ?

• In plain English, travel means travel, not movement, although they are of cours related, but they are not equivalent.
• In plain English, the group means the group, not each individual separately.

 

[Lyxen]

Actually, the more I think about it, the moere I'm shocked that some people feel the need to twist so much the rules and to lock them under one specific interpretation (all movement has to be travel, everything happening to the group happens to each individual) just because of their concern for a skill. All of that while absolutely wanting to pretend that they are playing according to the RAW (sure if you call a cat a dog and say all dogs are black, all cats are black too).

Not only are 5e rules way more adaptable than that, but the DM has all the tools he needs to make sure that the level of verisimilitude that he likes, and the level of descrption appropriate to his vision of the genre.

As for me, I like to have all my adventurers be akin to heroes in high fantasy books, with almost supernatural awareness of danger. Conan is never taken unaware in his sleep. However, when it's a bit too much, or it violates our level of verisimilitude, there are so many tools available

• Not allow personal intuition to collaborate, you don't help on passive perception
• Remembering that Darkvision lets you see like in Dim Light, so perception has disadvantage
• Remember the conditions, it's rarely like in an open flat plain under the blazing sun, there can be dust, shadows, noise, fog, smells, whatever, which hamper perception.
• Switch to Investigation as soon as it's something more intellectual and organised than just catching a glimpse by instinct

I don't need to redefined simple words like "travel" or "group" to have something that works well and sufficiently within the frame of the rules so that everyone accepts it without trouble (and it's actually 100% RAW, but practically, at our tables, it's not that important since the 5e spirit is rulings over rules, I don't need to deploy strong definitions to explain to my players that travel rules apply as soon as they move - but does (or does not, I'm lost) when you are standing still).

 

[DEFCON 1]

If people think the 5E rules are really that flexible, why have you all spent 200+ posts arguing about them trying to convince the others that your rulings are the right ones? If you're going to flex the rules anyway, then it doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong". At least not to the point of posting back and forth for 14 pages "Nuh uh!-ing" each other. LOL!

 

[Lyxen]

If people think the 5E rules are really that flexible, why have you all spent 200+ posts arguing about them trying to convince the others that your rulings are the right ones? If you're going to flex the rules anyway, then it doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong". At least not to the point of posting back and forth for 14 pages "Nuh uh!-ing" each other. LOL!

It's not so much trying to force my point of view, it's reacting to people wanting to force theirs in as the ONLY reading possible. For example:

• Perception is over-powerful, you must use the travelling rules all the time so that when people do anything else than watching for monsters they are mandatorily surprised and can never see a hidden creature, force them to choose !
• All movement is travelling.

As I've always mentioned, I have no problem with them doing this in their games if that's what they like. Just don't devaluate other approaches as "not in line with the rules", or "over-inflating perception".

After that, yes, I have a problem with people removing or changing words in the rules when they don't suit them. Deal with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

After that, yes, I have a problem with people removing or changing words in the rules when they don't suit them. Deal with it.

So the rules aren't that flexible after all then...

 

[Lyxen]

So the rules aren't that flexible after all then...

The rules are already quite flexible, it's just sad that some people still need to forget words or change their meaning because they fell they need the backing of the written rules to implement the game that they like.

And that's what I fight against. If you want to have your house rules, that's fine, just do it. Or if you use local rulings all the time (like I do), that's fine too. But don't put/change words in the rules that you think are right for you in a desperate bif for justification. Either use them as they are, they are quite flexible especially with rulings over rules, or invent your own.

 

[Seramus]

If people think the 5E rules are really that flexible, why have you all spent 200+ posts arguing about them trying to convince the others that your rulings are the right ones? If you're going to flex the rules anyway, then it doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong". At least not to the point of posting back and forth for 14 pages "Nuh uh!-ing" each other. LOL!

Being told "you are wrong" and "you didn't read the rules" is like catnip for arguments. Arguments about what proof qualifies as proof is as well. It reminds me of SpaceBattles.com, where dozens of pages can be spent showing proof while one or both sides claim it is unconvincing or doesn't count for whatever reason.

It probably would have fizzled out long ago if the position was "I understand what you are saying, and just came to a different conclusion."

 

[Maxperson]

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 !).

Nope. This is a rulings over rules edition and when the rules fail to make sense, the DM is supposed to make a ruling for that situation, so while you are technically correct(the best kind of correct), the reality is that the DM will probably just rule that you are distracted and don't get your perception towards threats.

• When I move in combat, I should be able to do tons of other activities, since they would be considered activity when moving/travelling.

You can. You can jump. Do acrobatics. Swing a weapon. Cast a spell. Talk. And on and on and on. You can do those things while moving in combat. They're called actions.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more twisted this seems. I understand your goals as means to improve the way the system works for your players, according to your playstyle and your values. But honestly, for me, one of the reasons 5e was so successful was because there is no specific jargon. But when I look at the way you try to use the rules, I'm struck by the following facts:

• @iserith absolutely wants the word "group" to mean "individual"
  • For me, a group is a group, and it's not the individual. The travel rules are all about the group, see in particular the insert about "splitting the party"

This is not true. He doesn't want group to mean individual. It's just that like me, he understands that groups are made up OF individuals. Groups(an adventuring party) can all make individual checks by RAW. If they entire group runs at a chasm and leaps over all at once, they do not make a group check to get across. Each one makes an individual check and some may not make it across while others do.

In the context of the surrounding text, the sentence you are hanging your hat on does not mean group check. It's clear from the surrounding text and the surprise rules the travel rules bow to require these passive perception checks to be individual.

• @Maxperson absolutely wants the word "travel" to mean the same thing as the word "movement"
  • For me, this is even more bizarre, as for me, I'm sticking with the examples in the PH:
    • "You travel through the forest and find the dungeon entrance late in the evening of the third day."
    • "After killing the guardian at the entrance to the ancient dwarven stronghold, you consult your map, which leads you through miles of echoing corridors to a chasm bridged by a narrow stone arch."

Whereas I'm going by RAW. I've shown you multiple charts that show that the travel rules are based on racial movement rates. You're looking at examples that can apply to my argument and yours both, but you are choosing to stick your head in the sand and ignore clearly written rules that show you to be wrong. It's not something that I "want." It's what it is.

 

[Lyxen]

Nope. This is a rulings over rules edition and when the rules fail to make sense, the DM is supposed to make a ruling for that situation, so while you are technically correct(the best kind of correct), the reality is that the DM will probably just rule that you are distracted and don't get your perception towards threats.

Ah, that's a much better explanation then. OK, maybe the travelling rules don't make sense to you, or maybe it's the fact that there are no negative modifiers to perception indicated in the rules because of what you are doing, I'm not sure and maybe you can tell me.

My take on this (fully in line with the rulings over rules) is that, as a DM, I have complete liberty to assign disadvantage (or even auto-failure, although I don't like to do this for passive perception, as it's a bit too much of a "got'cha" indicator for the DM when a nasty assassin pops in) when someone is too engrossed in a task. After that, it's up to our individual DM and table sensibilities to decide when and how, especially since the actual circumstances are so important in each case.

You can. You can jump. Do acrobatics. Swing a weapon. Cast a spell. Talk. And on and on and on. You can do those things while moving in combat. They're called actions.

And these actions don't deprive you of your passive perception. But maybe (I'm joking here), it takes much concentration to scribble a note in a book than to do all the above...