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

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
It's funny how you can't even provide ONE SINGLE SOURCE justifying your claim when I have provided you with all sorts, from the rules, to the devs, to well-recognised authors of advice. There's even one on this site, and although it does not pretend to be exhaustive about what affects surprise, it certainly does not say anything about characters not having their PP on.

So no, the "until it's not" does not exist elsewhere than in your own game. That's fine, you can play any way you want. Just don't claim that it's the standard way of playing.
It's fallacious to argue that something must be true because some you think a bunch of people agree with your position. It's irrelevant to what the rules in the book say.

No, GROUPS (Remember the GROUP'S CHANCE OF SUCCESS), within the TRAVEL RULES, don't notice hidden threats IN ADVANCE. Very different. But for that, you need a game where the characters' actions are taken into account
Ah yes, "group's," that word that could be read in the "natural language" you claim the rules were written in, except here obviously because that wouldn't help your position.

Yes, they work seamlessly as written, with the travel rules REFERENCING but not replacing in particular the rules on surprise. But because you confuse everything in a loop that is too simple, that makes it hard for you to perceive the difference. There are rules for travel and noticing threats in advance, and there are rules for combat and surprise. And although they indeed work together seamlessly, it's not in the way you claim, since you are unable to provide any rule making the link.
The rule linking these rules is the core task resolution mechanic, as we've stated: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." Then we have the rules for passive checks: " A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls." In this case, because the rules set forth that the character cannot notice hidden threats while engaged in certain tasks, specifically noting that PP does not apply, there is no uncertainty as to the outcome and there is no passive check. The character simply fails.

Also, since you brought it up, what makes more sense? Making a game meant for ages 12 and up more complex as you suggest or less complex? Simpler seems like the logical choice here to me. Why you'd choose to make it more complicated and Perception strong in the doing is unclear in my view.

No, actually, it's the other way around. The section begins with summarising as the default way of doing it. It just says that "sometimes it's important, though, to know how long it takes to get from one spot to another, whether the answer is in days, hours, or minutes."

The funny thing is that because the only line that you think is supporting your claim (it does not) is in the travel rules, in leads you to the absurdity of forcing characters to be travelling all the time so that you can inflict the penalty you think the game needs on your players. But it's not the way the system works, and it's not necessary anyway.
Here we go again with "natural language for me but not for thee." Do we really need to have a discussion about what the word "can" as in "can summarize the adventurers' movement" means? That does not suggest any kind of default in my view. The section says sometimes you can summarize and sometimes it's important to be more detailed about it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Notably, Sly Flourish has more to say about the mechanics of surprise in a traveling situation other than it is nasty/harsh:

Monsters Surprising Characters

What if we switch sides, though? How does it work if the monsters are trying to ambush the characters? Let's say the gnolls know the characters are coming and they want to hide. Let's say there's sixteen gnolls. We're not about to roll 16 stealth checks. Some gnoll is going to screw it up for sure, and that makes sense. We're also not going to roll a group stealth check for 16 gnolls. Instead, we can use the passive Stealth of the gnolls. They have a passive Dexterity (Stealth) of 11. Not so great. The characters will see them if any of the characters have a passive Perception of 11 or better. However, each character has their own passive Perception. Let's say Broadchest the fighter has a passive Perception of 9; he's going to miss the gnolls and get surprised. And since Broadchest missed all of the gnolls, they're truly "surprised". They can't move or act on their turn and can't take reactions until that turn is over.

This is pretty harsh. Players hate losing actions. While it makes sense, we should use this sparingly; only when it really reinforces a key aspect of the game.

If you don't like the idea of a passive Dexterity (Stealth) check, you might roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check at disadvantage for the whole group and use that against the passive Perceptions of the characters to see who is surprised.
 



Lyxen

Great Old One
See, to me he is saying they don't get to use their PP to notice because he literally says their PP is the baseline to notice something. If their PP was not suspended because of distraction or circumstance then they would have noticed.

This is also exactly what I mean by reading the same thing and coming to a different conclusion.

The thing is that their PP does not even APPLY from the rules perspective, because there is no stealth, and no combat so not surprise. This is exactly what I'm saying, it's travelling by summarising.

Again, I'm all for circumstances mattering, I'm all against some people wanting to impose completely imaginary rules on other people because they feel that they should be part of the RAW (when they obviously are not).
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Notably, Sly Flourish has more to say about the mechanics of surprise in a traveling situation other than it is nasty/harsh:

I completely agree, which is why I posted the link to that article. I just wanted to point that it's not a travelling situation. It's just a combat ambush. No character are doing other activities while travelling. And EVEN THEN, Sly Flourish finds it hard, and not to be abused.

Monsters Surprising Characters

What if we switch sides, though? How does it work if the monsters are trying to ambush the characters? Let's say the gnolls know the characters are coming and they want to hide. Let's say there's sixteen gnolls. We're not about to roll 16 stealth checks. Some gnoll is going to screw it up for sure, and that makes sense. We're also not going to roll a group stealth check for 16 gnolls. Instead, we can use the passive Stealth of the gnolls. They have a passive Dexterity (Stealth) of 11. Not so great. The characters will see them if any of the characters have a passive Perception of 11 or better. However, each character has their own passive Perception. Let's say Broadchest the fighter has a passive Perception of 9; he's going to miss the gnolls and get surprised. And since Broadchest missed all of the gnolls, they're truly "surprised". They can't move or act on their turn and can't take reactions until that turn is over.

This is pretty harsh. Players hate losing actions. While it makes sense, we should use this sparingly; only when it really reinforces a key aspect of the game.

If you don't like the idea of a passive Dexterity (Stealth) check, you might roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check at disadvantage for the whole group and use that against the passive Perceptions of the characters to see who is surprised.
 

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not, but there is a Dice Rolling Pose:
I will investigate immediately!
The thing is that their PP does not even APPLY from the rules perspective, because there is no stealth, and no combat so not surprise. This is exactly what I'm saying, it's travelling by summarising.

Again, I'm all for circumstances mattering, I'm all against some people wanting to impose completely imaginary rules on other people because they feel that they should be part of the RAW (when they obviously are not).
To me, it is in the RAW under Chapter 8 of the DMG.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
It's fallacious to argue that something must be true because some you think a bunch of people agree with your position. It's irrelevant to what the rules in the book say.

I'll reply to the rest later, but I find it really funny to see you now saying "other people don't matter", when you were the first one who tried (and completely failed) to get the devs's support, and when you even tried to get support from the supposed "majority" of posts around here as if that was proving a point.

The fact remains that all the support to be found out there (and from devs as well as respected bloggers) is for my position. You have not been able to find a shred of evidence to support your claims. Why don't you simply let it drop ?
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top