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

[Lyxen]

Personally, I wouldn't even let a PC help another PC with passive perception or any passive check. So I'm sure as heck not going to let their pets do it.

My perspective exactly passive perception is always on because it's instinctual, I really don't see how it can be consciously combined.

 

[Lyxen]

We've already shown you the rule ad nauseum, but you keep misreading it or misunderstanding it. You choose some vague notion that travel has to mean long distances when the rules say otherwise. You choose some vague notion that travel in dungeons means walking through it on the way somewhere else, when the rules show otherwise.

And you have consistently failed to show where the rules are that say:

• All movement is travel.
• Any rule that deprives any creature of its passive perception for himself (and anything contrary to what the lead designer says).

So feel free to run your game any way you want to deal with whatever problem you have, but you have no ground to say that a table that uses travel when actually travelling and simple movement otherwise, or a table that never deprives a character of his passive perception for himself unless unconscious is not following the rules.

 

[Lyxen]

Look guys, at this stage, my only problem is with people trying very hard to prove that some rules have to apply everywhere, when they are simply not formulated that way. But in the interest of progress, I'll give you an example that I hope will clarify things.

• Group of 5 adventurers, all have PP of 12 except the ranger who has 18.
• Ambushing orcs, they have a lookout who is a scout with good stealth (rolled a 16) and the rest who are rabble, rolled 10, but they are not in sight at all, beyond the ridge overlooking the road.

Now, let's assume that we are using travel rules because the ambush is somewhere between two towns, with the PCs travelling from one to the other. This is travelling, so everyone could be alert, but the ranger has decided to forage instead.

What is happening, RAW ?

• There is a hidden threat, an orc ambush. Does the group notice the ambush ? No, since the ranger is foraging and looking at plants and tracks for game, his PP does not count (and this is the ONLY impact, he is not deprived of his PP, as JC says, it's always on, it's just that, for the travel rules, he does not help the party notice a threat) to notice the orc lookout, and the lookout's stealth is way over the PP of all members of the group. So the group walks into the ambush, the lookout starts the ambush, and all the orcs attack.
• End of travel, start of combat.
• First phase of combat is checking for surprise, who is surprised ?
  • The orcs cannot be surprised, the party was making no attempt at stealth travelling along a road, they have a lookout who was giving hand signals to the other orcs, etc.
  • The party is surprised by the lookout but not by the rest of the orcs, so the lookout has advantage if he attacks, whereas the orcs do not when they come out, since they are obvious when attacking, even from ambush (this is straight up from the stealth rules).
  • The ranger is not surprised. He is still in the middle of the ambush, but his sixth sense or whatever has warned him and he has, at the last instant, seen the lookout, who does not have advantage on him either.

Now, if the ranger had been alert for danger, he would have noticed the threat of the ambush ahead of the fight, and the fight might not even have occurred. But if the party then decides to attack the orc lookout, there might still be surprise, because the rest of the orcs are just not visible. Fortunately, their stealth roll is low enough that, when the fight start and surprise is looked at, they are clumsy enough to make it so that no-one is surprised.

But if they had been a bit better at hiding (let's say with a 14 on their roll), the adventurers (except the ranger) would still have been surprised when they unexpectedly pop up.

All clear, consistent with both the travelling rules and the stealth rules and the surprise rules. And note that because passive perception is used, there is no overhead, it's just checking numbers.

 

[Lyxen]

Just wanted to add to the above that, in general, doing the check twice, as part of the travel rules then for surprise is not only fast, but usually gives no second chances, the numbers stay as they are, for the PP because it's just a number, and for the stealth because the stealth check remains valid until the creature stops hiding or is discovered.

Still, it does not guarantee that the results will be the same, for example the DM can very well provide advantage or disadvantage depending on circumstances and actions taken. For example, having failed to notice the orcs at a distance because the rabble is hidden behind the ridge and too far for other senses to carry, the orcs might get disadvantage when they spring the ambush because they are just loud, even when they are not yet seen. Or from even closer because of smell, etc. That would increase the chances of individual party members not being surprised.

The rules of 5e are extremely flexible, and the DM can do many, many things with them depending on the playstyle at the table, all of that while still being perfectly in line with the rules.

 

[iserith]

You can say whatever you want, but you usually need a solid case to do this, and clearly you don't, since you have not found even one sentence in the rules or the devs intent to support you, se below.



I'm not dismissing it, I'm applying when mandated, which is better than you choosing to ignore words in the rule when they don't suit you.

Don't you think that, if the rule wanted to say that characters engaged in activity simply don't get a passive perception check for surprise and noticing creatures, it would have been written that way, rather than "not contributing to the group success ?" 5e rules are simple and straightforward. Ignoring words to suit what you think is the intent, when actually the devs themselves tell you taht you are wrong, is simply absurd.



And I have shown you the intent from the lead developper, which tells you, once more, that you are wrong about the intention, just as you are about the rules, since the intent, written again and again and again is that passive perception is always. Do you deny this ? Do you have any supporting evidence that the intent is as you claim ? No, obviously, since you would have produced it by now. So you are wrong about this as you are about the rules.



Look man, just read the PH, OK ? The whole game does not think that travel is important in general: "The DM can summarize the adventurers' movement without calculating exact distances or travel times: "You travel through the forest and find the dungeon entrance late in the evening of the third day." Even in a dungeon, particularly a large dungeon or a cave network, the DM can summarize movement between encounters: "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."

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 rules for determining travel time depend on two factors: the speed and travel pace of the creatures moving and the terrain they're moving over."

So, sometimes, it's important, and you use the travel rules. Otherwise, it's just a summary from the DM.

Please stop with the OneTrueWayism of "Because I need the travel rules to impose a restriction on perception - that I'm scared of - everyone has to use the travel rules all the time, otherwise they are not following the rules and this is contrary to the intent of the game". The game has no such intent (passive perception is always on, word of the lead designers, so deal with it) and travel is a small subsection of the game, that is generally ignored and summarised by the DM, because it's not as interesting as actually exploring, fighting and having social encounters.

I'm cutting the part where you insult my way of gaming and again claim the high and mighty position of following rules, which is funny because you don't even read the one sentence that you like to its end.

One of the many odd parts of your interpretation to me is that you seem to heavily weight the word "group's" in the rule as a game term (possibly referring to group checks, though there's no additional support for that interpretation) while at the same time arguing that D&D 5e is written in "natural language." Those things can't be squared here in my view and looks for all the world to be confirmation bias due to a dislike of "travel." My reading of the "natural language" in that rule indicates it works hand in glove with all other rules related to Perception, creating a unified whole instead of an odd and frankly unrealistic (by the standards of some) exception carved out for "travel," which again, is just movement on all the listed scales.

But anyway, there is no OneTrueWayism or insulting going on here. Everyone is free to play as they wish. But as I and others have pointed out, numerous times, there are rules in place that cover the times when passive Perception isn't in effect. Failing to take that into account in play makes Perception stronger than may be intended.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not the same check. Read the travel rules. The example is clear.

The travel rules are irrelevant and don't say what you think they say in any case. The specific initiative rules control the situation. All the passive perception not counting means is that the PC in question is automatically surprised. Here's the travel rules quotes. Note how they are individual.

Noticing Threats.

"Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." - Anyone, singular.

"Surprising Foes. If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See chapter 9 for more about surprise." - Use the combat surprise rules with individual checks.

The travel rules support me here, not you. You keep trying to pull out one sentence that you think contradicts multiple clear rules as if that will prove you right and the multiple clear rules wrong. It doesn't work that way.

When you have a sentence like, "These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats." that can be interpreted two ways. The first as a sentence that just means that group's (all individuals separately in the group) chances of noticing a threat go down if people are distracted, and the second as a group check that contradicts multiple other rules, the one that contradicts is flat out wrong.

And this is exactly why people do not lose their passive perception, EVER.

You're correct. They still have passive perception. They just can't use it in certain situations.

"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."

And again why it's ANY character or monster, without any restriction.

There are restrictions. Sometimes you auto fail because of distraction. RAW is crystal clear on that.

Tsss, you are not following the section from the travel rules. Surprise is only rolled when the combat starts. But when combat starts, it's not exploration anymore, it's combat. And it's certainly not travelling anymore, even if you were using the rules before.

Noticing threats is a general section in the travel rule, and it might be in use or not (and usually it's not, because the DM summarises travel). But assuming it is, it's clearly a group activity, where everyone travels at the same pace, for example. Nothing says that the checks there replace those of surprise. It's actually the contrary.

No. You are wrong. The noticing threats subsection in travel is to help guide you into the combat section. I mean, it literally tells you that. I'll quote it a second time in this same post. From the travel rules, noticing threats subsection.

"Surprising Foes. If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See chapter 9 for more about surprise." - Use the combat surprise rules with individual checks.

 

[Maxperson]

You can see it that way, and it's sort of supported by the rule on splitting group in the travel section. So if you absolutely want to use these rules (nothing says you can't, I'm just pointing out that nothing says you must either), that's the way to do it.

I'm just pointing out that I very much doubt that every single time an adventurer moves independently across a room to inspect a candelabra, you ask him his travel pace and if he is using forced march...

Again, I don't ask his pace because I know it already. He's an elf, so his pace is 30 feet a round(just like it is in the travel rules) unless he tells me otherwise.

 

[Lyxen]

One of the many odd parts of your interpretation to me is that you seem to heavily weight the word "group's" in the rule as a game term (possibly referring to group checks, though there's no additional support for that interpretation) while at the same time arguing that D&D 5e is written in "natural language."

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 reading of the "natural language" in that rule indicates it works hand in glove with all other rules related to Perception, creating a unified whole instead of an odd and frankly unrealistic (by the standards of some) exception carved out for "travel," which again, is just movement on all the listed scales.

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.

But anyway, there is no OneTrueWayism or insulting going on here. Everyone is free to play as they wish. But as I and others have pointed out, numerous times, there are rules in place that cover the times when passive Perception isn't in effect.

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.

Failing to take that into account in play makes Perception stronger than may be intended.

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.

 

[Lyxen]

Again, I don't ask his pace because I know it already. He's an elf, so his pace is 30 feet a round(just like it is in the travel rules) unless he tells me otherwise.

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.

\

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

 

[Lyxen]

The travel rules are irrelevant and don't say what you think they say in any case.

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

The specific initiative rules control the situation. All the passive perception not counting means is that the PC in question is automatically surprised.

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

Here's the travel rules quotes. Note how they are individual.

Noticing Threats.

"Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." - Anyone, singular.

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

"Surprising Foes. If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See chapter 9 for more about surprise." - Use the combat surprise rules with individual checks.

And that's exactly what I say. Where is the automatic surprise ? Still not a trace of it.

The travel rules support me here, not you.

I thought they were irrelevant ?

When you have a sentence like, "These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats." that can be interpreted two ways. The first as a sentence that just means that group's (all individuals separately in the group) chances of noticing a threat go down if people are distracted, and the second as a group check that contradicts multiple other rules, the one that contradicts is flat out wrong.

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.

You're correct. They still have passive perception. They just can't use it in certain situations.

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

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.

"These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."
There are restrictions. Sometimes you auto fail because of distraction. RAW is crystal clear on that.

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. You are wrong. The noticing threats subsection in travel is to help guide you into the combat section.

No, sorry, the noticing threat is totally general, and has nothing to do with the type of threat. It could be a trap, for example. Nothing links it to the combat, except for a clear reference that says "when combat start, use the combat section": "If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See chapter 9 for more about surprise." And that's it.

I mean, it literally tells you that. I'll quote it a second time in this same post. From the travel rules, noticing threats subsection.

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" ?

"Surprising Foes. If the adventurers encounter a hostile creature or group, the DM determines whether the adventurers or their foes might be surprised when combat erupts. See chapter 9 for more about surprise." - Use the combat surprise rules with individual checks.

Exactly what I said and applied. Where does it say autofail ? How does "not contributing to the group's success" translate to autofail ? By what magic ?