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

[Lyxen]

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.

And that's absolutely fine and one of the possibilities that I was referring to when mentioning a "group check" whether it's the actual "group check" rule in use or not (and that depends on the skills and circumstances).

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.

Some can be, others can be done for the group. If you travel as a group, and you post sentries or have people specifically looking for threats, the intent is for the group to benefit from it, right ? Just as when someone is tracking, ir making a map, or foraging, and making checks, the expectations is that the group will benefit from it, even though they are individual rolls by the character.

So when you have someone assigned in the group to check for danger, you expect the result of his check to benefit the whole group. Are we good so far ?

And for me, in that context, that famous sentence just means exactly what it says: If someone is distracted, he has a passive perception check as usual (although, as discussed in the other post, it might be with whatever circumstantial modifier the DM deems fit) because that's the way the rules on hidden creatures say (amongst others), it might benefit him, but the group will not benefit from it.

Otherwise, it might just have been simpler to say "These characters don’t benefit from their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores for noticing hidden threats." This would have been much simpler than "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." whereas this specific phrasing fits absolutely clearly within the concept of "group travelling" as the rest of the rules.

Note that, as a DM, it's still perfectly RAW to assign heavy negative modifiers if you think that an activity is especially engrossing. Or even auto failure, although as pointed out in the other post, I find this not only a bit unfair to the player and not within the spirit of the rules (adventurers are professional heroes), as does JC since he says that "passive perception is always on", so complete deprivation for me is really for extreme cases (and once more, JC says that it needs the character to be unconscious, which is a rather severe form of distraction).

 

[Vaalingrade]

TLDR:

Both RAW and domestication were a mistake.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's absolutely fine and one of the possibilities that I was referring to when mentioning a "group check" whether it's the actual "group check" rule in use or not (and that depends on the skills and circumstances).

There is no circumstance(by RAW) that has a group check for surprise.

If you travel as a group, and you post sentries or have people specifically looking for threats, the intent is for the group to benefit from it, right ? Just as when someone is tracking, ir making a map, or foraging, and making checks, the expectations is that the group will benefit from it, even though they are individual rolls by the character.

It doesn't matter if you post sentries or have specific people looking for threats(other than maybe a scout way up ahead). By the time the sentries/lookouts are using their passive perception to notice the threat, that threat is close enough for initiative to be rolled. Even if your sentry notices and is not surprised, and even if that sentry yells, "A threat!," it's too late. Those who did not notice the threat due to low passive perception or no usable passive perception due to map making, are surprised.

The benefit of a sentry is to notice creatures that are not sneaking with enough time to do something and/or to have someone who might notice and not be surprised.

And for me, in that context, that famous sentence just means exactly what it says: If someone is distracted, he has a passive perception check as usual (although, as discussed in the other post, it might be with whatever circumstantial modifier the DM deems fit) because that's the way the rules on hidden creatures say (amongst others), it might benefit him, but the group will not benefit from it.

That context is fictional, though. It's not in the books anywhere. You've made it up and are hanging your hat on that fictional context, rather than on the very clear written context that goes directly against your position.

Otherwise, it might just have been simpler to say "These characters don’t benefit from their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores for noticing hidden threats." This would have been much simpler than "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." whereas this specific phrasing fits absolutely clearly within the concept of "group travelling" as the rest of the rules.

The group traveling together, yes. Not any sort of group roll. The RAW travel rules specifically defer to chapter 9 for determining surprise and there is no group roll. Other than listing the few exceptions that deprive people from being able to use their passive perception once you get to chapter 9.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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...

The rules actually cover that.

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

 

[Lyxen]

There is no circumstance(by RAW) that has a group check for surprise.

Who was talking about surprise ? I was just about noticing hidden threats, which is the entire section called "noticing threats" in the "Activity for Travelling".

It doesn't matter if you post sentries or have specific people looking for threats(other than maybe a scout way up ahead). By the time the sentries/lookouts are using their passive perception to notice the threat, that threat is close enough for initiative to be rolled.

Where is the rule for this ? The section about noticing threats does not talk about distance. It just says "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat."

It's about "anyone in the group", but this is precisely where people doing other activities "don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."

This is what ties it together, it has nothing to do with surprise and initiative, just about noticing the threats in advance. Now, if it's twisting corridors, the threat might be so close and so aggressive that combat starts immediately, but if it's travelling along a road and someone in the party notices orcs badly hidden at the forest edge a few hundred meters away, there might not even be a fight.

Even if your sentry notices and is not surprised, and even if that sentry yells, "A threat!," it's too late. Those who did not notice the threat due to low passive perception or no usable passive perception due to map making, are surprised.

That is if combat starts, because the threat is noticed too close to the party, but once more, the rules cover many situations besides this one.

The benefit of a sentry is to notice creatures that are not sneaking with enough time to do something and/or to have someone who might notice and not be surprised.

Exactly, and it's the same benefit while travelling on a road, someone alert enough to see threats in advance. And again, this is where characters don't contribute if they are doing something else. For example, even if the ranger had a high PP but is foraging instead of watching for threats, he will not spot hidden things in advance.

That context is fictional, though. It's not in the books anywhere. You've made it up and are hanging your hat on that fictional context, rather than on the very clear written context that goes directly against your position.

Are you kidding me ? The context is exactly in the paragraph about Noticing hidden threats and Other Activities. Here it is in its entirety, I've just highlighted the relevant sentences, they are in proper order in the text.

This is really what pisses me off, honestly. There is exactly the same wording in the first sentence and the second one. To the letter. And people want somehow to relate the second on to depriving people of PP for surprise ? When these sentences are so general that they can cover anything hidden, whether a monster, a trap, quicksand, etc. ?

Come on:

1. Check if anyone in the group notices a hidden threat, whatever it is.
2. If people are otherwise engaged, they don't contribute to the group's change to notice the threat.

How more straightforward can this be ? The words are exactly the same, "noticing a hidden threat", "anyone in the group", some people not contributing to the group's chance ?

The group traveling together, yes. Not any sort of group roll. The RAW travel rules specifically defer to chapter 9 for determining surprise and there is no group roll. Other than listing the few exceptions that deprive people from being able to use their passive perception once you get to chapter 9.

Once more, I'm sorry, but NOTHING in the section above mentions depriving ANYONE of their PP for surprise. The only thing that is said in this section is:

• Use PP to determine if anyone IN THE GROUP (it's written all over the place in that section, do you really need me to highlight all the occurences of GROUP in these sections ?) notice a hidden threat. And that is a process in itself, with an exception FOR NOTICING HIDDEN THREATS, the sentence cannot be more clear.
• "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." AND THAT IS ALL ABOUT SURPRISE, no modifiers, no conditions, NOTHING.

 

[Lyxen]

The rules actually cover that.

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

Exactly. And does it say that the distracted creature has anything impacting its passive perception ? Does it say anything about an impact on surprise rolls ? No. (and no, before you even try this, the creature is NOT travelling, ie NOT doing anything like mapping). Even though you MIGHT remain hidden the creature still gets a passive perception check as is the case when trying to use stealth on someone: "Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties." Nothing supersedes this rule anywhere. The DM allows you to remain hidden although you are in plain sight, but there is no avoiding that check.

This is exactly why JC provides his very clear example in the Podcast on stealth, he takes that EXACT same example with a creature that is distracted: ". Once you've made your check and that again is you have to make sure you're not sort of standing right out in the open with no visual obstruction at all. And you're not like screaming or shattering things and what not the stealthiest screamer around. Now we even say though, right in the stealth rule this is going back to this is a part of the game. Firmly in the DMS hands, we even say that the being out in the open part, the DM can ignore if the circumstances are right like you might be sneaking up on somebody who's watching, let's say some instals perform on street of water deep. And they might be so engrossed by the performance that even though it's broad daylight. There's no fog. And you're just walking right up behind the person. The DM might decide, well, you know your dexterity.check was good enough, and this person is so distracted I'm going to let you do this right out in the open. Now the DM might decide though, okay, this guys distracted, so I'm going to let you just. I'm going to let you attempt this, but you might get a lousy roll. Which means maybe you bumped into somebody you tripped, you did something to give your position away, or even if you don't mind aside, maybe you didn't give your position away, but it just means you utterly failed to sneak up on this person. So again, this is a great example of the environment really plays a big role in the attentiveness of other people. It makes sense now going back to passive perception. This is, as its name implies, passive. And it's considered to be always on, unless you're under the effect of a condition like the unconscious condition that says you're not aware of your surroundings that really the practical effect of that is basically your passive perception is shut off. Passive perception is on basically whenever you're conscious and aware. Advantage and disadvantage can be applied to it if you have advantage on pass on, let's say perception checks in general. Then it would affect your passive perception by giving you a + 5. Similarly, if you have disadvantage, you have minus five to your passive perception score, because its passive a player does not get to say they use it. This isn't this isn't something people using my passive lesson right now. You know, it's always on. That's the baseline."

THe "engrossed person" still has his passive perception. Nothing changes that.

 

[Maxperson]

Who was talking about surprise ? I was just about noticing hidden threats, which is the entire section called "noticing threats" in the "Activity for Travelling".

The rules are. Specifically, the rules in "activities while traveling" section in the subsection called "noticing threats." Since you're talking about those rules, then you are also talking about surprise.

When those threats are hostile creatures, you automatically have the surprise rules from chapter 9 incorporated into the travel rules. If it's just a dungeon trap you encounter while you are traveling around the dungeon, then surprise isn't a factor, though the loss of an individual's passive perception use would be.

"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."

Where is the rule for this ? The section about noticing threats does not talk about distance. It just says "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat."

Look at the surprise rules for noticing hidden threats. They are all individual rolls where some party members can be surprised and others not. If the sentry is not surprised, but the fighter behind him didn't notice the threat, that fighter is surprised. Surprise not a group check by RAW.

This is what ties it together, it has nothing to do with surprise and initiative, just about noticing the threats in advance.

A hidden threat isn't noticed far enough in advance, unless there is an individual scout involved that avoids notice and can get back in time to warn the rest of the party.

Now, if it's twisting corridors, the threat might be so close and so aggressive that combat starts immediately, but if it's travelling along a road and someone in the party notices orcs badly hidden at the forest edge a few hundred meters away, there might not even be a fight.

Nobody is noticing hidden orcs at that range without a high powered scope.

By RAW, though, a stealthy group gets checked at combat range. Look up the surprise rules in chapter 9 that the travel rules use.

Are you kidding me ? The context is exactly in the paragraph about Noticing hidden threats and Other Activities. Here it is in its entirety, I've just highlighted the relevant sentences, they are in proper order in the text."

Nope. You're again ignoring the hard rules that prove you wrong and incorrectly interpreting the portions you are highlighting.

This is really what pisses me off, honestly. There is exactly the same wording in the first sentence and the second one. To the letter. And people want somehow to relate the second on to depriving people of PP for surprise ? When these sentences are so general that they can cover anything hidden, whether a monster, a trap, quicksand, etc. ?

Because those are the rules. Spelled out for you in the portions of what you just posted that you are choosing to ignore.

Come on:

1. Check if anyone in the group notices a hidden threat, whatever it is.
2. If people are otherwise engaged, they don't contribute to the group's change to notice the threat.

How more straightforward can this be ? The words are exactly the same, "noticing a hidden threat", "anyone in the group", some people not contributing to the group's chance ?

Out of context like that, it can seem like you are correct. When you take the rest of the hard rules for noticing threats in both the travel rules and the combat section, it's painfully clear that it's not talking about a group check, but a group's individual checks.

If they were talking about passive perception and a group check, the sentence would read, "If people are otherwise engaged, they don't contribute to the group check to notice the threat."

 

[Lyxen]

The rules are. Specifically, the rules in "activities while traveling" section in the subsection called "noticing threats." Since you're talking about those rules, then you are also talking about surprise.

Actually no, surprise is NOT covered by these rules, the DM is just sent there if combat erupts. Combat is just one of the cases, for one, and second it's just referred to, without specific comment and or modifiers, just refer to chapter 9.

When those threats are hostile creatures, you automatically have the surprise rules from chapter 9 incorporated into the travel rules. If it's just a dungeon trap you encounter while you are traveling around the dungeon, then surprise isn't a factor, though the loss of an individual's passive perception use would be.

They are not incorporated, they are referred to.

"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."

Exactly, just assess surprise as usual.

Look at the surprise rules for noticing hidden threats. They are all individual rolls where some party members can be surprised and others not. If the sentry is not surprised, but the fighter behind him didn't notice the threat, that fighter is surprised. Surprise not a group check by RAW.

Exactly, which implies that it is NOT covered by the travelling rules which, as clearly demonstrated, refers to groups, ESPECIALLY the sentence on Other Activities while travelling.

A hidden threat isn't noticed far enough in advance, unless there is an individual scout involved that avoids notice and can get back in time to warn the rest of the party.

NOTHING in the rules say this. Absolutely nothing. If you think it does, show me where it is, because the rules say nothing of the kind.

Nobody is noticing hidden orcs at that range without a high powered scope.

That is a personal rule of yours, actually the rules say the exact opposite. Everyone gets a passive perception to notice someone trying to hide from them.

By RAW, though, a stealthy group gets checked at combat range.

Wrong, again, if you think that there is such a rule, show it to me. Stealth checks vs. PP are done totally at the DM's discretion (like any check actually).

The problem is that you are focussed on only specific situations and inventing rules, but if you want to be convincing, you will have to show them.

Look up the surprise rules in chapter 9 that the travel rules use.

No, they don't use them. They just say, WHEN COMBAT ERUPTS, check for surprise. Nothing more. You are totally inventing things here.

Nope. You're again ignoring the hard rules that prove you wrong and incorrectly interpreting the portions you are highlighting.

OK, you know what, at this level of ignoring two sentences that are in perfect sequence and using the same words for exactly the same purpose (using PP for noticing, being excluded from noticing), there's nothing more that can be done.

Because those are the rules. Spelled out for you in the portions of what you just posted that you are choosing to ignore.

I am ignoring nothing in there. Again, where do the rules say that people don't get a normal check for surprise ? I'm still waiting for you to point me out the exact rule that says that surprise is modified. The ONLY thing that is said is that

Out of context like that, it can seem like you are correct.

There is no other context. Simply nothing else. Both the rule on noticing hidden threat and the caveat about some people not contributing refer to the group or anyone in the group noticing a hidden threat. It's all about the group. It's in almost every sentence in that section. Here it is, just for you:

The last one is absolutely telling, noticing hidden threats is a GROUP SUCCESS. For christs sake's its' written there in plain english. Do you need to see it closer ?

When you take the rest of the hard rules for noticing threats in both the travel rules and the combat section, it's painfully clear that it's not talking about a group check, but a group's individual checks.

It's a sum of individual checks, no-one ever said the contrary, but that is ALSO what a group check is, you know ? Did you not know that ? "To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check." Ta-da ! A group of individual checks !

And I'm not even saying that it's a group check in the sense of the "group check" rule (although it certainly can be if the DM wants it), but the travel rules specify clearly A GROUP'S CHANCE, not an individual's chance !

Moreover, once more, this has nothing to do with surprise. Everything here is just about noticing hidden threats. WHEN COMBAT ERUPTS (and only then, whether the threat has been noticed or not), then just go to chapter 9 and apply the rules, some people might be surprised or not as per the combat rules.

If they were talking about passive perception and a group check, the sentence would read, "If people are otherwise engaged, they don't contribute to the group check to notice the threat."

It seems that you are hung up "group check" as per the rules on "group check". But once more, this is 5e, natural language and all that, and it can be that or just a series of individual checks (which is basically the same, as demonstrated above), but in any case, the result applies to the group, since it's a group's chance of success that is considered in the end. And some people might not be able to contribute, because they can't see the threat at all, or because they are otherwise occupied, but that's all it says. It does NOT say that this replaces individual checks either for stealth or for surprise.

 

[Maxperson]

Stuff

I had a long response typed out, but there's no real point. You refuse to see what the rules really say, but it really doesn't matter since as long as your players are having fun, you're doing it right.

 

[Lyxen]

You refuse to see what the rules really say

Honestly, it's really funny here. The rules could not be more clear, the wording is consistent throughout the whole section, talking about managing the party as a group (and even indicating what happens when you split that group into smaller groups in the insert), normalising their speeds, providing marching order (if it's not for a group, what is it for ?), then explaining how the group can organise itself with people doing some activities during the travel, and others looking for threats.


The rules never say to deprive characters of checks, never say that when you notice a threat, you are already in combat anyway, never say anything about being automatically surprised or anything of the kind, and you have been consistently unable to prove anything of the kind.

You are insisting that this can be interpreted only your way, that having people noticing threats not only serves only themselves, that they cannot warn the others, and that people who are not on watch are going to be automatically surprised by everything that pops up. Fine, play that way at your table if you prefer.

My take is that this is exactly the same thing that has always been described by every edition of D&D, that it's useful to spread the activities and that people watching are there to help and protect other people during the travel, that some threats can be noticed in advance and that not only does this make for a much more interesting and varied game, but it's also much fairer to the players. It also encourages them to spread the activities intelligently, and for characters to make meaningful choices, is the ranger going to watch for danger or is he going to go hunting, who are the second best at doing things, etc.

And I do believe that, in this, I'm supported by the devs, as the examples described in particular when discussing stealth all show that adventurers are supposed to be real heroes, not morons just wandering blindly through wilderness and dungeon and being surprised as soon as they are even just looking around.

And, as an aside, this is also what you find in most computer games implementing TTRGP rules, assigning roles, and people on watch or scouting or looking for danger warning the whole group and not only their sorry asses when a threat is noticed. And the game asking you whether, having noticed the threat, you want to confront it or avoid it for example.

The rules totally support that kind of play, but have fun with your onetruewayism of reading them if that is what your table enjoys.