Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Beast master wants to use pet to get +5 to passive perception
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8544571" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>The ranger and wolf are not in combat and therefore the help action required in combat is not applicable. Bringing it up is pointless.</p><p></p><p>If you don't think they are being productive together as a DM then ask the player how the wolf is helping. Then decide. It's a reasonable approach but it's also reasonable to simply play by mechanics. A lot of tables do it.</p><p></p><p>The pet having it's own roll when the rules stipulate passive perception is moot. At that point there's no advantage. Opposed stealth check is based on that static passive perception DC. It's only a question if the wolf or ranger is also surprised or not. It's not possible to have a benefit from additional rolling that does not exist. Granting the bonus is the mechanic used with the rolls are replaced with static numbers.</p><p></p><p>Feats being options cannot be an argument in the case of benefits between two different feats. If feats aren't allowed then neither feat matters and if feats are allowed then the argument is valid.</p><p></p><p>Being enough most of the time is why the other times are a situational benefit and why it's a minor consideration to allow. It's also not different than any other class that uses similar mechanics. There are a lot of ways to gain advantage on a check that can be used with the same feat. There's no reason to gatekeep rangers out of it with this method just because it's not on your approved list. </p><p></p><p>You can call it a house rule if that makes you feel better, but the basic rules are the DM determines if what the players are doing is possible so if the player says "hey, my wolf is doing this to help me" and it sounds reasonable then the helping each other rule applies and the passive check bonus rule applies. That doesn't seem to be not the default to me at all. </p><p></p><p>It's not going to hurt anyone's game to let a beast master ranger make use of the beast he selected as part of the whole character concept.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 8544571, member: 6750235"] The ranger and wolf are not in combat and therefore the help action required in combat is not applicable. Bringing it up is pointless. If you don't think they are being productive together as a DM then ask the player how the wolf is helping. Then decide. It's a reasonable approach but it's also reasonable to simply play by mechanics. A lot of tables do it. The pet having it's own roll when the rules stipulate passive perception is moot. At that point there's no advantage. Opposed stealth check is based on that static passive perception DC. It's only a question if the wolf or ranger is also surprised or not. It's not possible to have a benefit from additional rolling that does not exist. Granting the bonus is the mechanic used with the rolls are replaced with static numbers. Feats being options cannot be an argument in the case of benefits between two different feats. If feats aren't allowed then neither feat matters and if feats are allowed then the argument is valid. Being enough most of the time is why the other times are a situational benefit and why it's a minor consideration to allow. It's also not different than any other class that uses similar mechanics. There are a lot of ways to gain advantage on a check that can be used with the same feat. There's no reason to gatekeep rangers out of it with this method just because it's not on your approved list. You can call it a house rule if that makes you feel better, but the basic rules are the DM determines if what the players are doing is possible so if the player says "hey, my wolf is doing this to help me" and it sounds reasonable then the helping each other rule applies and the passive check bonus rule applies. That doesn't seem to be not the default to me at all. It's not going to hurt anyone's game to let a beast master ranger make use of the beast he selected as part of the whole character concept. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Beast master wants to use pet to get +5 to passive perception
Top