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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="iserith" data-source="post: 8546268" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>As the subsequent poster pointed out, it's pretty clear using "natural language" that the "group's chance" distinction is a casual term, not a game term. Odd that you don't apply your own argument for "natural language" here despite being the first to broach that matter in this thread (as I recall).</p><p></p><p>Further, I have never said they don't have a passive Perception score, not once. What I'm saying is that their score doesn't apply to resolving what happens when they run afoul of a trap or hidden monsters while engaged in certain other tasks. It means there is no passive check at all - they simply fail to notice. Checks, passive or otherwise, only come into play when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The rule in this case takes away the uncertainty as to the outcome - they just fail. No uncertainty, no check.</p><p></p><p>As well, JC failing to mention the times when passive Perception doesn't apply means nothing where the rules are concerned. They say what they say, regardless of what JC said extemporaneously on a podcast. If you know anything about the history of JC's rulings (and reversals of those rulings and the reversals of the reversals), by the way, you might not be so quick to assert his words as evidence of what the rules actually say.</p><p></p><p>Finally, Perception doesn't "bother" me as you keep erroneously saying. I've never said that, not once. Some DMs have issues with it often because they aren't taking all the rules into account and therefore making it stronger than may be intended. For those DMs, a solution is to simply include meaningful trade-offs as laid out in the rules. Another solution might be to keep it strong - or even make it stronger by having every monster try to surprise the PCs (watch out for that mammoth hiding behind the tree!) - then institute a social agreement that players should not invest in the things the DM is incentivizing without some kind of veneer of characterization or backstory. For my part, that is an unnecessary kluge that works against the natural human inclination to do what is incentivized.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8546268, member: 97077"] As the subsequent poster pointed out, it's pretty clear using "natural language" that the "group's chance" distinction is a casual term, not a game term. Odd that you don't apply your own argument for "natural language" here despite being the first to broach that matter in this thread (as I recall). Further, I have never said they don't have a passive Perception score, not once. What I'm saying is that their score doesn't apply to resolving what happens when they run afoul of a trap or hidden monsters while engaged in certain other tasks. It means there is no passive check at all - they simply fail to notice. Checks, passive or otherwise, only come into play when there's uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence for failure. The rule in this case takes away the uncertainty as to the outcome - they just fail. No uncertainty, no check. As well, JC failing to mention the times when passive Perception doesn't apply means nothing where the rules are concerned. They say what they say, regardless of what JC said extemporaneously on a podcast. If you know anything about the history of JC's rulings (and reversals of those rulings and the reversals of the reversals), by the way, you might not be so quick to assert his words as evidence of what the rules actually say. Finally, Perception doesn't "bother" me as you keep erroneously saying. I've never said that, not once. Some DMs have issues with it often because they aren't taking all the rules into account and therefore making it stronger than may be intended. For those DMs, a solution is to simply include meaningful trade-offs as laid out in the rules. Another solution might be to keep it strong - or even make it stronger by having every monster try to surprise the PCs (watch out for that mammoth hiding behind the tree!) - then institute a social agreement that players should not invest in the things the DM is incentivizing without some kind of veneer of characterization or backstory. For my part, that is an unnecessary kluge that works against the natural human inclination to do what is incentivized. [/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