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

[Seramus]

For me, Surprise is often all or nothing. Either nobody notices and the bad guys pull off their ambush, or at least one good guy notices and starts alerting the others to danger.

In the middle of those two is about one round where the bad guys KNOW they have been outed and decide to attack immediately. Maybe conditions were not right for a perfect ambush but they are going to lose the element of surprise if they wait any longer.

There's also the case where some enemies are hidden the whole time, but others are visible. Maybe negotiations with the orcs is going south and a totally unseen sniper catches the signal to start firing.

I've seen DMs rule on either side of the fence for that last example.

 

[Lyxen]

There's evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, right, don't you feel a bit alone here ? What evidence is there that you are convincing anyone, in particular since, in the last 15 posts, apart from saying "I'm right", you have not said anything new, or anything that would further support your claims, either from a RAW or RAI perspective. Maybe it's time for you to move on ?

Once more, you have zero proof, you are not even reading properly the ONE sentence in whole the rules that you think is supporting your claim, what you are saying contradicts the RAI as explained, and every website out there contradicts you.

One more, very clearly, from here. Starting combat is NOT what you think, it's not because you are the one to pull out the dagger to stab the duke when everyone is at the party, that you will surprise anyone and have the initiative. This is in particular so that the various abilities of creatures present can actually kick in. But also so that characters who invested in perception get to shine. And you'll see again how passive perception is INTENDED to function, on top of how it's actually written (which, once more, you are ignoring because you are scared of the effet on your game).

I know, you don't consider external advice when reading the rules, blah blah blah, but then don't go around giving advice yourself, please, especially when it's bad advice, not grounded in the rules, and actually not in general conducive to fun, causing players to do nothing for a round and in general shutting down their abilities.

So I can guess what's going to appear in the next post, it's going to be again "I'm right" without any supporting evidence. Prove me wrong.

 

[Irlo]

Maybe it's time for you to move on ?

Good advice for everyone!

And you'll see again how passive perception is INTENDED to function, on top of how it's actually written (which, once more, you are ignoring because you are scared of the effet on your game).

And when we start attributing people's rules interpretations and implementation to fear, it's definitely time to move on.

See you all in other threads. EDIT: Unless I'm busy foraging, in which case I probably won't see you.

 

[Arilyn]

Good advice for everyone!

And when we start attributing people's rules interpretations and implementation to fear, it's definitely time to move on.

See you all in other threads.

Yep. My wolf buddy ate all our rations and ran off into the woods. I was too distracted by all the arguing to notice.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, right, don't you feel a bit alone here ? What evidence is there that you are convincing anyone, in particular since, in the last 15 posts, apart from saying "I'm right", you have not said anything new, or anything that would further support your claims, either from a RAW or RAI perspective. Maybe it's time for you to move on ?

I don't feel at all alone in my interpretation as others in this thread have arrived at the same conclusion on their own. See also Likes. I don't see much of that going on with regard to your position. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong, of course, but you asked and I answered.

 

[Iry]

Yep. My wolf buddy ate all our rations and ran off into the woods. I was too distracted by all the arguing to notice.

My wolf buddy ate all our rations and then just sat there looking guilty.
The lazy bugger. I knew he'd do it again given half a chance!

 

[Maxperson]

He even dredged up one thing that I had forgotten from the SAC, that you are not surprised if you see ANY of the attackers, not all the attackers.

Nobody here has said otherwise and this makes no difference with what we are saying.

And And you will notice the use of group checks, of passive stealth as I advocated, etc. But NOTHING in there about depriving anyone of their surprise checks.

I looked and there are no group surprise checks, because surprise checks are individual only.

Note in particular this, which I 100% agree with: "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."

Doing this because a player is MAPPING is not only harsh in my view but also really encouraging players not to participate in group-benefitting activities.

It's not harsh at all. It's the way the game has pretty much always been played. Surprised people lose their first round. If you are distracted by something like drawing a map, that's grounds for being surprised.

 

[Maxperson]

just point out that this is the rangers class feature - its an intimate companion not a pet and so a non ranger cant use their mutt in the same way (unless they also want to get intimate with their furry and become a beastmaster - fade to black)

What happens in the forest, stays in the forest.

 

[Maxperson]

However, a beastmaster companion "doesn't take an action unless you command it to" -PHB. Ergo, if the ranger is surprised but the companion is not, the companion cannot take an action*. Less clear, but what happens if the companion is surprised but the ranger is not? It looks like the ranger can still use their bonus action to command the companion to act. You could argue that the ranger and companion cannot be surprised separately. Which means RAW having a companion with keen senses is no benefit.

They can command it to act, but it won't be able to obey since it's surprised and cannot act. It would be like a wizard trying to cast a spell in front of a beholder with it's eye open. Just because you can normally do something, doesn't mean that special rules won't stop you from succeeding.

 

[Maxperson]

There's evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. I'm pretty sure we were all on this side of things from the get go. And the one person on the other side hasn't been persuaded.