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

[Maxperson]

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.

What is there to say? We've shown you the context and rules over and over. There's even a saying for this. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At this point all we can do is keep pointing to the water you are standing in front of and say, "Look, water!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

That's one reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't actually say that - RAW the beastmaster commands it and it acts (specific beats general).

It's also the worst possible interpretation for an already underpowered class. Your pet makes you twice as likely to suffer from surprise.

 

[Maxperson]

That's one reasonable interpretation, but it doesn't actually say that - RAW the beastmaster commands it and it acts (specific beats general).

It's also the worst possible interpretation for an already underpowered class. Your pet makes you twice as likely to suffer from surprise.

RAW doesn't actually say it the way you are portraying it. The specifics of beastmaster RAW include this.

"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can." If it's surprised, the "best as it can" is that it can't, so the specific beastmaster rules in this case aren't overriding the surprise rules at all.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

RAW doesn't actually say it the way you are portraying it. The specifics of beastmaster RAW include this.

"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can." If it's surprised, the best it can is it can't, so specific in this case isn't overriding the surprise rules at all.

As I said, it a reasonable interpretation of the text. Other reasonable interpretations exist. DMs, on observing it makes beastmasters even more rubbish, might prefer a more generous one.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Still not a proof of convincing anyone, just a proof of what I predicted you would do, just say that you are right, with zero evidence from RAW, RAI or recognised opinions. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Lyxen]

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

Which proves, straight out of the box, that the sentence: "These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." has absolutely NOTHING to do with surprise checks.

It's not harsh at all. It's the way the game has pretty much always been played.

No, that's the way YOU have been playing it, but looking around the web, it's certainly not the intent nor the way it's applied all around, rather the contrary, and actually, I can see no example of being played that way.

Surprised people lose their first round. If you are distracted by something like drawing a map, that's grounds for being surprised.

Again, that is your view, I have seen absolutely no RAW that this is the case, and you actually contradict yourself above.

The one thing where you are going wrong is taking "not focussed on watching for danger" as "totally oblivious to danger", this is not the basic assumption of adventurers, RAW (since there are no rules saying this) and clearly RAI, all the examples that I've given point my way, and absolutely none yours.

 

[Lyxen]

What is there to say?

Well, maybe actually pointing me to a rule that does not rely on changing half the words in the sentence in the hope that it says what you would like it to say, or maybe a rule that does not contradict your view that surprise checks are individual ?

We've shown you the context and rules over and over.

And again, you are wrong about the context. The context is just travelling. Not combat, not social situations, it does not describe surprise, it just refers to combat.

 

[CleverNickName]

... proof...

Which proves...

This must be a very important topic for you.

 

[Lyxen]

This must be a very important topic for you.

What is important to me is that I feel it's wrong to tell people "play it my way, it's according to the rules and it's fun" when it's demonstrably neither. The rules are actually way better than this, they leave much more freedom to the players, and they take their fun and agency as more important than a DM's fear of a skill or his personal sentiment of verisimilitude about distraction.

And in particular, they don't impose surprise and loss of a turn to a player for trying to help the group. Just leave each DM to deal with it as they please using the tools at their disposal and their freedom to use local rulings that depend on the circumstances. Don't impose a specific way of playing when there is no justification for it, and actually many reasons not to.

 

[Maxperson]

And again, you are wrong about the context. The context is just travelling. Not combat, not social situations, it does not describe surprise, it just refers to combat.