D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

hastur_nz · Jun 14, 2017

Sword of Spirit said:
As an example, I'm running a 5e game for a group new to 5e. The one player who isn't new to 5e considered a rogue with Observant. The problem is that the intention of this game is to let the new players get a good feel for how 5e plays. We're playing the first two adventures in Tales From the Yawning Portal, which are trap filled dungeon adventures. Observant means he's almost never going to miss a trap, since none of them have a DC higher than his passive perception would be with Observant. Now, I consider traps as something you actually have to make a bit of effort to avoid as a basic part of the game experience. Taking that feat would essentially mean that the group is deprived of that particular element of play. We went back and forth discussing it, he mentioning that spotting the trap doesn't necessarily mean you know how to disarm it (true), etc. But I'm looking at the adventure and thinking that as a player I'd have a better time actually having the traps matter. What I finally decided is that if he did want to play that character (he had other ideas, and that isn't the one he went with) we'd have a talk with the rest of the group first. I'd explain the situation, let them know how their experience would change if this feat were in the game, and let them decide what they wanted to do.

At the risk of derailing... this is basically like me saying to a player "Yeah, I know our next campaign is Storm King's Thunder, but I'm not comfortable that your PC knows how to speak Giant, knows spells like Suggestion that can take them out easily, Fireball that will kill all their mooks, and so on... it's going to make your life too easy and I really want to let you experience just how amazing Giants are..."

My point being, while the DM can of course do what they want and stop players taking certain options, at some point a good DM realises that players like to chose options that are tailored for your campaign, and that's a good thing, it means they are paying attention and planning ahead. It's not like 5e is terribly broken like 3.5 was, and you can always adjust the adventure a bit to accommodate things like super-powered PC's, if you feel it's too bland as written.

Ninja-radish · Jun 14, 2017

I've played with this type of GM before and all I can say is get out as soon as possible. Once a GM gets a taste for nerfing a particular player's character, you become that GM's designated b*tch until you leave the game.

I know because I've been in your position: where no matter how many nerfs your character goes through, it's never enough. Meanwhile, the GM's favorite player gets to have a grotesquely overpowered abomination of a character. Bad juju man.

ad_hoc · Jun 14, 2017

Shiroiken said:
Is the DM also new? I'm guess so, because if he thinks Alert and Lucky are the "broken" feats, then he hasn't seen Sharpshooter abused yet. For a new DM, I'd strongly advise against using optional rules until comfortable with the system (the variant human and feats are completely optional). This would probably require a rebuild of your character, or perhaps retiring that one and making a new one is better.

I don't allow Lucky or Sharpshooter. Just because one is potentially more of a problem than the other doesn't mean both need to be allowed.

While I allow Alert I can see the reason why it would be disruptive to some games. I can also see reason to not allow any feats. It doesn't have anything to do with being 'new'.

hastur_nz said:
At the risk of derailing... this is basically like me saying to a player "Yeah, I know our next campaign is Storm King's Thunder, but I'm not comfortable that your PC knows how to speak Giant, knows spells like Suggestion that can take them out easily, Fireball that will kill all their mooks, and so on... it's going to make your life too easy and I really want to let you experience just how amazing Giants are..."

It's entirely reasonable to set character creation parameters based on the setting. Not allowing the players to create characters based on the upcoming adventure is entirely reasonable. As well, disallowing certain options even if taken with no prior knowledge of the campaign is also fine. For example, not allowing Underdark races in OotA to enhance the feeling of being in an alien environment.

Sword of Spirit · Jun 14, 2017

hastur_nz said:
At the risk of derailing... this is basically like me saying to a player "Yeah, I know our next campaign is Storm King's Thunder, but I'm not comfortable that your PC knows how to speak Giant, knows spells like Suggestion that can take them out easily, Fireball that will kill all their mooks, and so on... it's going to make your life too easy and I really want to let you experience just how amazing Giants are..."

My point being, while the DM can of course do what they want and stop players taking certain options, at some point a good DM realises that players like to chose options that are tailored for your campaign, and that's a good thing, it means they are paying attention and planning ahead. It's not like 5e is terribly broken like 3.5 was, and you can always adjust the adventure a bit to accommodate things like super-powered PC's, if you feel it's too bland as written.

I don't see what I was talking about as any different than literally asking the group how challenging the want they game to be. If they choose to pick features that are going to make the game easier, then it's worthwhile to discuss that with them and see if that is, in fact their goal. Perhaps that is what they want, and they aren't really looking for a challenge. On the other hand, they really (like many of these sorts of thinks) haven't thought things through. If they say they want a certain level of challenge, but then make character building choices which take away that challenge, you need to discuss with them how they want to handle that. Do they want the DM to artificially inflate the challenges? What methods are acceptable to them? Is it okay if you tack on a bunch of feats to all the monsters? Just through more monsters at them, or higher level monsters? Mechanically ignore the guidelines and arbitrarily raise the DCs of everything by 2 with no system justification?

The point I'm making is that if a player wants to do something that you, as the DM, know is going to have unusually significant consequences for the campaign, you better make sure that they, and the rest of the group, actually want those consequences.

Seramus · Jun 14, 2017

A good DM can handle pretty much anything a player throws at them, the only real concern is whether or not you are making other players feel bad. But there are plenty of new DMs who are just learning the ropes, and need you to be patient with them while they figure out how to handle things. It is a tough job sometimes.

So give your GM the benefit of the doubt and ask yourself if the rest of the campaign is fun. If it is, just pick another feat and move on. If it happens a third time, sit down and talk to him about his expectations as diplomatically as possible.

Harzel · Jun 14, 2017

MichaelArkAngel said:
We are all now third level and I have been informed by the DM that I can no longer use the Alert feat. He feels, now, that this feat is broken as well because I can't be surprised, and that I have had crazy high initiative rolls due to the +5 added to initiative rolls, and he finds it hard to come up with a reason to explain why I'm not surprised, so he pulled it from my character.

I think you have mostly gotten good advice in the thread about having a chat with your DM to understand better what is on his mind. So I won't belabor that. But I just found the bolded part so bizarre. Seriously? The reason that your character cannot be surprised is that he is exceptionally, um, let's see, I'm looking for a word here... what could it be... oh, I know; how about 'alert'.

Rya.Reisender · Jun 14, 2017

Probably would need to know the context of the surprise. Might very well be that the DM doesn't even play out surprise itself properly.

In my games surprise is only really an option around every 5th battle anyway. And usually a PC has a 80% or higher chance to notice at least one threat even without feat. So that's basically only a 4% chance of being surprised per battle. A feat that reduces that 4% chance to 0% doesn't seem THAT powerful to me.

How to play out not being surprised when someone attempts a surprise attack?
"You move along the passage. A hears something from behind, turns around and sees some enemies sneaking in from behind, already prepared to attack. Everybody please roll initiative. B, C and D are surprised."

schnee · Jun 14, 2017

Yeah, if the DM *needs* the party to be surprised for the 'plan' to happen, that's a sign of inexperience. It's also the sign of someone who wants to design what happens, instead of what could happen. Or, he's seeing the effects of that feat at low level, and doesn't realize that once the party gets beyond 'one hit one kill' opponents then it's much less of an issue.

That doesn't make your DM overall bad, just... bad at that one part?

. And, the good thing is, that is the kind of DM flaw that works itself out with experience.

You might want to wait until you're not annoyed, and over a beer, ask them a bunch of questions until you understand exactly what the feat is doing to prevent the DM from having fun. Then, unless you're really fast at thinking on your feet, take some time off to formulate a response. Then deliver it by saying 'I'll respect your call either way, but take some time to think about it this way'. That will let them save face and reverse it later and not feel bad about it. When people think they will be embarrassed by walking back a call, some won't do it out of pride.

THAT SAID:

If the DM disallows this feat entirely, either grab another one, or revert to Standard human and get your +1 to every ability score back.

Sotik · Jun 14, 2017

This is a hard one to tackle, I've already seen arguments on both sides. The key thing to remember is that the DM is the rules, he can really do what ever he wants. Whether or not it is fair is a subject of personal opinion. You can discuss things with him but be respectful of his final dissisons on subjects

As a DM myself I would try to work around these things, learn howing to deal with these things instead of banning them. And yes it is consider bad etiquette to change such things mid game, but it does and will happen. In the end if it prevents you from enjoying the game and having fun it may be a good idea to tell him your not having fun and why, and if he refuses to changes or you keep not having fun to find a new group.

Wepwawet · Jun 14, 2017

It does sound like the DM is new to the game and is surprised to discover that the fantasy heroes are able to beat the odds.

If he's complaining about these feats now, at 1st level, wait till the characters gain a few levels and are able to come up with outrageous solutions to his challenges.

1st rule of DM'ing: Never count on things happening the way you planned. Expect anything and react accordingly.

D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

hastur_nz

First Post

Ninja-radish

First Post

ad_hoc

(they/them)

Sword of Spirit

Legend

Seramus

Hero

Harzel

Adventurer

Rya.Reisender

Explorer

schnee

First Post

Sotik

Villager

Wepwawet

Explorer

Similar Threads