D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

S'mon · Jun 15, 2017

Alert does not mean you always get to go first.

The bad guy, who you were unaware of, acts on his own Turn. You don't magically get to go before he has gone.

However, Alert DOES mean you are not Surprised. This means you can use Reactions.

So, in my Seven Swords of Sin game on Sunday, the evil (& Hasted) Vivisectionist Wizard acted on his turn, blinded the party Barbarian who had just entered his laboratory, then stepped past him out into the corridor, cast Fireball... and had it Counterspelled by the party Wizard, who had Alert feat.

He didn't last too long after that; the party took great pleasure in poking him to death. The party wizard saved her group from a lot of hurt, and it didn't require having the Alert feat grant her magical superpowers.

S'mon · Jun 15, 2017

Arial Black said:
However, immunity to surprise does not equal a successful Perception check! Just because you are not surprised, this does not mean that you have perceived...anything!

It just means that you don't suffer the game mechanics of surprise: cannot move or act on your first turn, cannot use reactions until after your first turn.

Yes. This.

In my example above, the enemy wizard was hiding as the Barbarian came through the door (the party had unwisely alerted him earlier by Mage Handing the door open when they didn't have line of sight into his lab, giving him time to set up an ambush). He made his Stealth check vs the Barbarian's Perception. So the Barbarian was unaware of him until he actually threw glitterdust in the Barb's eyes (which I believe was a DEX check to not be blinded, advantage due to Barb reflexes but he still failed). The Barbarian ability to act on his init even when surprised did not help him - he didn't get to turn back time, roll init and go before the thing that made him aware. Alertness feat however would have allowed him to use a Reaction against an attack (so eg enemy stepping into melee range vs a Polemaster, or Shield spell vs physical attack) as long as he was aware of the attack as it occurred.

That's how I run it, anyway. Seems to work.

jaelis · Jun 15, 2017

Sotik said:
I think the problem is that this DM feels that alert let's him react before anything happens. When I'm reality it is about being able notice something quickly enough that you can react before it is carried out.

Like, he doesn't know the arrow is being shot before it's shot, but he hears the twang of the string and the arrow flying through the air so he can react before he gets hit. Or he hears the sounds of foot steps rushing up behind him and thus isn't surprised because he hears the attacker coming.

I think the idea isn't that you have a magical sense that let's you know what's going to happen before, but that you are paying attention to everything so every small smell, sound, or movment lets you know you're about to gett attacked.

Canonical example is crossbow sniper, hidden in the dark, 100 ft away, in the area of a silence spell. Nothing to see, nothing to hear. No reason not to assign the sniper first place in the initiative order

Shasarak · Jun 15, 2017

discosoc said:
My experience is that players are a dime a dozen, and it's generally smarter to cater to the DM when possible. Most groups are totally fine with any given DM style, provided they know up front what to expect -- and can plan accordingly. Problems really only arise when there are communication issues (or no communication) and people like the OP find the rules are in constant flux at the DM's whim. Odds are good that he simply didn't realize 5e doesn't support the games he's used to playing, and will know more about what needs to change with the next campaign. I see this happen most with DM's who are just now coming back to the fold after an absence from 4e (and possibly 3/3.5).

You probably should not just cater to bad decisions just because there are fewer DMs then Players. How else are they supposed to learn?

JonnyP71 · Jun 15, 2017

While I agree with the general sentiment that it's bad form to be adjusting feats during play as a knee-jerk reaction, I have some sympathy for the DM here. He's clearly inexperienced, and maybe he is finding that he actually does not really like 5E as written, and he's trying to turn it into the game he wants to run.

He might actually be better suited to running a different system?

I'm in a similar position, and I've no intention of running a vanilla 5E game again, at least not without significant tweaks. I'd gladly run a game using AiME though - as it is much grittier, I'd also run short low level campaigns in 5E, but with modifications to healing, resting, rate of level gain, and available class/race combinations. I stopped enjoying default 5E for a number of reasons.

And when the DM stops enjoying a game, that is probably the single worst thing that can happen to a table. Without a DM who is invested in a system/setting a game is doomed. I would go as far as to say that the DM's enjoyment is considerably more important than everyone else's, as they are the ones who have to invest the most in terms of time (and usually money) into the game.

clearstream · Jun 15, 2017

robus said:
This DM seems to be on a bit of a power trip. The game is designed for the PCs to be awesome (perhaps not during the first couple of levels though!) why did you get a feat off the bat? And if the DM is worried about feats why did they allow them in the first place?

First time DMing perhaps? Hope you can sort it out!

The DM is a participant at the table, so the game is designed for DMs to be awesome too! Don't forget that. There are no special PC rights that trump DM rights.

If a DM wants balance at their table, that's not necessarily a power trip. It could be good for everyone (else) depending on how munchkin your PC is going (and whether your group likes to munchkin). Your DM is allowing you replacement feats, right? Are they working with you to sustain your character concept with other feats that they feel will fit better with their campaign concept?

MichaelArkAngel · Jun 15, 2017

For future reference be listed banned / broken feats we cannot use:

Lucky
Alert
Sharpshooter
Great weapons master
Polearm master

robus · Jun 15, 2017

vonklaude said:
The DM is a participant at the table, so the game is designed for DMs to be awesome too! Don't forget that. There are no special PC rights that trump DM rights.

If a DM wants balance at their table, that's not necessarily a power trip. It could be good for everyone (else) depending on how munchkin your PC is going (and whether your group likes to munchkin). Your DM is allowing you replacement feats, right? Are they working with you to sustain your character concept with other feats that they feel will fit better with their campaign concept?

Point taken but this DM also seeems far too inexperienced to be able to make informed judgements about whether things are unbalanced in the game. He seems like he's now got the idea that it's ok to remove things he doesn't like whenever he wants.

robus · Jun 15, 2017

MichaelArkAngel said:
For future reference be listed banned / broken feats we cannot use:

Lucky
Alert
Sharpshooter
Great weapons master
Polearm master

He's going to crap himself when he finds out there are powerful spells too!

jaelis · Jun 15, 2017

MichaelArkAngel said:
For future reference be listed banned / broken feats we cannot use:

Lucky
Alert
Sharpshooter
Great weapons master
Polearm master

Hmm, if he wants to play a game without feats, he should just play without feats.

I would guess that he'll be unhappy too with Shield Master, Crossbow Expert, and Tavern Brawler in the hands of a player who knows how to use them

D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

S'mon

Legend

S'mon

Legend

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Shasarak

Banned

JonnyP71

Explorer

clearstream

(He, Him)

MichaelArkAngel

Explorer

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Similar Threads