D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

When it comes to perception rolls myself, I'm a little sneaky.

I'll tell them something is wrong. But I won't tell them what. They have to ask more specific questions.

TheSword said:

I think you said it best yourself. Expertise scales by level and only reaches 20 by level 9 barring a truly exceptional wisdom. The scaling by level gives a method of control. It also compounds the problem as the rogue can easy have 22 from level 1 with this feat, meaning ambush is extremely difficult.

Click to expand...

I agree that having a +5 bonus to anything at level 1 is pretty big. However, to get that via Observant, you have to allow feats AND variant humans. I guess that the reason that Observant features such a large bonus is because it applies only to two specific skills - sort of an issue of being narrow and deep.

Also, just because a PC is very perceptive, that does not make her omniscient. Perception is always restricted by range at some point, and other factors could, at the DM's discretion, grant bonuses to the Stealth of would be ambushers. Just make sure you are ready to grant the same sort of bonuses to PC stealthing if they copy the tactics.

It’s a good point about traps needing to actively looked for to gain checks. I’m not sure that is a difficult choice in a dungeon setting and therefore the principal of the auto success becomes an issue.. I get that traps and how to deal with them is a hot topic with many debatable solutions.

I’m not a massive fan of any time one PCs score is massively higher (+8 to 10) than all the others, be it AC, Stealth, Athletics. These things tend to create auto successes. It’s one of the reasons I prefer advantage as a mechanic to flat increases. The arms race on games mechanics is one of the main things that switched me off Pathfinder as the principal of only failing important checks on a 1 or 2 really bugs me.

Click to expand...

I don't share your distaste for auto-success. There are lots of situations in the game where, theoretically, there is a small chance of failure, but we don't bother making a check. Moving along the continuum a bit, it does not seem unreasonable to me that there are some tasks at which one PC's skill might be advanced enough that failure is effectively precluded whereas the outcome for a less skilled PC might be uncertain.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it sort of seems like the situation in which this bugs you is when it is so widely applicable in the context of a particular adventure that it seems like the PC has brought a phaser to a knife fight. I would tend to look at that as a problem with the adventure, not the PC.

Also, it is probably relevant that I never touched 3.5 or Pathfinder and so am much less sensitized to numbers inflation and do not embrace bounded accuracy as an absolute good.

Maybe the auto pre-ambush rogue is partly an aesthetic dislike as I would prefer the DM not allow the feat rather than negate it in game.

Click to expand...

I agree that the DM should not allow the feat and then render it completely useless. However, if the feat exists, then it is a thing in the world, and (in my world) sufficiently adept NPCs will have the means to compete with it at least to some degree.

However I think the ability to almost certainly deal let’s say on average 20 points of damage first in every combat is a very powerful ability (based on a lvl5 two weapon fighting) if the rogue wins initiative - a high possibility they could be dealing 40 points or more before other adventurers even get to act at a relatively low level. 40 hp is enough to kill a mage outright. 40 doesn’t include the 1/5 chance of a crit in those rounds, or that these are just average rolls, or the autocrit assassin function.

Click to expand...

I see how you could get to 20 more or less; I don't see how you get to 40 without a crit.

As I said I don’t like the idea of autosuccess or abilities that consistently trump the rest of the party. Perhaps it evens itself out by level 15 but that is irrelevent if your campaign ends at 10.

I stand by the assertion that there is no foul if the option is agreed not to be there.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

If this is something that comes up in play the DM should have the chance to have an honest conversation with the PC to redistribute resources. If the player agrees then the ban hammer may not be needed. If they won’t accommodate then I think the DM is within their rights to change things.

Click to expand...

Depends on the social contract in the group.

The alternative is that the DM normally loses heart and the campaign grinds to a halt. I wish I’d had the guts to have that conversation earlier with OP PCs and some really good campaigns might not of ended prematurely.

Click to expand...

I can empathize with some disappointment when a lot of challenges that you thought were going to be hard for the PCs turn out to be trivial. But I usually try to take those as learning experiences: despite the fact that as DM, the world is supposedly mine, in some cases I am still learning how it operates. So, yeah, the fictional persons who built that last dungeon might not have been totally on the ball, but whoever built the next one might well have been more aware of the existence of extremely perceptive creatures. Of course, their countermeasures will still be subject to considerations such as time and materials costs, cost/benefit trade off, and the need to not fall victim to their own traps, so they are unlikely to be uniformly resistant to the perceptive PC's skills.

[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION]

I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, so perhaps I should clarify.

The phaser to a knife fight analogy is a really good one. I’m all for adventures with higher power levels and I have no issue flexing challenges to abilities. My issue is when one PC has a phaser and all the other PCs bring knives. In my experience this isn’t because of a lack of knowledge on the other PCs. It’s becausr they aren’t looking to play the game that way. 5e is relatively balanced, at least compared to Pathfinder but there are still issues which result in unbalanced builds.

The assassin/alert combo getting to go first is an example. The assassin already gets to act in the surprise round, and with +5 initiative will almost certainly get to go before other PCs. That means the rogue is getting 2 rounds of actions before anyone else gets to go. 4 attacks, 2 of which sneak, is easily 40+ points of damage without crits which with 4 attacks will be 1/5 chance. This happens every time or near enough. I don’t have any issue with the auto crit part of assassin because it’s circumstantial and requires set up. I have an assassin in the campaign I’m running. He knows that he won’t be able to assassinate in most combats and that he shouldn’t take some feats. On the other hand I let him use a glaive as a finesse weapon so swings and roundabouts.

Very high grapples and the shove action to trip people up is a similar big issue.

When players stack bonuses and abilities so much that these kinds of things become auto success I have a problem. For me this is synergy up to a point and after that point (where it becomes the phaser not the knife) then I step in.


My usual preferred solution is to speak to the player out of game in advance and to say hey the Alert feet is fine, providing you arent planning on taking the assassin class. I strongly discourage 1 or 2 level dips just to get abilities like expertise for grappler builds. I’m lucky that I’ve built three stable groups of players and we’re on the same wavelength.

It would be a bit like a friendly local poker game in someone’s house and one person sits down with shades a visor and earplugs on. I actually saw that happen once and our host when he got up to get drinks, stood behind the guy, tapped him on the shoulder and when the guest took one earphone out he said “we don’t play like that mate.” There was a bit of shock at first but the got on really well with us in the end and came to many more games (sans ear phones).

The unfortunate thing in this case is that it wasn’t discussed at the start but at the same time those conversations don’t always come up. If it can’t be dealt with in advance, it isn’t unfair to deal with it when it becomes a problem. Better that then make a campaign go nuclear.

I don’t mind the party making easy challenges. In yesterday’s game they took a relatively tough NPC ‘boss’ and defeated him without him getting to act because of clever planning and deception - they worked really well as a team to be honest. My NPC didn’t get to act but a well executed plan for me was enough. When the challenges should be difficult but one PCs character trivializes it because of stacked abilities then I have a problem.

I think objections to the Observant feat are chiefly based around treating passive Perception as "always-on radar," which according to my reading of the rules is only the case in combat situations. Outside of combat, while traveling or adventuring, you're limited in what tasks you can do at the same time. "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger." That's anything as distracting as navigating, drawing a map, tracking, or foraging.

So, sure, take the Observant feat. But if you choose to do any other Perception-based activity other than Keeping Watch, you will be automatically surprised if a monster tries to sneak up on the party and you won't notice any traps. If you want to Keep Watch for traps, you may also have to be in the front rank which is an additional risk. Observant is great - you're probably going to succeed on any repetitive task with an uncertain outcome that uses Perception, or possible Investigation, as the proficiency for resolving that outcome. But only just the one task. This makes it a meaningful choice for the player and makes Observant useful, but not "overpowered."

As an example, here's how I set this up in my current Planescape campaign wherein the PCs are adventuring on the Infinite Staircase:



An Observant rogue, for example, has a few choices here. He or she can stay in the front rank and Keep Watch in order to have a chance to avoid surprise by lurking monsters and to notice traps or hazards. He or she could avoid the risk of the front rank and go in any other rank to Keep Watch and still have a chance to avoid surprise. Or the rogue can Find the Flights - navigating, essentially - and put that bonus to passive Investigation to good use to help the party avoid exhaustion. However, this means the rogue is automatically surprised if a stealthy monster attacks and has no chance of noticing traps or hazards. Whichever task the players chooses for this character will almost certainly succeed and at faster paces. (Faster pace means less travel time and fewer random encounters.) But he or she can't do all the tasks.

Just because the character with Observant can't be surprised doesn't mean everyone else in the party is so blessed. This is a team game, and that surprise round on the rest could be just lethal and leave the rogue to run away and come back for the bodies.

Any ability that is absolute is a bad ability.

A game should never hand out ways to neuter the DMs ability to surprise, confound or trick the players. That's death to a good game.

Giving out bonuses, yes. Invalidating the roll, no.

It did create weird situations in our games on a few occasions. If the first round initiative was a little different that was no problem though. It is just weird that you may act before the enemy uncloaks.

UngeheuerLich said:

It did create weird situations in our games on a few occasions. If the first round initiative was a little different that was no problem though. It is just weird that you may act before the enemy uncloaks.

Click to expand...

Immunity to Surprise =/= successful Perception check!

When deciding who is surprised, the DM usually asks for contested skill checks, and usually chooses Perception/Stealth. If so, then a successful Perception check not only determines that this creature is 'not surprised' but also gives some information about exactly what was perceived that leads you to be convinced that combat is starting. The same would apply if the contest was Insight/Deception, or some other combination.

But 'Immunity to Surprise', whether from the Alert feat or a Weapon of Warning or some other source, is different. Yes, you are automatically 'not surprised', but NO! you do not automatically get the information that is gated behind the successful Perception (or Insight/whatever) check!

The creature who is Immune to Surprise gets to roll that opposed Perception check just like everyone else, and success gives him the same information as everyone else. But failure on that check means that they have the same information as that given to those that fail that check ("you see lots of trees!") AND the information that 'combat is starting'. That's all.

How does that work? "I've got a bad feeling about this!"

If the surprise-immune PC acts before the ambusher, then he still cannot see or perceive the ambusher. He can use his intellect to work out likely dangers, and take whatever action he deems wise:-

* "The danger is probably coming from the trees, so I'll move behind this rock and take the Dodge action" Solid idea. Of course, the enemy might be invisible and standing right behind you!

* "I'll draw my bow and Ready an action to shoot whoever appears!" Don't worry if it's a friend because the rules for the Ready action include the fact that you are not forced to do the action when the trigger happens.

* "I cast blade ward and go into the trees, hoping that the enemy attacks me in melee so that he takes cold damage from my already cast armour of agathys, and if/when he does I'll hex his strength."

The Alert PC knows that he cannot perceive the source of danger right now, and makes his decisions accordingly. It can still save your life, even though you cannot directly attack your enemy on your turn.

* "I fireball the trees!"

...okay, maybe you can...!

Arial Black said:

snip

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Due to time constraints I didn't tell you about our solutions. Note that by the rules there is no contest involved but the same stealth check is contested vs the same passive perception... which in my opinion is faster but not as accurate as your method. In the playtest there used to be a seperate check for being surprised which was dropped for the 5e rules.

So here are additional options:

- spot for the group. Try to find the enemies and ppint them out to deny the invisibility bonus.

-fasten your shield and draw your weapon

-shove the wizard to the ground

-use the help action to increase your friend's passive perception possibly spoiling invisibility for the enemy and if your DM approves unsurprise your friend.

Note that is unclear by the rules how near the wnemies may approach with their initial stealth checks. I think it might depend on the situation. Note that it is a lot easier to surprise enemies in dim light and if the sound is muffled. So there sre often 60 ft between you and the enemies which surprise you. Also note that a group of enemies have a hard time surprising you because they all need to roll stealth and if a single one fails the check, there is no surprise.

And something I want to try out because of follwing situation:
An arrow flies at you... roll initiative.

The intrinsic problem is: the arrow may have been fired from 600ft away from an invisible enemy out of an area of silence...
A lot more dramatic than: roll initiative. DM: alert character, your turn to act...

I think my house rule might be nerving alertness and weapon of warning to: you can use reactions even if you are surprised. The feat is still powerful with invisible creatures don't gain advantage and +5 initiative. Maybe i will hear a better soultion from you.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:

Hi, MichaelArkAngel,

One of my players actually suggested to me that the Lucky feat is too powerful. Personally, I disagree. He thought everyone would take it. I agreed with him that if every one did, then I'd move to ban new characters from taking it. So far, only two or three of his characters have taken it. No other players want it. And, in play, it doesn't come up all that often, so I really don't think it is broken.

Alert is powerful for the reasons that you give, but not being surprised and winning initiative most of the time are good, but not really broken, in my opinion.

All that said, I'd recommend working with your DM until he gets comfortable with feats in the game. It's unfortunate, but different DM's have differing ideas of what belongs in their game.

Click to expand...

Too many people, both DMs and players, confuse being surprised with being ambushed. The alert feat will not save you from being ambushed, a set piece encounter where the enemy is waiting with readied actions that would trigger before ANY player gets to go. You might not be surprised so the enemy won’t get advantage or anything like that and you will get to go on your turn, but the enemy will still go before you.

The Alert feat is better for the +5 initiative then it is not being surprised.