D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[ad_hoc]

I definitely agree that Lucky is not a well designed feat and don't allow it. It's not even thematic. It just makes your character better at things.

While I don't think Alert is overpowered, I see the reasoning. It is a big change to the game.

Feats in general are specifically called out as being optional additions to the game.

Ideally the DM would have let the table know that they are trying out feats and may have you change later. That being said, just because they didn't doesn't mean the group has to suffer through a broken/unfun game. If something is ruining the fun for people at the table then changing/removing it is not a terrible idea.

As a side note, there are many examples in fiction of characters who never get surprised. This is a fantasy game about playing fantastic heroes. My main concern with feats is that they don't get taken by multiple characters. I'm totally cool with one special character in one campaign that just can never be surprised and is generally quick on their feet to act. If multiple players wanted to take it then I would suggest they don't for both spotlight balance and to maintain genre tropes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I recently joined a beginning 5e campaign where I am playing a human charisma rogue(charlatan background.) I was unable to take the "lucky" feat since the DM deemed it broken, so I took "Alert."

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.

For those DM's out there, is this fair? As a player do I try to fight it, or just suck it up and take the nerf? I'm assuming I get to pick another feat to replace it, any suggestions?

I'd love to hear your comments!

I'd use the opportunity and try out other feats I thought sounded cool. And when he bans them I'd try out the next! You have a great opportunity. You get to play a single character and see what almost all the feats are like. That makes you a very cool character.

In fact you may can even play off the situation and get the DM to homebrew a rule for you that forces you to change your feat choice after every session. It would be very humanly to see your character slightly reinvent himself each session And also it would give the DM a chance to evaluate various feats in play and even if one is too strong he won't have to deal with it for more than a session!!!

Sounds like a win-win to me!

 

[Shasarak]

For those DM's out there, is this fair? As a player do I try to fight it, or just suck it up and take the nerf? I'm assuming I get to pick another feat to replace it, any suggestions?

I'd love to hear your comments!

It sounds like you are right, it is not fair.

So now you have a choice, if the game and group are good enough then you may be better off to just suck it up and change your character until you can learn to game the DM better.

 

[Valetudo]

This is what you do. Change your feat to crossbow expert and the get sharpshooter at 4th lvl. That feat combo with a hand crossbow is way stronger than those other two feats. If he bans those, switch to a fighter and grab great weapon master and polearm master. If he bans those, offer to dm.

 

[Soul Stigma]

This is what you do. Change your feat to crossbow expert and the get sharpshooter at 4th lvl. That feat combo with a hand crossbow is way stronger than those other two feats. If he bans those, switch to a fighter and grab great weapon master and polearm master. If he bans those, offer to dm.

^ LOL


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's definitely unfortunate timing at least. Whether it is reasonable or not depends on the nature of the campaign. Does the DM have something in particular in mind that requires a reasonable chance of the party being surprised now and again? If so, then allowing that feat could very well have messed things up so much he'll have to artificially make things more difficult for your character (would you rather have the feat and see it's actual effects nerfed in play because all the enemies seem to be absurdly good at stealth and such now, or just have the DM tell you it isn't a good fit for the campaign and he'd prefer if you switched it for another).

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.

The feat isn't overpowered--but it is game changing. The same could be true about Alert, and you might want to ask him about it. Perhaps his reasoning will make sense to you once you hear it, or perhaps your reasoning will make sense to him. (The funny thing is, as much as I take a hardline DM empowerment angle on the forums, I'm a push over to a well-reasoned proposal in my actual games. One of my players in particular is always able to come up with a perfectly reasonable proposal that breaks my rules in a non-objectionable way.)

 

[cmad1977]

A couple of the guys in my group took alert. The passive perceptions are crazy high and they can't be surprised. I love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

I recently joined a beginning 5e campaign where I am playing a human charisma rogue(charlatan background.) I was unable to take the "lucky" feat since the DM deemed it broken, so I took "Alert."

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.

How often is your group getting surprised that having the feat is this much of a problem?

Wait until someone takes the Observant feat. Your DM will lose their mind.

 

[Croesus]

I'm in agreement with the others - talk to the GM, in a non-confrontational manner to get a better handle on his concerns and what your options are.

One thing I've been doing for some time now (whether as GM or player) is say, "I'm not sure if this is balanced. How about we try it out and if there's a problem, we tweak or change it? Worst case, we replace it with something else." Saying that up front minimizes surprises such as the OP has experienced and encourages collaborative discussion when the GM has concerns.

Side note: I didn't allow feats when my group was first learning 5E. Another GM loves feats and doesn't just allow them, he encourages them. What I've seen as a player has confirmed two things for me: 1) most feats aren't terribly unbalanced; the ones that are can easily be tweaked, and 2) most of our players choose feats to enhance what they are already good at, instead of adding options or covering weaknesses. Strangely enough, having seen Lucky in play for some time, I don't find it problematic at all. Alert, on the other hand, really does throw off the bounded accuracy of 5E.

 

[Shiroiken]

Fair is hard to say. It's the DM's game, but you don't have to play in that campaign either. If the DM is being "unfair" (in your opinion), then you might be better off leaving for a different game. The obvious solution is to talk things out with the DM and the rest of the group.

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.

If the DM is experienced, but has issues with certain feats, then I'd suggest asking for an approved list of Feats. This puts the onus on him to determine what is and is not "broken." Once you have the list, pick whatever one seems best for you and then avoid Feats for the rest of the game. Obviously the DM doesn't like 5E's "mega-feats," which are about equal to 3 feats from 3E/4E/Pathfinder, and will probably limit things down to only the weaker feats (which are worse than the ASI). Good options: Healer (if you're a Thief, you can do this as a Bonus Action), Mobile (if you use Two Weapon Fighting, you can fight and run to safety each round), Resilient (extra Saving Throw Proficiency is awesome - choose Con or Wis), or Sharpshooter (the only Feat I feel is actually a bit too strong).