D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[clearstream]

So, then, to circle back, there's a problem with letting the guy that failed his perception check know that there's a bad guy over there at the start of combat, but there's no problem in letting the guy that failed his perception check know that a combat has started, just without any actual clues or information, yeah? So, then, your problem isn't that you can't see a way to provide information to the Alert player, it's just some strange idea that the game is made better by making that player jump through hoops blindly for your amusement for daring to roll a higher initiative than you?

Because, and let be honest, if the initial attack of the hidden bad guy can kill the player, the blind fumbling of acting without information will be highly unlikely to change that outcome. So, acting first with no information becomes that guessing game where you hope you picked the right thing before the DM kills you. Poor play. So, then, if the attack can't outright kill the player, then they are actually more effective going second, especially if their attack can kill or significantly impede the enemy. So the usual outcome is that forcing the player to go first isn't actually helping the player, it's just ensuring that you get your ambush off as you scripted it. And that's the problem, you're forcing the game into a pretzel so that you can have your moment. As a DM, that's a tempting trap, but, here's the thing, you don't need to do this. You don't need to abuse the player and make them dance arbitrarily because you will get your moments. It might not be this one, because of the dice, but it will come and be sweeter because you haven't had to play the screw-u game with your players. If you really need the thrill of your players not being able to be effective because of their build choices, just narrate at them. Don't waste their time pretending to have a game.

The Alert character is reacting to a sense of danger. I'd likely grant them a Perception check if they called for one. Either way, they get to move and act or ready an action. To quote Professor Farnsworth, "What do you want? A floral dress?"

Do you feel like 5e needs the Delay action? Or something else?

 

[Arial Black]

So, then, to circle back, there's a problem with letting the guy that failed his perception check know that there's a bad guy over there at the start of combat, but there's no problem in letting the guy that failed his perception check know that a combat has started, just without any actual clues or information, yeah?

Yeah, I've given multiple examples about how this can go in the game while still making sense in the narrative while still making sure that successfully hidden foes stay hidden versus creatures that fail their Perception checks to notice them.

So, then, your problem isn't that you can't see a way to provide information to the Alert player, it's just some strange idea that the game is made better by making that player jump through hoops blindly for your amusement for daring to roll a higher initiative than you?

'Surprise' and 'initiative' model different things. 'Surprise' is about noticing a threat, while 'initiative' models how quickly you act/react.

It is simply not true that going first in combat MUST be 'better' than going last; that high initiative MUST be better than low. The Alert feat doesn't change that. If the plan is for our wizard to fireball the enemy and then for the fighters to charge in, then it turns out the the fighters would benefit from a lower initiative than the wizard while a higher initiative could get them friendly-fireballed.

There is no rules-based OR narrative-based certainty that high initiative is more 'optimal' than low.

Because, and let be honest, if the initial attack of the hidden bad guy can kill the player, the blind fumbling of acting without information will be highly unlikely to change that outcome. So, acting first with no information becomes that guessing game where you hope you picked the right thing before the DM kills you. Poor play. So, then, if the attack can't outright kill the player, then they are actually more effective going second, especially if their attack can kill or significantly impede the enemy.

Being able to 'blindly' act IS 'better' than not being able to act at all!

Your beef isn't with not being surprised or with things like the Alert feat that mean you are immune to surprise. Your beef is with the initiative rules where creatures act in initiative order whether or not they would rather act sooner or later! Tough! Them's the breaks! You don't have control over your reaction speed in the chaos of combat; that's what 5E initiative models, that's why they deliberately made the choice to remove the Delay action from the game, and why the Ready action no longer changes your initiative score.

So the usual outcome is that forcing the player to go first isn't actually helping the player, it's just ensuring that you get your ambush off as you scripted it. And that's the problem

The PCs are being hosed here, not because they are immune to surprise, not because they rolled high initiative, but because they failed to perceive the enemy!

This makes sense in the narrative, and is fair in the sense that those who perceive the enemy have the logical advantages of having done so and those who failed to perceive the enemy have the logical disadvantages of that failure.

you're forcing the game into a pretzel so that you can have your moment. As a DM, that's a tempting trap, but, here's the thing, you don't need to do this. You don't need to abuse the player and make them dance arbitrarily because you will get your moments. It might not be this one, because of the dice, but it will come and be sweeter because you haven't had to play the screw-u game with your players. If you really need the thrill of your players not being able to be effective because of their build choices, just narrate at them. Don't waste their time pretending to have a game.

It's not motivated by a desire to screw with the players unfairly. It's motivated by a desire to have the game make sense.

The players can only make meaningful choices for their PCs if things make sense. If the players in this scenario get their PCs killed in an ambush they should be able to trace a reason. They failed to spot the ambush, they rolled too low. Harsh, but fair.

Who's going to complain that PCs who fail to spot the enemy should get to act as if they had seen the enemy?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I've given multiple examples about how this can go in the game while still making sense in the narrative while still making sure that successfully hidden foes stay hidden versus creatures that fail their Perception checks to notice them.



'Surprise' and 'initiative' model different things. 'Surprise' is about noticing a threat, while 'initiative' models how quickly you act/react.

It is simply not true that going first in combat MUST be 'better' than going last; that high initiative MUST be better than low. The Alert feat doesn't change that. If the plan is for our wizard to fireball the enemy and then for the fighters to charge in, then it turns out the the fighters would benefit from a lower initiative than the wizard while a higher initiative could get them friendly-fireballed.

There is no rules-based OR narrative-based certainty that high initiative is more 'optimal' than low.



Being able to 'blindly' act IS 'better' than not being able to act at all!

Your beef isn't with not being surprised or with things like the Alert feat that mean you are immune to surprise. Your beef is with the initiative rules where creatures act in initiative order whether or not they would rather act sooner or later! Tough! Them's the breaks! You don't have control over your reaction speed in the chaos of combat; that's what 5E initiative models, that's why they deliberately made the choice to remove the Delay action from the game, and why the Ready action no longer changes your initiative score.



The PCs are being hosed here, not because they are immune to surprise, not because they rolled high initiative, but because they failed to perceive the enemy!

This makes sense in the narrative, and is fair in the sense that those who perceive the enemy have the logical advantages of having done so and those who failed to perceive the enemy have the logical disadvantages of that failure.



It's not motivated by a desire to screw with the players unfairly. It's motivated by a desire to have the game make sense.

The players can only make meaningful choices for their PCs if things make sense. If the players in this scenario get their PCs killed in an ambush they should be able to trace a reason. They failed to spot the ambush, they rolled too low. Harsh, but fair.

Who's going to complain that PCs who fail to spot the enemy should get to act as if they had seen the enemy?

The game makes sense if you frame the combat so that there aren't blind actions as well. This is a non-starter of an argument.

And my argument has been steadfastly this, and no other: abusing the initiative mechanic to reinsert a backdoor surprise effect because you, as DM, made the decision to allow a feat that eliminated surprise as a mechanic is bad play. Given that I've been saying that, over and over, I'm a little surprised you didn't catch it and thought I have a problem with the initiative system. That works fine; what doesn't work is you abusing it so that you can still have surprise if an Alert player has the bad luck to roll higher than you on initiative.

As for you last, you're misplacing the blame. You're blaming and then punishing the player for a failed perception check by using a flawed framing for the initiative system at step later and then only if the player has the temerity to roll higher than you on initiative. YOU have all of the power to frame the situation such that this does not obtain. To blame the player for your choices to engage in poor play because the player rolled a bad perception check is ridiculous. There are all kinds of ways to both have consequences for the bad perception check (missing a crucial detail, like that the mage has a fire shield up, for example) without engaging in silly screw games with your players using the initiative system.

I have a rule that combat starts in a way they everyone knows it's started to avoid this exact thing. I frame the beginning of combat without ambiguity. If there's a hidden attacker, their attacking starts initiative -- note, not their successful attack, but the actions needed to conduct their attack. Someone quick or lucky could disrupt it. That's what initiative is for, not for some ordering where you tell your players that nothing has happened yet, what do you do, while you count down to your surprise attack. Blegh. The mage begins casting his spell (also, verbal components must be spoken clearly and at normal volume, so the whispering spell business doesn't fly) and I call for initiative. If the party didn't notice him before (failed perception) they're surprised. If one (or more) have the alert feat, then they aren't surprised and have a chance between the start of the casting and the end of it to act, if they roll well on initiative. What doens't happen is supersecretsquirrel knowledge hidden from everyone so they have to act blindly in initiative just so I can get my jollies off with a backdoor surprise mechanism. And what double doesn't happen is me blaming realism or the player's rolling for doing this to them.

Be a better DM, don't screw over your players and then hide behind 'realism' as an excuse.

 

[Harzel]

What doens't happen is supersecretsquirrel knowledge hidden from everyone so they have to act blindly in initiative just so I can get my jollies off with a backdoor surprise mechanism. And what double doesn't happen is me blaming realism or the player's rolling for doing this to them.

Be a better DM, don't screw over your players and then hide behind 'realism' as an excuse.

While I think your DMing approach has merit and deserves advocacy and a hearing, I have trouble getting past your tone, which comes across to me as imperious, self-righteous, condescending, and unduly moralistic. And the above quote particularly seems to me to press hard against the edges of the forum rules on civility. I say this not as a demand that you obey the rules (not my job), but rather as a suggestion that you reconsider them as good advice.

 

[Kalshane]

The feat, as-written, negates surprise. Nowhere in the text does it say you automatically know where your foes are.

A character with Alert has opportunities other characters don't. 1) They can take reactions during an ambush scenario (such as Shield or Deflect Arrows). 2) They can take cover or ready an action. 3) Because unseen opponents don't have advantage against them, they're in a much better place defensively than their non-alert comrades. 4) They're immune to the auto-crit effect of the Assassin's Assassinate ability.

I really don't see why running the game as-written for both Surprise and the Alert feat is "Bad DMing" or "screwing over the character that took the feat." The feat is plenty powerful without also allowing it to make the character omniscient anytime combat occurs.

ETA: D&D requires players to make decisions with incomplete information all the time: "Do we trust the vizier, or do we think he's trying to overthrow the king" "Do use my fireball now or do I hold back in case I need to counterspell later?" "Do we take the left or right fork in the dungeon?" This is no different.

 

[Soul Stigma]

It doesn't seem that complicated. The player who fails Perception but is Alert and goes first in initiative order has options. The first that comes to mind: the character senses an attack is imminent but does not know what it will be - she takes the Ready action to set up an appropriate reaction (depending on class). Or they could take the Hide action and remove themselves as a target.

 

[Caliban]

It doesn't seem that complicated. The player who fails Perception but is Alert and goes first in initiative order has options. The first that comes to mind: the character senses an attack is imminent but does not know what it will be - she takes the Ready action to set up an appropriate reaction (depending on class). Or they could take the Hide action and remove themselves as a target.

Or Dodge - since presumably you are being observed and thus unable to hide (barring special abilities like those of the Lightfoot Halfling and Wood Elf).

 

[Soul Stigma]

Or Dodge - since presumably you are being observed and thus unable to hide (barring special abilities like those of the Lightfoot Halfling and Wood Elf).

Yes. No clarity on whether the party is actually observed but the alert character could assume it.

 

[Caliban]

Yes. No clarity on whether the party is actually observed but the alert character could assume it.

It would be pretty odd if you were surprised by creatures that couldn't see you...

 

[Soul Stigma]

It would be pretty odd if you were surprised by creatures that couldn't see you...

LOL I meant that specific character but it does sound like the DM assumed the whole party was visible. I take line of sight more literally, so a spellcaster behind a column may not see everyone, though he is aware of the party in general.