D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[BookBarbarian]

Heh. The 'ping' I mentioned is not (necessarily) an actual pinging sound.

It's shorthand for the moment when the Weapon makes you aware combat is about to start. You can fluff it how you want: a preternatural hyper-awareness, a 'Spider-Sense', short term combat pre-cognition...a 'pinging' sound...

It should speak directly to the mind of the wielder in a terribly sarcastic voice.

"Oh you want to sleep now? Good idea... idiot."

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a question about 'when to start combat/when to roll initiative'.

Before teleport is cast, there is no combat.

Just like combat begins not with the triggering attack, but with the triggering intention to attack kicking off the surprise/initiative process.

For your example, the Weapon of Warning pings not before teleport is cast, not after they arrive, but when the enemy are in transit.

The weapon magically alerts the entire party that combat is about to begin. Teleport was not cast during combat so there as no initiative at that point. As they arrive, that's when combat begins, surprise is determined (none, in this case) and initiative rolled.

The baddies are already present on initiative count 24 when your cleric/paladin takes their turn.

Let's say that the baddy who cast the teleport rolls the highest initiative. He could very well be first to act. His first Action In Combat is not to cast teleport, because when he cast that spell there was no combat yet, therefore no Combat Rounds and no Actions In Combat permitted or needed to cast it.

Teleporting in usually is an excellent surprise tactic. As DM, you determine who is or is not surprised. Usually, this might involve opposed checks, but the DM can and frequently does just rule that 'those guys are surprised, these guys are not', no roll needed. This is one of those times!

The baddies are not surprised because of their scrying, the good guys ARE surprised, because there is no way they could notice the baddies before they even arrive.

The thing is that Weapons of Warning, Alert feat, anything that makes you immune to surprise, supercede the DM's decision that the good guys are surprised. Nothing has gone wrong here! The Weapon of Warning and the game itself are all working as intended.

But this doesn't work with your previous statements.

Let's change the situation slightly to highlight this:

Instead of scry/teleport, it's a hidden wizards that no one in the party detects (poor rolls, no passive high enough, whatevs). Now run the scenario -- the wizard forms intent to attack, which, according to you, causes initiative. Bob had the Alert feat and rolls higher than the wizard. We've already covered what you say happens here - Bob gets a blind action but knows combat has started. Bob chooses to dodge. The wizard observes Bob start dodging, and, instead of attacking, decides to withdraw while hidden to ambush again later. But, if it's a scry/teleport instead of a hidden wizard, you say this shouldn't happen and that the initiative trigger should be the arrival of the enemy with teleport. You now have two distinctly different adjudication schemes apparently based on whether or not teleport is used.

If, instead, you use the far more sensible framing in the teleport example all the time -- if you ask for initiative you've framed a clear threat (maybe not all of the threat, maybe not all of the threateners, but a clear threat that can be reacted to), you'd be far more consistent and wouldn't be engaging in these strange gymnastics to justify forcing blind actions in one case but not this other one for reasons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Since 'surprise' in 5E simply means that you cannot take reactions until after your first turn and cannot move or act during your first turn, then by definition 'immunity to surprise' means that you can use reactions before your first turn and you can move/act during your first turn.

Only telling the party what they can see and not telling them about the things they failed to notice(!) is not 're-inserting backdoor surprise'.

War, battle, armed conflict, whatever you want to call it, is not all about being 'fair'. Combatants use strategy, superior numbers, training, equipment, terrain, everything in their power to be as unfair as possible!

This includes hiding in ambush. How ambushing works is that you hide from the enemy, so that they don't notice you until after they attack. That's how it works!

There is no omniscient power that mystically exists to inform those caught in an ambush of the numbers, type and deployment of ambushers that they have not noticed!

You're damn right it's unfair! It's unfair by design! That's the point of ambush. That's the point of ALL military strategy: to arrange things so that it is not fair but instead so heavily favouring you that you are almost sure to win!

The Alert feat does exactly what it says it does. Nowhere does it state or even suggest that the feat lets you know ANYTHING about those who are about to attack you.

Here's a quote on the same subject in another forum:-



The Feat means you are not surprised, it does not give you any further mechanical advantages. It does not automatically allow you to know where the enemy is, or what they are doing.

Firstly, I never said fair. Be as unfair as you like with ambushes and whatever. I am, just ask my players. So that's a red herring of a response.

Second, I find it beyond ironic that you first go on a screed about how fairness doesn't exist and shouldn't be pandered to, but then post another poster complaining about how his bad guy getting found out by a lucky forced blind action declaration isn't fair. I mean, did you not notice?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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!

We've made changes like that in the game from time to time. But if there's something we decide is broken then we'll find a solution that works for all of us. Sometimes that means that that character will keep the ability, but there won't be any more that get it.

I think it's worth discussing it. And if you're going to pick another feat you'll need to work with the DM to try to avoid the same thing from happening again.

 

[Arial Black]

Firstly, I never said fair.

You said that DMs who rule that PCs who fail to notice the threat (failed Perception versus Stealth) do not know about the enemy are 'screwing the players'. I'm taking 'screwing the players' as meaning the same as 'being unfair'.

Second, I find it beyond ironic that you first go on a screed about how fairness doesn't exist and shouldn't be pandered to, but then post another poster complaining about how his bad guy getting found out by a lucky forced blind action declaration isn't fair. I mean, did you not notice?

The creatures are trying to be as unfair as possible. The DM's duties include being fair. These are not mutually exclusive.

The DM is being fair when he adjudicates what is happening in a consistent and realistic manner. The bad guys hide in order to gain an 'unfair' advantage, but the DM is not being 'unfair' when he decides that the bad guys try to hide. The DM just has to adjudicate the consequences fairly and realistically.

If the PCs fail to notice the ambush via Perception, then they have failed to perceive the bad guys! This is a 'fair' adjudication by the DM.

It is an absurd notion for the DM to say to the players that they have failed to perceive the enemy, but tell them which rocks they are hiding behind anyway! In such a way that the PCs can act on this information that their failed checks already determined that they do not have!

By what mechanism do the players know anything about that? Simply being 'immune to surprise' is not the same thing as 'always succeeds in Perception rolls made to determine surprise'.

 

[Arial Black]

But this doesn't work with your previous statements.

They are not the same answer because they are not the same situation.

Let's change the situation slightly to highlight this:

Instead of scry/teleport, it's a hidden wizards that no one in the party detects (poor rolls, no passive high enough, whatevs). Now run the scenario -- the wizard forms intent to attack, which, according to you, causes initiative.

What causes initiative is not 'thinking about attacking' but 'taking hostile action'. The game system then determines whether or not anyone could notice that this 'threat' exists, and may even allow their 'retaliation' to interrupt that 'initial' hostile action, given both noticing the threat and having faster reactions.

Bob had the Alert feat and rolls higher than the wizard. We've already covered what you say happens here - Bob gets a blind action but knows combat has started. Bob chooses to dodge. The wizard observes Bob start dodging, and, instead of attacking, decides to withdraw while hidden to ambush again later.

No, the initiative was not caused by the wizard intending to attack, but by the wizard actually attacking! The rules just allow the possibility that he is noticed as a threat and is beaten to the punch by a faster reacting enemy.

The wizard already said he was attacking. That attempt to attack, successful or not, completed or not, is what triggered the combat. The wizard doesn't get to change his mind about attempting to attack because it was that attempt that started the combat. That attempt has already had a real affect in the world; it already began. The wizard cannot then pretend that he didn't begin the attacking process.

But, if it's a scry/teleport instead of a hidden wizard, you say this shouldn't happen and that the initiative trigger should be the arrival of the enemy with teleport. You now have two distinctly different adjudication schemes apparently based on whether or not teleport is used.

Yes, but the reason is that there is no encounter at all when the enemy are three miles away! In contrast, the wizard hiding around the corner can be perceived, is taking hostile action, therefore this encounter has already begun.

If, instead, you use the far more sensible framing in the teleport example all the time -- if you ask for initiative you've framed a clear threat (maybe not all of the threat, maybe not all of the threateners, but a clear threat that can be reacted to), you'd be far more consistent and wouldn't be engaging in these strange gymnastics to justify forcing blind actions in one case but not this other one for reasons.

There are no 'gymnastics' and no 'forcing of blind actions'. The PCs do not get to know about the ambushers because they simply have failed to perceive them. That's obvious. That's not twisting anything.

They are not 'forced' to take their allowed actions, but being able to take actions is better than not being able to take actions. They haven't perceived the enemy yet, so it's their failure to perceive them that is causing them to act 'blindly', not some secret player-screwing DM agenda.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They are not the same answer because they are not the same situation.



What causes initiative is not 'thinking about attacking' but 'taking hostile action'. The game system then determines whether or not anyone could notice that this 'threat' exists, and may even allow their 'retaliation' to interrupt that 'initial' hostile action, given both noticing the threat and having faster reactions.

Well, you swapped from 'action' to 'threat', so there's that. Secondly, if you don't notice the threat, that's what surprise is for, it's on the tin. You've trying to backdoor in a new surprise mechanic because you don't like how the existing one works.

And that's fine, you can do that, but it's not good play to make your players decide actions with no information.

No, the initiative was not caused by the wizard intending to attack, but by the wizard actually attacking! The rules just allow the possibility that he is noticed as a threat and is beaten to the punch by a faster reacting enemy.

So, we're back to action, good. So the wizard begins his attack, which causes initiative to be rolled. Beginning an attack is noticeable, so everyone knows the wizard is attacking. If they didn't notice the wizard before the attack and/or did not expect the attack, they are surprised. Alert negates surprise, so done. Everyone knows the wizard is attacking, some are surprised, some aren't, either because they had a high enough perception or invested a feat. Don't reduce these limited choices in character build because you wanted to surprise your players, work within the ruleset.

The wizard already said he was attacking. That attempt to attack, successful or not, completed or not, is what triggered the combat. The wizard doesn't get to change his mind about attempting to attack because it was that attempt that started the combat. That attempt has already had a real affect in the world; it already began. The wizard cannot then pretend that he didn't begin the attacking process.

And here's the problem again -- you've decided to change the situation but insist that the players cannot change their decisions that were based on a different set of information. Sure, in this example it's an NPC wizard, but I assume you'd require the same of your players (unless you don't, in which case, huh).

So, a player announces an attack against a foe. Under your assumption, since the player was hidden from the foe, the foe doesn't know that they're there until they act in initiative. The foe cannot be surprised (whichever reason floats your boat) and rolls higher than the player. You pick an action for the foe as if they were not aware of the player, but are aware there is some nebulous threat somewhere. The foe does something that makes the player reconsider their action and they wish to change it, but now, you won't allow this -- they must attack even though you've changed the information they originally based their decision to attack on. Not good.

If, instead, you clearly precipitate initiative, this goes away (as do other corner cases). If they player moving to attack springs from hiding to do so, and this starts initiative, then everyone is aware of the threat, if not everything (like the still hidden rogue ally on the other side of the room that's waiting for the signal). Then you roll initiative and announce surprise. In this case, the player gets a nasty shock because the foe cannot be surprised and gets the jump on them. When it's the rogue's turn, they get to shoot from hiding (or whatever), because you successfully framed the combat with a clear starting event but didn't have to reveal everything (works for players, too). This exact scenario works equally well if you swap the party with the foes.

Yes, but the reason is that there is no encounter at all when the enemy are three miles away! In contrast, the wizard hiding around the corner can be perceived, is taking hostile action, therefore this encounter has already begun.

Firstly, we strongly disagree that there's any way to cast a spell in a clandestine way without subtle spell, so everyone would be aware of the casting starting. Second, if the wizard beginning to cast starts initiative, but no one is aware of it, how is this, in any way, different from the wizard 3 miles away starting initiative by starting to cast teleport? Except for the spell name, it's really not -- no one is aware of the wizard, the wizard can cast with complete stealth, etc., etc. There's no difference in kind, here, perhaps only in scale.

There are no 'gymnastics' and no 'forcing of blind actions'. The PCs do not get to know about the ambushers because they simply have failed to perceive them. That's obvious. That's not twisting anything.

And yet you would force them to take an action without information as to why if they had the temerity to take the Alert feat and roll a higher initiative than your bad guys. So, yes, you do force blind actions on your players.

They are not 'forced' to take their allowed actions, but being able to take actions is better than not being able to take actions. They haven't perceived the enemy yet, so it's their failure to perceive them that is causing them to act 'blindly', not some secret player-screwing DM agenda.

In what way are they not forced to act? It's their initiative, they have to do something, even if it's to do nothing. And, again, the being able to act being better is only true if the enemy will kill them in one hit and they have a chance to avoid that hit through a lucky action. Otherwise, they're in the exact same place they would be by going second -- the enemy's action still happens, doesn't kill or incapacitate them, and now they can meaningfully act.

You're trying to say "sure, I make them act without enough information, but that okay, and good, because they might do something smart by accident." One of the other posters whom you quoted above in solidarity was specifically complaining that a forced blind action could result in their bad guy getting found anyway was unfair (movement uncovers hidden opponent by removing hiding conditions, now allowed to attack seen opponent). You supported this, but seem to allow for it's exact play as a possibility in this angle of your argument. Your position is shaky and you keep changing key points in different defenses that contradict each other. It's not your best argument (and you've made quite a few good arguments I've read in other threads).

 

[Ovinomancer]

You said that DMs who rule that PCs who fail to notice the threat (failed Perception versus Stealth) do not know about the enemy are 'screwing the players'. I'm taking 'screwing the players' as meaning the same as 'being unfair'.

I'm am not bound by your interpretation of my words. You could have just as easily responded to my actual words instead of creating a strawman.

The creatures are trying to be as unfair as possible. The DM's duties include being fair. These are not mutually exclusive.

Check.

The DM is being fair when he adjudicates what is happening in a consistent and realistic manner. The bad guys hide in order to gain an 'unfair' advantage, but the DM is not being 'unfair' when he decides that the bad guys try to hide. The DM just has to adjudicate the consequences fairly and realistically.

Check.

If the PCs fail to notice the ambush via Perception, then they have failed to perceive the bad guys! This is a 'fair' adjudication by the DM.

Check. The provided mechanism for this is surprise.

It is an absurd notion for the DM to say to the players that they have failed to perceive the enemy, but tell them which rocks they are hiding behind anyway! In such a way that the PCs can act on this information that their failed checks already determined that they do not have!

Now what I said at all -- I've been clear you are not required to provide perfect information, so you're strawmanning again. What the DM has to do is provide sufficient framing of the situation to justify the start of an encounter. If the enemy is hidden in ambush, then surprise is appropriate, but you still need to frame the situation. If everyone is surprised, this is easier, as you can narrate the attack from surprise. If you have players that aren't surprised because of the Alert feat, it's still incumbent on you to provide information useful to decision making, even if it's something like hearing a twig snap from the forest to your right along with your spidey sense tingling. Now that player has information with which to make a useful decision (attack from the right) and can do so but doesn't know how many or where exactly. You can even have enemies on the left and hidden as well.

Personally, I go for far more information because holding out information is a tedious game element when unnecessary. The enemy is already in a tactically strong position with their ambush, and the players should have the ability to play that cool concept they have of the unsurprisable character and not be made to play guessing games because they took a feat that the DM later decides means this ambush doesn't work the way the DM had it in their head. If you cannot challenge your players while still giving them information, you need to look to your own assumptions, not invent rule loopholes to snare your players.

By what mechanism do the players know anything about that? Simply being 'immune to surprise' is not the same thing as 'always succeeds in Perception rolls made to determine surprise'.

You said in the other post that what starts initiative is the initiation of an attack. I agree, this is what starts initiative. The Alert player is just so preternaturally on the ball that when that attack starts, they can react before consciously aware of it. This is the fiction, but I cannot, as a DM, actually impart that preternatural instinct to my player. So, instead, I give the player information and let them describe how their character reacts with their cool ability.

And that, at the end, is really the crux of the problem here. The character has abilities that cannot be transferred to the players, but the player is the one playing the game and making the choices. Your solution is to provide only the information the player can know and skip all of whatever the character have with their ability to not be surprised. This doesn't address the asymmetry involved and leads to you mistaking a base adherence to "reality" as being a fair adjudicator. It is not being a fair adjudicator. If you instead provide the information that the player needs to make the decisions, and then allow the player to describe those actions in accordance with the fiction, it's obviates the asymmetry and avoids things like forcing a player into choosing an action without information or wizards not completing spells when the situation changes or any of the other strange events postulated and allows the game to function smoothly.

The bottom bottom line is that if you allow the Alert feat in your game, you are responsible for making it work. If your solution is to do an end run around the surprise rules so you can effectively force blind actions as a kind of pseudo surprise, claiming you're a fair adjudicator falls flat. If you don't want to deal with Alert, either narrate over it and don't ask for initiative or don't allow the feat.

 

[Arial Black]

In 5E combat, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'.

Let me say that again, just to drum it home: in 5E, there is no such thing as a 'surprise check'!

What there is is 'The DM determines who is be surprised'.

He can just say, "Those guys are surprised, these guys are not" and this is perfectly fine and RAW.

However, he may (and frequently does) ask for opposed ability checks to determine whether or not those creatures who might be surprised actually are or are not surprised.

He may choose any pair of opposing ability checks that make sense. Usually, for murderhobos adventurers, then since any creature they see while exploring is assumed to be hostile then simply noticing the presence of a creature is the same as noticing a threat, so Perception/Stealth are the skills he chooses.

For normal people, and sometimes even for our heroes, it is not the case that everyone you see is assumed to be hostile and needs murdering bringing to justice. Imagine trying to go shopping with that attitude! So, in more generally peaceful surroundings, merely noticing the presence of a creature (via Perception/Stealth) is not the same as noticing a threat. But if things in the shoe shop do take a turn for the worse (what do you mean, "they make me look fat"?) then someone who's non-hostile presence you've been completely aware of suddenly pulls a knife and attacks. In this case, Perception/Stealth are not appropriate because their presence, without being a threat, was already known. What was not known is the threat that he is now! Noticing that is better modelled by Insight (body language-he seems to be getting really angry and is he going for a knife?) versus Deception (trying to hide his violent intent until it's too late to react).

But the point of all this is that, whatever check the DM chooses, it is not a 'surprise check'; it is a Perception check or an Insight check or whatever.

Whatever check it is does not directly determine surprise! The check determines if you 'noticed the threat' BECAUSE you saw/heard/smelt a creature or saw/intuited suspect behaviour (as a result of a successful check).

The check itself does not directly determine surprise. The check determines what exactly you noticed that made you realise that there is a threat.

So if the DM used Perception, then a successful check does not directly mean you are not surprised. A successful check means that you perceived something, and that something made you realise that there is a threat. It also means that if you failed the check it means that you failed to gain the information that a successful check would have given you, and the lack of that information means that you failed to notice any threat.

The assertion that 'to not be surprised you have to notice a threat' is not true. What is true is that 'noticing a threat' does mean that you are not surprised, but there are also other ways to not be surprised!

Like....the Alert feat. Weapons of Warning. Any other thing that makes you immune to surprise means that you are not surprised, even though you did not 'notice a threat'.

None of these things work by making you auto-succeed in your attempt to notice the threat. They work by making you 'not surprised' whether you noticed the threat or not!

 

[Arial Black]

Ovinomancer, if you succeed in a Perception check (whether or not this check was made to determine if you 'noticed a threat' re: the surprise rules) then you gain that information. Being 'immune to surprise' doesn't change what information that this successful check gives you.

If you fail that Perception check then you fail to get that information! Being 'immune to surprise' doesn't change the fact that you failed to 'notice a threat'!

'Immunity to surprise', whether from the Alert feat, a Weapon of Warning, or any other source, does not give you the ability to auto-succeed in Perception checks, whether or not you are making that check in order to determine surprise. They make you 'not surprised' whether you 'noticed the threat' or not!

'Forcing the players to act blindly' is not what is happening when an Alert player fails the Perception check but rolls high initiative. The player does have crucial information: he knows that combat is about to start, and he knows that he failed to perceive a threat. What he can do is use that knowledge and combine it with other things he does know. Like the surrounding terrain (there is a cave over there and no other place to hide. He can make that assumption and be right more often than not, but it might turn out that an invisible enemy is right next to him), the fact that this is a wolf hunt so it's probably wolves (probably, but not certainly), or the ambushers might have made it as confusing and difficult as they can.

Them's the (realistic and fair) breaks. The world isn't fair, for us or for our PCs.

Even though you are immune to surprise, it is still wise to invest in Perception. Immunity to surprise does not equal a successful Perception check, nor does it give clues that are gated behind a successful Perception check.