D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[Harzel]

I'm fairly sure that it works thus:
<snip>

I've no quarrel with the examples that you have described. However, in order to successfully generalize this, it appears to me (could be wrong) that you are counting on the following being true:

• Every attack is (somehow) perceptible (at least slightly) before it hits.

Otherwise you get to pick one of the following:

• It is possible for an Alert creature to act in response to things that it cannot perceive.
• It is possible for an Alert creature to be hit with an attack without any possibility to act in response to the attack prior (effectively surprising it).

​This thread has had enough good examples and arguments that I am no longer convinced as to which of these I should choose (and, fortunately, none of my players has taken Alert yet). But I am pretty convinced that when you boil it down, you have to pick one of those three stances.

 

[clearstream]

I've no quarrel with the examples that you have described. However, in order to successfully generalize this, it appears to me (could be wrong) that you are counting on the following being true:

• Every attack is (somehow) perceptible (at least slightly) before it hits.

Otherwise you get to pick one of the following:

• It is possible for an Alert creature to act in response to things that it cannot perceive.
• It is possible for an Alert creature to be hit with an attack without any possibility to act in response to the attack prior (effectively surprising it).

​This thread has had enough good examples and arguments that I am no longer convinced as to which of these I should choose (and, fortunately, none of my players has taken Alert yet). But I am pretty convinced that when you boil it down, you have to pick one of those three stances.

@doctorbadwolf [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] I too feel you've brought some good arguments to the thread. Where I feel like right now, today, is that indeed every attack is somehow slightly perceptible before it hits. The bushes start to rustle. The swordsman's fingers twitch on the hilt of his undrawn sword. That could very well solve my narrative problems.

 

[DaveDash]

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.)

I haven't read all the replies past this one - so forgive me if someone has pointed this out already.

The players handbook states that in many scenarios someone can have disadvantage on their passive perception check which amounts to a -5. For example - darkvision (lightly obscured), being at the back of the group, being distracted, moving too fast, and so forth. Many DMs forget this, and it means that high passive perceptions aren't "Automatic" you see the trap/hidden monster/whatever.

Also Alert isn't that game changing since it's just ONE character that can't be surprised (in this instance).

 

[Caliban]

I've no quarrel with the examples that you have described. However, in order to successfully generalize this, it appears to me (could be wrong) that you are counting on the following being true:

• Every attack is (somehow) perceptible (at least slightly) before it hits.

This is the option I go with. It may be nothing more than the rush of displaced air as the invisible rogue attacks with their dagger, but a character with Alertness is able to sense it in the nick of time and have a chance to react.

 

[Arial Black]

This is the option I go with. It may be nothing more than the rush of displaced air as the invisible rogue attacks with their dagger, but a character with Alertness is able to sense it in the nick of time and have a chance to react.

I disagree with the idea that ALL attacks a preceded by clues which are automatically perceived, even by creatures that failed their Perception checks. It's against the rules (in that successful checks mean you gain the information, while FAILED checks should mean you FAIL to get that information) and contrary to the established narrative.

Let me take it step-by-step. First, there is more than one way to be 'not surprised'; I'll just talk about the two ways that we have been discussing:-

1.) 'notice a threat' (by way of the DM saying you notice it automatically, or a successful ability check contest)

2.) 'immunity to surprise' (by way of the Alert feat, Weapon of Warning, various other abilities)

In the same way that 'poodles are dogs' AND 'rotweilers are dogs' does NOT mean that 'poodles are rotweilers', you can be 'not surprised' because you 'noticed a threat', you can be 'not surprised' by being 'immune to surprise', but this does NOT mean that being 'immune to surprise' makes you 'notice a threat'!

Being immune to surprise means that you are 'not surprised' even though you did NOT notice a threat!

If you are a trained assassin, spending all your resources on being almost undetectable before you strike, and you make all your skill rolls, use silence/invisibility and so on, and the victims all fail to match your Stealth with their Perception, but they happen to have faster reflexes than you, the fact that they are immune to surprise should not result in the DM ignoring the facts that the rolls have established re: you being hidden! The DM should not give information that should be gated behind successful Perception checks, nor should he narrate your arrow 'hitting or missing' (which is what breaks hiding, not 'attacking') before you resolve your attack.

Sure, the victims have a chance to detect the attack before it is resolved (hear the bow creak as it is bent back, or whatever), but we already rolled for that and established that the victims FAILED to notice these clues. Therefore, the DM should not give these clues anyway!

The alert guy in this situation has NO direct information about the (successfully hidden) assassin!

The alert guy DOES know that combat is starting, and can make educated guesses to help him make smart decisions.

Immunity to surprise is very useful, but it is not an automatic 'I win' button; it does not make you 'notice a threat'; it makes you 'not surprised' even if you FAIL to 'notice a threat'.

 

[clearstream]

I disagree with the idea that ALL attacks a preceded by clues which are automatically perceived, even by creatures that failed their Perception checks. It's against the rules (in that successful checks mean you gain the information, while FAILED checks should mean you FAIL to get that information) and contrary to the established narrative.

you can be 'not surprised' because you 'noticed a threat', you can be 'not surprised' by being 'immune to surprise', but this does NOT mean that being 'immune to surprise' makes you 'notice a threat'!

Being immune to surprise means that you are 'not surprised' even though you did NOT notice a threat!

The alert guy DOES know that combat is starting, and can make educated guesses to help him make smart decisions.

That feels right to me. So there are four components.

1. Combatant status is bestowed on all participants
2. Initiative order
3. Surprised or not surprised, depending on Perception
4. Suffering or not suffering the effects of surprise, depending on immunity

Two martial artists face-off, both fully aware of each other. One decides to start the combat, the other wins initiative and strikes first. Narratively, she reacted to a slight "tell" from her opponent.
A caravan is ambushed. One guard passes Perception and wins initiative. She spots an ambusher and strikes first. Things are happening too quickly for her to obviate surprise for slower guards this round.
A caravan is ambushed. All guards fail Perception but one is Alert and wins initiative. She senses something is up and is not robbed of her actions/reactions, but has little to work from so Dodges or Readies. Things are happening too quickly for her to obviate surprise for slower guards this round.

A key premise to accept is 1, right? Participants can’t be “unaware that combat has started”. And then 4. Immunity to surprise is not a free pass on Perception checks: it is about immunity to the effects of surprise.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

After playing with feats for almost a year (guestimate), I/we (my group) came to the conclusion that all feats are OP...if the DM doesn't change the game reality/rules to compensate.

Feats give you stuff the core rules don't. The core rules are the core rules because, well, they are the core rules. Feats are OPTIONAL things. The game takes into account that a character may get another +1 to his Intelligence...it doesn't take into account that a character is suddenly "immune" to being Surprised. That's where the DM has to step in.

The DM is required to re-jigger much of the game reality the moment he/she decides to use Feats (and MC'ing while we're at it). If there are people out there that can train themselves to be "never surprised", well, that changes a HUGE dynamic. Guardsmen, for example, would likely be required to show that they are "hyper-alert" (re: have the Alert feat)...because, honestly, why wouldn't that become a requirement for any serious protection? Outriders for a caravan? Need "Alert". Bodyguards? Need "Alert". Spies/assassins? Need "Alert". And this is just ONE Feat. Now multiply that by however many feats there are that "give you something more rather than just make you better"...because "...you can not be Surprised" is FAR different from "...you can roll again if you are surprised; success means you are not surprised after all".

In short: You're DM isn't being "unfair" regarding Feats, so much as being "unprepared" regarding Feats.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Caliban]

I disagree with the idea that ALL attacks a preceded by clues which are automatically perceived, even by creatures that failed their Perception checks. It's against the rules (in that successful checks mean you gain the information, while FAILED checks should mean you FAIL to get that information) and contrary to the established narrative.

If that make more sense to you, go for it. I support you 100%.

But, I'll stick with my interpretation for my games, it just seems much less complicated and accomplishes the same thing.

 

[Hriston]

Being immune to surprise means that you are 'not surprised' even though you did NOT notice a threat!

This is correct! Notice the use of the past tense, i.e. "did NOT notice". This refers to the state of affairs before combat began.

Sure, the victims have a chance to detect the attack before it is resolved (hear the bow creak as it is bent back, or whatever), but we already rolled for that and established that the victims FAILED to notice these clues.

No, the roll establishes that the victims failed to notice the attacker before s/he initiated combat. Once the attacker has initiated combat, however, everyone is aware that an attack is underway. They still don't know where the attacker is located until the attack hits or misses, which happens on the attacker's turn, but they do know they are being attacked and anyone who is immune to surprise is able to react accordingly.

In short, you're mixing up noticing the attack and noticing the attacker. They're not the same thing.

 

[James Gasik]

It's funny. Not long ago, I got into a heavy discussion about spellcasting, somatic components, and spellcasting focuses (focii?). I felt the rules were too restrictive in some cases, and immediately, several people said I was wrong because Warcaster exists. I responded by saying "Warcaster is a feat, and feats are optional, we shouldn't be balancing the game based on how it may interact with optional rules elements".

Now I just read a post where someone says "the core game isn't balanced with Feats, you need to adjust the game if you use Feats in it". ^-^

While I agree with that principle, I do feel the need to point out that there are other ways to render a character immune to being surprised in the core game. They may be high level options, like Foresight, but they do exist. So the game already assumes that unusually prescient characters can exist who can dodge attacks they are completely unaware of.

Consider this conversation. An invisible opponent attacks Batman.

"What, but how did you...?"

"I've trained to fight unseen opponents extensively, and I realized that if an invisible assailant were to ambush me, this would be an ideal time to do so. Also, I'm Batman."