D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[Imaculata]

Yeah, hope you find a new better group soon. I've been in a similar situation before, where the DM's antics started to make us all dread D&D night. And thats the moment where your group (or part of your group) should have the clarity of mind to simply ditch the DM and form a new group. Because that's what I did. Me and some members of the original group formed a new D&D group, and we've now been playing together for many years, without issues.

 

[Matt McNiel]

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!

To me, the DM just needs to be more creative or work a little harder to make it work. I, myself, will implement anything that is reasonable. I really haven't read a feat yet that has been "broken" that exists in official material. You are following the rules, I'm not sure what the problem is. Now, if he now wants to exclude feats, then he should give you the bonuses to your attributes that you missed out on because you choose the variant human, and maybe because of their indecisiveness of what rules they want to use, supply your character with an appropriate magic item or something...this is all my opinion from a 29-year DM perspective...

 

[TheSword]

Major thread necromancy. However, as it has been, I’ll say two things.

- A feat that is reasonable 20% of the time can sometimes be broken in certain characters. For instance if the rogue is an assassin with +5 Dex and every ambush of the party starts with the rogue with advantage sneak attacking a target of their choice. This could be particularly disruptive if the DM is playing by the book and not fudging or elevating hp.

- There is nothing wrong with a DM removing certain options that shut down areas of the campaign that thematically wouldn’t work in that particular campaign. For instance I would never allow the Observant feat in a campaign set in undermountain as a rogue PC could easily have 20+ passive perception making all traps irrelevant. It’s similar to not having paladins in a gothic horror campaign or create water in a Dark Sun themed campaign.

 

[Harzel]

Major thread necromancy.

I've never understood why that is a problem.

 

[TheSword]

I don’t necessarily think it is. It’s just funny when a thread that was posted a year ago just starts up again.

 

[Harzel]

- A feat that is reasonable 20% of the time can sometimes be broken in certain characters. For instance if the rogue is an assassin with +5 Dex and every ambush of the party starts with the rogue with advantage sneak attacking a target of their choice. This could be particularly disruptive if the DM is playing by the book and not fudging or elevating hp.

This affects the amount of damage that the rogue deals in one round of the encounter. In all but the most unusual circumstances, that should not trivialize what would otherwise be a challenging encounter. Does your claim that this is broken and disruptive rest on anything other than an aesthetic judgement?

- There is nothing wrong with a DM removing certain options that shut down areas of the campaign that thematically wouldn’t work in that particular campaign. For instance I would never allow the Observant feat in a campaign set in undermountain as a rogue PC could easily have 20+ passive perception making all traps irrelevant. It’s similar to not having paladins in a gothic horror campaign or create water in a Dark Sun themed campaign.

Anything that effectively negates a broad set of challenges is certainly a potential target, particularly if it is a unique way of doing so. For instance, I agree that if you think that adequate water supply should constitute a challenge, create water is problematic.

I'm less sure about Observant since that is not the only way for a rogue to get a passive perception that is higher than a majority of trap finding DCs. With expertise and WIS 14, passive perception will be 16, 18, and 20 at levels 1, 5, and 9 respectively. In other words, I think you have the situation that you view as problematic with or without Observant.

Also, I think one can view the issue the other way around: in a world in which some creatures are Observant, many traps would probably be hidden in such a way that merely wandering by with a high passive perception is not sufficient to notice them (regardless of the abilities of any particular group of PCs).

Also, how to use passive perception is up to the DM. It is legitimate to require PCs to be dedicating their attention to watching out (at the expense of not doing something else like mapping) or even to have to choose between, say, attending to the next 5 feet of walls, floor, and ceiling vs. listening and peering ahead to detect unwelcome company.

 

[Harzel]

I don’t necessarily think it is. It’s just funny when a thread that was posted a year ago just starts up again.

Ah, I see. I assumed too much from your comment. Some folks seem to be genuinely disturbed by it.

 

[iserith]

I finally had to bail from this campaign, all the warning signs a lot of you posted finally happened, along with the DM starting to play favorites with one of the female players, it was a truly frustrating situation.

1 XP awarded for learning a valuable lesson: To avoid problems, always be the DM.

 

[iserith]

Also, how to use passive perception is up to the DM. It is legitimate to require PCs to be dedicating their attention to watching out (at the expense of not doing something else like mapping) or even to have to choose between, say, attending to the next 5 feet of walls, floor, and ceiling vs. listening and peering ahead to detect unwelcome company.

That's what I do, essentially. Though I don't often use the optional feats rules, Observant is never an issue because there are multiple tasks that can be done repeatedly while adventuring that are mutually exclusive. If the Observant rogue wants to always be on the lookout for traps as he or she delves the dungeon, he or she might not also be on the lookout for secret doors (which lead to short cuts or secret chambers full of treasure) or for tracks (which can lead the PCs toward wandering monsters or away from them). So, sure, the rogue can probably always spot the traps and avoid surprise from lurking monsters - just not some other things. That makes it a meaningful choice. Even so, the beginning of an exploration challenge involving a trap, excepting complex traps, generally begins with noticing that there's a trap. What the PCs do with that knowledge is another thing entirely and the beginning of a potentially exciting, memorable tale.

 

[TheSword]

This affects the amount of damage that the rogue deals in one round of the encounter. In all but the most unusual circumstances, that should not trivialize what would otherwise be a challenging encounter. Does your claim that this is broken and disruptive rest on anything other than an aesthetic judgement?

Anything that effectively negates a broad set of challenges is certainly a potential target, particularly if it is a unique way of doing so. For instance, I agree that if you think that adequate water supply should constitute a challenge, create water is problematic.

I'm less sure about Observant since that is not the only way for a rogue to get a passive perception that is higher than a majority of trap finding DCs. With expertise and WIS 14, passive perception will be 16, 18, and 20 at levels 1, 5, and 9 respectively. In other words, I think you have the situation that you view as problematic with or without Observant.

Also, I think one can view the issue the other way around: in a world in which some creatures are Observant, many traps would probably be hidden in such a way that merely wandering by with a high passive perception is not sufficient to notice them (regardless of the abilities of any particular group of PCs).

Also, how to use passive perception is up to the DM. It is legitimate to require PCs to be dedicating their attention to watching out (at the expense of not doing something else like mapping) or even to have to choose between, say, attending to the next 5 feet of walls, floor, and ceiling vs. listening and peering ahead to detect unwelcome company.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.