D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[MichaelArkAngel]

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!

 

[Soul Stigma]

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 didn't think feats were available before 4th level, which is also when you could optionally, instead, raise attributes. Am I wrong on this?


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Soul Stigma]

I ask the above because in my mind having any feat level 1 & 2 especially would make it seem "broken".


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[MichaelArkAngel]

I ask the above because in my mind having any feat level 1 & 2 especially would make it seem "broken".


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

He is using a human variant where I get to add 1 point to an two stats , not a plus one on all of them, and I get a feat.

 

[iserith]

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!

Feats are an optional part of the game. But once the DM decides on their inclusion, I think the responsibility is then on him or her to adjust the difficulty of the challenges according to taste in a way that makes the feats useful, but not overpowered. You might even have some suggestions for the DM on this score, if he is receptive to input.

However, for the sake of table harmony, it's probably a good idea in general to be understanding of the DM if he or she is acting in good faith and offer to take something else, especially if the DM is new to the role. Perhaps asking your DM what he thinks wouldn't be "broken" will save you some time.

 

[Soul Stigma]

He is using a human variant where I get to add 1 point to an two stats , not a plus one on all of them, and I get a feat.

A home brew variant or something RAW?


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Hi, MichaelArkAngel,

One of my players actually suggested to me that the Lucky feat is too powerful. Personally, I disagree. He thought everyone would take it. I agreed with him that if every one did, then I'd move to ban new characters from taking it. So far, only two or three of his characters have taken it. No other players want it. And, in play, it doesn't come up all that often, so I really don't think it is broken.

Alert is powerful for the reasons that you give, but not being surprised and winning initiative most of the time are good, but not really broken, in my opinion.

All that said, I'd recommend working with your DM until he gets comfortable with feats in the game. It's unfortunate, but different DM's have differing ideas of what belongs in their game.

 

[Quickleaf]

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!

It's totally the DM's call about which feats, if any, are allowed. However, nerfing things mid-game is usually considered bad etiquette to be avoided in all but the most extreme situations.

I'd encourage you to have a friendly conversation with your DM, starting with "Hey, I need some clarity on what feats and other game elements you allow or don't allow. I really felt like I don't have as much control over my character when you nixed my Alert feat. Would you be willing to, in advance, let me know exactly what's legit for your game and what is not, so I am making character decisions fully informed?"

On a personal note, if a DM is worried about a feat making you un-surpriseable...well...that sort of implies a DM who is wedded to a certain type of "antagonistic DM vs. players" style. That style can be fun, but it's not for everyone.

 

[ccs]

A home brew variant or something RAW?

5e PHB. Read the entry for Human.

 

[robus]

This DM seems to be on a bit of a power trip. The game is designed for the PCs to be awesome (perhaps not during the first couple of levels though!) why did you get a feat off the bat? And if the DM is worried about feats why did they allow them in the first place?

First time DMing perhaps? Hope you can sort it out!