D&D 5E Is my DM being fair?

[Charlaquin]

I imagine the OP’s issue has been resolved by now...

 

[billd91]

I had a lot of trouble with the Alert feat myself. All the doors in dungeon of the mad mage can be seen with a 20 score in perception which he has as his passive score. Being frustrated, I didn't want to just give it to them so I switched the roll to a investigation roll to find secret doors. I realized he couldn't be surprised so he can react normally during a surprise round and that's okay. I pass him a note if he can sense something and leave it to him to tell the party he hears something, but that may cause him to be distracted. So far all the encounters are with intelligent opponents, so most have snuck around to attack the side or the back of the party. Once I had an assassin attack him and another at the back while mages attack the front. The assassins sneaking score, so long as it exceeds his 20 passive threshold, the assassin was effective, but the theif with the alert feat was able to counter with an attack before the assassin was able to go invisible again with a held action. I've not ruled on whether a sneak attack on him deals lesser damage off the sneak attacks extra dice yet. I'll deal with that when it happens. Likely, I will rule it to be halved.
Another character has observant feat with a passive score of 17 in both investigation and perception which makes it very difficult to challenge them. I don't know why people need that much advantage. It breaks the game, but I will work through it and allow it to make some scenarios too easy. "That which is given too easily isn't as appreciated" and denies them fun of overcoming the adversity, I think. January 15, 2020. TTN.

WHY? If a player takes feats that make some tasks easy or automatic, why let that frustrate you? Why screw them over simply because they're good at certain things whether it's finding secret doors of difficulty Hard or lower or dealing sneak attack damage when ambushed?
If you think some of the secret doors are too easy to find - advance the difficulty to Very Hard (DC 25) so they actually have to roll it in a search rather than allow their passive perception to find it? Don't completely invalidate their choices because you think they're having too easy a time.

 

[Imaculata]

At this point I would probably suggest to the DM to maybe play without feats entirely, or to not change his mind on a feat once it has been approved.

If this is a new DM, it is best to try and be understanding. He's probably trying his best to keep things fun and fair for everyone, but his way of doing so is a bit flawed. He may not understand yet how powerful all feats are.

 

[S'mon]

At this point I would probably suggest to the DM to maybe play without feats entirely, or to not change his mind on a feat once it has been approved.

If this is a new DM, it is best to try and be understanding. He's probably trying his best to keep things fun and fair for everyone, but his way of doing so is a bit flawed. He may not understand yet how powerful all feats are.

I agree completely. 5e feats are game changers, and optional. The game works great without them. I started GMing 5e without feats and that gave me a good sense of the game.

 

[Don Durito]

This is where I think the Alexandrian's idea of rolling for initiative at the end of combat is genius. It seeds the initiative order early so that the transition into combat is very smooth (i.e. no "combat swoosh" where the action is paused while dice are rolled).

See here: Random GM Tips: Running Combat

If you have some kind of device at a table you could just randomise this with some kind of basic spreadsheet. Just plug the party's modifiers in, randomise, sort in order and go.

Normally I'm against hidden rolls, but in this case, I can see benefits. 1 you get going faster. 2 you introduce some tension into the first round as no one quite knows in what order they will act.

 

[Wepwawet]

I had a lot of trouble with the Alert feat myself. All the doors in dungeon of the mad mage can be seen with a 20 score in perception which he has as his passive score. Being frustrated, I didn't want to just give it to them so I switched the roll to a investigation roll to find secret doors. I realized he couldn't be surprised so he can react normally during a surprise round and that's okay. I pass him a note if he can sense something and leave it to him to tell the party he hears something, but that may cause him to be distracted. So far all the encounters are with intelligent opponents, so most have snuck around to attack the side or the back of the party. Once I had an assassin attack him and another at the back while mages attack the front. The assassins sneaking score, so long as it exceeds his 20 passive threshold, the assassin was effective, but the theif with the alert feat was able to counter with an attack before the assassin was able to go invisible again with a held action. I've not ruled on whether a sneak attack on him deals lesser damage off the sneak attacks extra dice yet. I'll deal with that when it happens. Likely, I will rule it to be halved.
Another character has observant feat with a passive score of 17 in both investigation and perception which makes it very difficult to challenge them. I don't know why people need that much advantage. It breaks the game, but I will work through it and allow it to make some scenarios too easy. "That which is given too easily isn't as appreciated" and denies them fun of overcoming the adversity, I think. January 15, 2020. TTN.

As a DM I love the Observant feat!
When there is a secret door around I just describe something unusual about that "wall": dust on the floor has been swept by a draft coming from that wall; you see cracks on the rock in a rectangular shape...

All that rolling perception for secret doors doesn't really add much to the game, it just slows it down.
And giving the characters a tip straight away makes them feel smarter and more powerful. I mean, they did invest some of their power into it.

I played Tomb of Horrors and I really dislike how it's written with all the gotchas and hidden stuff. Luckily one character had the Observant feat, and the others had pretty high perceptions too. I didn't find it detract from the ridiculous difficulty of it.

 

[oriaxx77]

It is not fair to nerf someone. It is always better to strengthen the others if someone is OP. Personally I do not think that this feat is OP though. In my long running party I have power gamers and casual players. They are at lvl 16 where a power gamers do 80 damage / round , the casuals 10 damage / round individually. Both groups enjoy the game. Their preferences are different.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

As a DM I love the Observant feat!

I'm currently playing an Artificer looking at the possibilities for my 4th level ASI. I have a 17 Int, and the Spy background... so the Observant feat looks pretty good.

I asked the GM is he was allowing feats and warned him, should he allow this, he'd be looking at a character with a Passive Investigation of 20.

He's cool with it - the rest of the party took Wisdom as their dump stat, so they couldn't notice their way ouf of a paper bag. Having one person who is really, really good at it won't break his game.

 

[Wepwawet]

......um.

"I read Animal Farm and I really dislike how it's written with all the talking animals and the 1917 revolution stuff."

Ha! Good point.

Let me rephrase that: I played Tomb of Horrors and I expected it to be a fun adventure. It really wasn't...
(and it still works for Animal Farm!)

EDIT: just adding that I did run it as a DM. The players did have more fun than me, so I guess it's alright