Thereâs a Chronurgist wizard PC in one of my D&D 5e campaigns. They get a feature, Temporal Awareness, that adds their Intelligence modifier to their initiative rolls. Weâre about to hit level 4, and their player intends to take the Alert feat, which grants a +5 bonus to their initiative rolls.
Simply put, I dislike this. At level 4, theyâll have a +11 bonus to initiative rolls. Part of the fun of rolling initiative is how unpredictable it can be. Sometimes the enemy goes first. Sometimes a PC rolls unexpectedly well. But with such a huge advantage over both the other PCs and their foes, this PC will likely be going first consistently.
I once played in a Pathfinder campaign with a player who did this, taking every option they could to pump their initiative bonus through the roof. I found it pretty obnoxious and unsporting, always going before everyone else, removing a sense of unpredictability from the initiative order.
One thing I liked about 5e when it initially came out was that there werenât as many options for these sorts of shenanigans. The Alert feat provided the biggest flat bonus, and a feat is a sizable investment. As initiative bonuses became more commonplace in later sourcebooks, I feared this tactic would rear its odious head once more.
I could talk to the player, express my reservations, and ask them to refrain from taking the feat. Temporal Awareness, after all, already grants them a comparable bonus. Thatâs probably the more mature approach. Alternatively, being an optional rule, I could simply disallow feats altogether.
How ought I handle this? Am I being irrational? I donât think one PC having a sky-high initiative bonus is going to be much fun for the other PCs, and itâll definitely be annoying for me as the DM.
This feels like a power creep issue, which is pretty common as a game goes on. 5th edition has been out a while, and WoTC wants to print new shiny abilities that will inspire more book sales. For some players, the most exciting part of the game is finding the perfect blend of skills/feats/class features to maximize their character's efficiency.
This was something I had to work with in my 3.5 campaign, and I was similarly torn on how to approach it with my player.
I tried restricting books my players could use, and that at least helped manage the complexity of what I needed to account for, but my player still managed to create PCs far stronger than the rest of the playgroup, and it made it difficult to find appropriate encounters that could challenge him without making the rest of my players feel irrelevant.
My first instinct was to view him as the problem, and that led to a lot of unproductive bickering. When he did make an effort to have a more "fair" character, it was clear he was not enjoying himself to the same degree.
Ultimately, he wasn't the problem- he was playing the game the way he wanted to, and that's just as valid as any other playstyle.
In the end, I focused on growing my own skills to the point where I could accommodate his preferred playstyle without making things boring for everyone else. For me, what has worked best was placing a much higher focus on non-combat interactions. Most of our sessions have one fight, maybe two if it's really called for.
You will probably find something else that works for you, but my main takeaway was that I had to evolve my game to match the players, not the other way around.
You aren't overreacting either, though. It's a sign of your talent as a DM that you are able to notice when things aren't working. It shows empathy on your part, which I consider the most important part of a well-functioning play group.
