D&D 5E How do you feel about PC abilities being nerfed by the DM?

[Mort]

I once created a game world with it's own unique history and races. I tried to balance it between recognizable and novel, so nobody (I hoped) would feel overwhelmed.

I had a player scan over the house rules and he stopped dead when I disallowed Paladins.

"Why are there no Paladins?"

"In this setting, Clerics are the champions of the Gods, and all divine magic comes from Faith. So I felt Paladins were unecessary."

"But you have Druids!"

"Think of Druids more like shamans, they are in tune with spirits of nature and animistic totem spirits. Individually such creatures couldn't grant powers, but in aggregate, they can, provided the Druid uphold the rules of the pact they make with such entities."

"No Paladins is dumb"

"Can you explain why you think so?"

"There's no reason to disallow a class."

"They just don't fit the lore, and I feel their role is redundant."

"You should just change their lore then so they can work. Don't Gods have knightly orders?"

"They might, but why can't a Cleric be a knight?"

"They're priests, they can't be knights."

"Let's see, War Domain. Martial weapons. Check. Heavy armor. Check. Seems Knight to me."

"They don't get extra attack though."

"Most Fighters don't either. You have to understand, higher level characters are rare individuals."

"Level 5 isn't high level."

"To you, no. To most people, yes."

"So I can just kill everyone at level 5? That's a dumb world."

"Not everyone, there are people who can stop you. It's just that not every town guard has a fighting style or can second wind."

"Just let me play a Paladin, and we can say he's a Cleric of whatever made up God you have that's Lawful Good. There, now they fit the lore."

At this point I realized I was just going around in circles with the guy. Annoyed, I said fine, whatever.

"Great. Now why can't I be a Bugbear?"

And this is when I threw my hands up in the air.

I realized then that my players didn't want a unique setting. Or lore. Or history. Or new concepts to explore. They just wanted a game that let them play whatever they thought was cool. It was a sad lesson, but one I took to heart.

For me excluding a class/race/feat, whatever, for thematic reasons is VERY different from nerfing anything. I'll happily exclude something if I think it doesn't fit the theme or feel of the campaign I'm running.

The key is usually trust, if I'm running for my regular group there generally isn't an issue - they know I'm doing it for the fun of the group. If it's a new bunch of players (which hasn't been a thing for a while, too busy) I would be more hesitant - trust must be established first.

Funnily enough, I really like the 5e Paladin implementation, I would much sooner exclude wizards from a world than paladins!

 

[iserith]

I once created a game world with it's own unique history and races. I tried to balance it between recognizable and novel, so nobody (I hoped) would feel overwhelmed.

I had a player scan over the house rules and he stopped dead when I disallowed Paladins.

"Why are there no Paladins?"

"In this setting, Clerics are the champions of the Gods, and all divine magic comes from Faith. So I felt Paladins were unecessary."

"But you have Druids!"

"Think of Druids more like shamans, they are in tune with spirits of nature and animistic totem spirits. Individually such creatures couldn't grant powers, but in aggregate, they can, provided the Druid uphold the rules of the pact they make with such entities."

"No Paladins is dumb"

"Can you explain why you think so?"

"There's no reason to disallow a class."

"They just don't fit the lore, and I feel their role is redundant."

"You should just change their lore then so they can work. Don't Gods have knightly orders?"

"They might, but why can't a Cleric be a knight?"

"They're priests, they can't be knights."

"Let's see, War Domain. Martial weapons. Check. Heavy armor. Check. Seems Knight to me."

"They don't get extra attack though."

"Most Fighters don't either. You have to understand, higher level characters are rare individuals."

"Level 5 isn't high level."

"To you, no. To most people, yes."

"So I can just kill everyone at level 5? That's a dumb world."

"Not everyone, there are people who can stop you. It's just that not every town guard has a fighting style or can second wind."

"Just let me play a Paladin, and we can say he's a Cleric of whatever made up God you have that's Lawful Good. There, now they fit the lore."

At this point I realized I was just going around in circles with the guy. Annoyed, I said fine, whatever.

"Great. Now why can't I be a Bugbear?"

And this is when I threw my hands up in the air.

I realized then that my players didn't want a unique setting. Or lore. Or history. Or new concepts to explore. They just wanted a game that let them play whatever they thought was cool. It was a sad lesson, but one I took to heart.

Yes, my view is that if I'm playing a particular setting (especially a published one), then let's actually play to the setting! Otherwise, we'll just do a generic D&D world with kitchen sink options and create lore to craft the world while we play. Both are fun ways of doing things (and I really love improvising lore on the spot in the latter), but they are different approaches that should be respected as their own gameplay experience in my opinion. No warforged clerics in my Dark Sun game, sorry.

 

[James Gasik]

It wasn't like I had a hate on for Paladins, I just felt they were a class I could cut, based on the fiction I'd created. Monks weren't allowed either, but nobody complained about that.

 

[Baron Opal II]

So, as a DM, do you/would you nerf a players RAW abilities? As a player, would you mind?

I have no problem nerfing abilities and can deal with it on the other end. However, there needs to be an explanation and the player gets the chance to make alternate choices.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I once created a game world with it's own unique history and races. I tried to balance it between recognizable and novel, so nobody (I hoped) would feel overwhelmed.

I had a player scan over the house rules and he stopped dead when I disallowed Paladins.

"Why are there no Paladins?"

"In this setting, Clerics are the champions of the Gods, and all divine magic comes from Faith. So I felt Paladins were unecessary."

"But you have Druids!"

"Think of Druids more like shamans, they are in tune with spirits of nature and animistic totem spirits. Individually such creatures couldn't grant powers, but in aggregate, they can, provided the Druid uphold the rules of the pact they make with such entities."

"No Paladins is dumb"

"Can you explain why you think so?"

"There's no reason to disallow a class."

"They just don't fit the lore, and I feel their role is redundant."

"You should just change their lore then so they can work. Don't Gods have knightly orders?"

"They might, but why can't a Cleric be a knight?"

"They're priests, they can't be knights."

"Let's see, War Domain. Martial weapons. Check. Heavy armor. Check. Seems Knight to me."

"They don't get extra attack though."

"Most Fighters don't either. You have to understand, higher level characters are rare individuals."

"Level 5 isn't high level."

"To you, no. To most people, yes."

"So I can just kill everyone at level 5? That's a dumb world."

"Not everyone, there are people who can stop you. It's just that not every town guard has a fighting style or can second wind."

"Just let me play a Paladin, and we can say he's a Cleric of whatever made up God you have that's Lawful Good. There, now they fit the lore."

At this point I realized I was just going around in circles with the guy. Annoyed, I said fine, whatever.

"Great. Now why can't I be a Bugbear?"

And this is when I threw my hands up in the air.

I realized then that my players didn't want a unique setting. Or lore. Or history. Or new concepts to explore. They just wanted a game that let them play whatever they thought was cool. It was a sad lesson, but one I took to heart.

I think many players want both a cool setting and to play what they think is cool.

I've played in plenty of campaigns that were 100% homebrew material (not even using the PHB races or classes), and no one ever complained that they couldn't play a paladin bugbear.

I've also played in campaigns where certain options were banned with good reason. There was a campaign where all of the arcane magic had been drained from the world and therefore arcane casters didn't exist. The campaign was actually focused on the party trying to restore magic to the world. No one complained that they couldn't play a wizard.

That said, I have observed this behavior (and TBH, I was guilty of it myself when I was younger). In my opinion, it's actually more a result of weak world building than the players. The players cool idea outweighed the coolness of no-paladins in your setting.

I mean, okay, all divine magic comes from faith. That sounds like a perfect opportunity to create the Ideals, a group of gods who are the embodiment of paladin oaths.

Or, if you really didn't want paladins, maybe the Ideals were slain in an ancient war where they held back a demon invasion. And maybe the player could have played a cleric or fighter on a quest to restore the Ideals and the knightly orders of paladins devoted to them.

Paladins not existing because divine magic comes from faith is not an interesting answer to the question of why a player can't play a paladin. I think if you had a cooler response for the player, you might have gotten a better reaction from the player.

 

[payn]

I once created a game world with it's own unique history and races. I tried to balance it between recognizable and novel, so nobody (I hoped) would feel overwhelmed.

I had a player scan over the house rules and he stopped dead when I disallowed Paladins.

"Why are there no Paladins?"

"In this setting, Clerics are the champions of the Gods, and all divine magic comes from Faith. So I felt Paladins were unecessary."

"But you have Druids!"

"Think of Druids more like shamans, they are in tune with spirits of nature and animistic totem spirits. Individually such creatures couldn't grant powers, but in aggregate, they can, provided the Druid uphold the rules of the pact they make with such entities."

"No Paladins is dumb"

"Can you explain why you think so?"

"There's no reason to disallow a class."

"They just don't fit the lore, and I feel their role is redundant."

"You should just change their lore then so they can work. Don't Gods have knightly orders?"

"They might, but why can't a Cleric be a knight?"

"They're priests, they can't be knights."

"Let's see, War Domain. Martial weapons. Check. Heavy armor. Check. Seems Knight to me."

"They don't get extra attack though."

"Most Fighters don't either. You have to understand, higher level characters are rare individuals."

"Level 5 isn't high level."

"To you, no. To most people, yes."

"So I can just kill everyone at level 5? That's a dumb world."

"Not everyone, there are people who can stop you. It's just that not every town guard has a fighting style or can second wind."

"Just let me play a Paladin, and we can say he's a Cleric of whatever made up God you have that's Lawful Good. There, now they fit the lore."

At this point I realized I was just going around in circles with the guy. Annoyed, I said fine, whatever.

"Great. Now why can't I be a Bugbear?"

And this is when I threw my hands up in the air.

I realized then that my players didn't want a unique setting. Or lore. Or history. Or new concepts to explore. They just wanted a game that let them play whatever they thought was cool. It was a sad lesson, but one I took to heart.

Some folks just see restrictions as a challenge. My mother is a total pain in the ass in this regard. She will argue and make a scene until she gets her way. Anytime I go into a restaurant with her and see "no substitutions" on the menu I excuse myself to go blaze a fatty. Its the only way ill get through that dining experience.

 

[James Gasik]

Maybe, at the time I didn't think it was a big deal. But it's a good point that house rules probably should explain their intent.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I once created a game world with it's own unique history and races. I tried to balance it between recognizable and novel, so nobody (I hoped) would feel overwhelmed.

I had a player scan over the house rules and he stopped dead when I disallowed Paladins.

[...]

At this point I realized I was just going around in circles with the guy. Annoyed, I said fine, whatever.

"Great. Now why can't I be a Bugbear?"

And this is when I threw my hands up in the air.

I realized then that my players didn't want a unique setting. Or lore. Or history. Or new concepts to explore. They just wanted a game that let them play whatever they thought was cool. It was a sad lesson, but one I took to heart.

I think this exemplifies well why I prefer only to play with people I already know as friends. There's a level of mutual trust and, through that, mutual buy-in that I consider invaluable, and it doesn't seem to work so well with strangers.

The lore and the concepts are the absolute heart of my new campaign, and heavy player buy-in is necessary for it to run.

Back on @beancounter's original question, I guess if I were in your situation, @beancounter, I'd not be terribly upset if only because the DM's intervention came before anything of the adventure actually got underway. At that early stage and from your description of everything, I figure not much emotional investment has built up yet, so no biggie. Still, I can understand why someone else would feel miffed as a player.

I also agree with others on this thread, though, that it's awfully hard today for DMs to keep track of all the burgeoning official race and class options: in my opinion, there are too many of both.

 

[Stalker0]

I recognize that nerfage is sometimes very necessary, but the specifics really should be noted right up front before players start rolling up their characters - just like any other rules modification.

while this is ideal, in practice DMs are human beings that don't necessary always have a master record of everything they have an issue with. We also have to respect that the context of the DM's campaign HEAVILY impacts balance.

If your playing a notable low level game, where the players will be 1-3 level for a long time.... moon druids are OP. Playing a game where wilderness survival is the literal name of the game, suddenly rangers and druids are a whole lot stronger than normal. Playing a campaign where arcane magic is dying....a wizard might be underpowered, etc.

So for a new campaign, the DM might not normally think X is a problem. But once a player outlines it, they realize that in this particular game, that is just not going to work, and so calls for a change.


At the end of the day, playing is easy, and DMing is hard (and having played and DMed for over 20 years, I feel very confident in this statement). Players have a hundred concepts they can pick from, so if the DM wants to nerf a few to help them do their very challenging job, that is absolutely fine. Now the player is of course welcome to change their concept, but the idea that a DM HAS to accommodate a player when they already have a hundred other things on their plate to get ready for a new campaign....sorry no dice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve had a bad experience with this. When one of my group’s DM had nerfed someone’s class last minute, it’s became the first of many impulse nerfs during the campaign they did to the point where it becomes obvious that the DM was trying to prevent us from doing anything that might “break” the flow of their story.

The breaking point was when an argument broke out after the DM told one of the players they couldn’t do something (I forget the actual action they were trying to take), then another player jumped in reminding the DM that they had a similar argument with them when the roles were reversed, but the current DM (then player) was at that time arguing to do the action. That when the game became unsalvageable as it became clear that the DM just didn’t trust any of us to play their game “the correct way”.

Now I’m wary of any such things. If we have a session 0 and a DM has a list of banned or tweaked races, classes and other things, I’m ok with that. But if a DM says nothing and then bans or nerfs something last minute, I’m not ok with that and that’s a big red flag telling me to get out.

So, no allowance for the DM simply not knowing something was an issue until play began? Perfect knowledge or you walk?

I'm starting to wonder what a lot of people here want from a DM. Because the DM-hate across the site is getting thick.