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

[RoughCoronet0]

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.

I can certainly understand that and would be fine with a DM being honest with such issue. If our DM was upfront and communicated with us their fears and frustrations as the campaign went things could have ended up differently.

Unfortunately, that isn’t what happened during that campaign. We had several conversations with the whole group trying to come to an understanding and it ended up never amounting to anything except being told that we the players where never to be trusted and were ruining their game even as we were trying to figure out what their game actually was. Nerfing wasn’t even the only problem, but it was a pretty sizable one. It was not fun, I felt miserable and belittled and even cried during one of the more heating arguments.

I don’t want to deal with that again. I’m sorry if you see that as DM hate but every other DM in our group felt the same way about what happened in that campaign and they all communicate upfront and makes sure everyone is on the same page when they DM. If beancounter is alright with the nerf despite the circumstances that’s great and I wish them luck, but I would be uncomfortable due to past experience. At best I would pick another class and see if that’s ok, but unless I knew the DM and their play style well I’d probably just excuse myself.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

The way my group handles it, if an issue arises in game then, unless it completely breaks the game (which is pretty much never the case) it remains unchanged and in the next campaign the DM can adjust or ban it.

This has been the modus operandi for two decades for us. The first time it happened was when the DM inadvertently allowed a player to invent very cheap 20d6 firebombs by combining alchemists fire and oil in a sack. It was undeniably OP, but he rolled with it and found ways to make its use a last resort (these firebombs were so powerful that they had a tendency to destroy most or all of the treasure from an encounter). And in the next campaign they were no longer allowed (and no one complained).

DMing is hard, but it's also hard on the players when the rules are a shifting morass that can change at the DM's whim. IME, learning to work around issues (as opposed to simply making them go away by banning them) can help one grow and be a stronger DM in the long run.

 

[Stalker0]

IME, learning to work around issues (as opposed to simply making them go away by banning them) can help one grow and be a stronger DM in the long run.

And learning to shift concepts or playstyle based on changes can make someone a more creative player in the long run.

As with most everything, its a matter of degrees. A DM who makes some bans or changes at the beginning of the campaign is fine to do so. A DM who sees something really powerful and unexpected in their game and who wants to change it, again probably reasonable. A DM who is changing things session after session everytime someone creates a cool use for a power...that's too much.

 

[Vaalingrade]

playing is easy, and DMing is hard

Nope.

 

[Jer]

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.

As a DM, I think it's pretty reasonable to want a DM to remember that they're playing a game with friends and not be capricious or arbitrary about things. Sitting down with their fellow players at the table to set ground rules, or discuss why they want to make a change instead of just ham-handedly declaring a nerf or ban on something after play has started. People like to feel respected, and things like that feel like disrespect - especially if every time you come up with a neat way to use your abilities the DM immediately shuts you down.

I also don't hear a lot of hate for DMs on this board - I do see a lot of hate for what I consider poor DMing practices, which is a different thing entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

Last week, one of my fellow players decided to DM Candlekeep. I rolled up a circle of the moon druid and sent him the character sheet. A couple of days later, he sends me a text claiming that the Moon druid's wild shape to too powerful, and he wanted me to use an alternate table he found on the Internet. I was a little disappointed, but I understood his concern and appreciated that he told me before the game started. I suggested that he buff the monsters instead, but he didn't like that idea.

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

I

I have before when they were overpowered. Like your DM, I do let them know prior to any final decision prior to the start of the campaign just in case they would rather play something else. It's rare, though. Very rare. I've only done it 2-3 times since 1983, and only for 3e.

 

[Guest 7034872]

[...]

This has been the modus operandi for two decades for us. The first time it happened was when the DM inadvertently allowed a player to invent very cheap 20d6 firebombs by combining alchemists fire and oil in a sack. It was undeniably OP, but he rolled with it and found ways to make its use a last resort (these firebombs were so powerful that they had a tendency to destroy most or all of the treasure from an encounter).

Yeah, I think this is where the real issue comes up most often (not always, but most often): a new or new-ish DM (like me) won't be as practiced in on-the-fly rulings, prices for objects, potencies of those objects, narrative solutions to bits of game-breakage, and the like. DMs who've been at it for many years will have a much greater store of experiential knowledge than I have today from which to draw when making their calls.

So the temptation for many less-experienced DMs will be to nerf classes, magic items, or abilities that become so OP they threaten the cohesion of the planned campaign. Here's an example from Cody Lewis' Taking20 vodcast I'm thinking of that I was almost ready to allow into my campaign (!!): using RAW Simulacrum to create indefinitely many simulacra whereby a 17L wizard or 19L sorcerer with Twin Spell could create an arbitrarily large army of casters (with full spell slots) and then one-shot a tarrasque. Upon seeing just how bad this got (and reasoning that of course my team of big baddies would themselves totally use this trick), I went with "copies can't make copies," but I had to think it through first. More experienced DMs will get one look at this trick and know to disallow it.

DMing is hard,

Oh, boy, is it.

but it's also hard on the players when the rules are a shifting morass that can change at the DM's whim.

Yep.

IME, learning to work around issues (as opposed to simply making them go away by banning them) can help one grow and be a stronger DM in the long run.

I completely agree. It's dangerous for the current game, but it's likely the only way to build up that skill in fast on-the-fly judgment that a DM needs. I've already made several important mistakes in my first four or so sessions, and learning how to navigate their consequences is where I'm doing all my current growing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And learning to shift concepts or playstyle based on changes can make someone a more creative player in the long run.

As with most everything, its a matter of degrees. A DM who makes some bans or changes at the beginning of the campaign is fine to do so. A DM who sees something really powerful and unexpected in their game and who wants to change it, again probably reasonable. A DM who is changing things session after session everytime someone creates a cool use for a power...that's too much.

I would somewhat agree with this. I stated up thread that I think making changes/bans before character creation is absolutely reasonable.

DMs have tremendous power, while players have relatively little. It's not that hard for the DM to make in-game adjustments that can mitigate perceived imbalances (such as my aforementioned DM who ruled that our OP firebombs tended to destroy the treasure).

The players, conversely, have very little leeway if the DM changes their character in a way that ruins the concept or makes it less enjoyable. It isn't something that player creativity can necessarily fix, unless you consider finding ways to "enjoy" playing a character that you no longer enjoy to be creative (I don't).

I think it's far easier for the DM to overuse the banhammer than it is for them to exercise judicious consideration in its use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would somewhat agree with this. I stated up thread that I think making changes/bans before character creation is absolutely reasonable.

DMs have tremendous power, while players have relatively little. It's not that hard for the DM to make in-game adjustments that can mitigate perceived imbalances (such as my aforementioned DM who ruled that our OP firebombs tended to destroy the treasure).

The players, conversely, have very little leeway if the DM changes their character in a way that ruins the concept or makes it less enjoyable. It isn't something that player creativity can necessarily fix, unless you consider finding ways to "enjoy" playing a character that you no longer enjoy to be creative (I don't).

I think it's far easier for the DM to overuse the banhammer than it is for them to exercise judicious consideration in its use.

This is what I'm talking about. I keep seeing this assumption that DMs are power-mad dictators that need to be reigned in, and if there's a conflict its almost always the DMs responsibility to bend to the player.

 

[CleverNickName]

I guess it would depend on why the DM felt the need to "nerf" my character. Like, if she's trying to prevent me from exploiting some ridiculous power loop ala PunPun, or keep me from hogging the action from all the other players at the table, I'm not going to grumble about it. It's odious when people try to "break the game" like that.

But if she just didn't like the ability out-of-hand, and decided that particular ability doesn't exist in her campaign? Yeah, I'm not going to grumble about that either, because it's her game setting and I trust her judgment. The game is supposed to be fun for the DM too.

But if she's just trying to be mean and punish me for not bringing cookies to the gaming session even after I promised I would and instead made up some B.S. excuse about "the store ran out" or whatever? I'm probably not going to grumble about that either, because fair enough: everyone is supposed to chip in for snacks and nobody likes a freeloader.

Sorry, lost my train of thought.

I guess my point is, I don't really complain a lot about my character's abilities. If my DM has an issue with one or more of my character's abilities, we talk about it and come to a decision. Sometimes that decision is "Eldritch Blast is over-used and everyone is getting annoyed with it, please pick a different Invocation" and that's fair.