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

[FrozenNorth]

You could try talking to them.

Isn’t that included in option 2?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Isn’t that included in option 2?

Not by default. The nerf could be laid down by DM fiat. However, this has been clarified by the poster I was responding to and I have made expanded comments on that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn’t need to be precise to make the point. It just needs to have substantially more than the Druid to make them feel overshadowed, adjust the hypothetical until it works for you. You may not agree with the point but

Nevertheless you have to insist on forcing the argument.

The reason the moon Druid causes the fighter to feel overshadowed (and it is just the moon subclass). Is that as a bonus action the Druid can instantly transform, gain 34 hp, fight better than a standard 4th level fighter, heal as a bonus action. Lose those hit points, then do the exact same thing in the same encounter. Short rest and do that over and over again in a single day. While still enjoying all the spellcasting benefits of a Druid etc. So the bear actually has bark skin up.

For how long? And they’re spending a slot to have temporary decent AC. I doubt they do that every time, at least at low level. And making one more attack does not mean they fight better than the fighter. A 4th level fighter can be leveraging spells, or manuvers and superiority dice, or their echo, etc, while fighting. The bear is a bear. That’s it. They do one thing. They can’t action surge, they have no fighting style, their subclass features are just being a bear at all, and they have to stop being a spellcaster while they are a bear.

Now if you don’t think that’s excessive, that’s fine. But the fact of the matter is my players have said in my Kingmaker game that it annoys them. in response I have the right to nerf or ban a class or subclass.

The more interesting question to me is not whether Druid of the moon is OP (I firmly believe it absolutely can be and not for 1 level more like at least 3, and after that it’s merely very good up to about level 10, at which point it drops). But rather if a Druid is played more moderately (like in my Tomb of Annihilation game, transforming every so often, rather than multiple times in every combat ) should they be allowed to play it. (That’s a question to the wider audience as I know you would let them play it anyway)

So making wildhsape less fun than it is for my wife’s shepherd Druid, while playing the subclass that is all about wild shape. No thanks.

In other words is self control a better solution to overshadowing players than nerfing/banning. Why punish the twilight cleric who shows restraint and only invoked their radiance when in desperate need?

Why ask that of the player? I’d much rather ask the other players to chill out and remember that their stuff is just as cool.

Like the bear doesn’t fight better than a Battlemaster, Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, or any other “good” fighter. Maybe compared to a champion, but that’s hardly fair.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Like the bear doesn’t fight better than a Battlemaster, Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, or any other “good” fighter. Maybe compared to a champion, but that’s hardly fair.

It is a fair comparison, if the champion is the one that’s in your party.

 

[TheSword]

Why ask that of the player? I’d much rather ask the other players to chill out and remember that their stuff is just as cool.

Like the bear doesn’t fight better than a Battlemaster, Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, or any other “good” fighter. Maybe compared to a champion, but that’s hardly fair.

Well one way of dealing with feedback is telling the person to chill out… oh wait, I agree with them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is a fair comparison, if the champion is the one that’s in your party.

And yet, I was speaking to the general case. Any strong archetype can feel "too powerful" when someone is playing a PC at the low end of the power scale. That doesn't tell us whether a given archetype is "OP".

And even in the case of the Champion, that only adds 1 level (level 3) to the levels at which a moon druid can reasonably be expected to be noticeably more powerful than any other PC, assuming no PCs are built in a knowingly undertuned manner, like wizards with 13 int or whatever.

At most the Moon druid can kindof overshadow the weaker builds in the game in basically one facet of the game. Even that is a stretch without putting overshadow in quotations.

Well one way of dealing with feedback is telling the person to chill out… oh wait, I agree with them.

Okay? You asked if folks would feel overshadowed. I answered both the explicit and implicit question.

 

[James Gasik]

I once picked up Polymorph for a Sorcerer I was playing, thinking my allies would like having it for a buff. They all turned up their noses at it, because it wouldn't let them "play their character", they would be playing an animal instead.

So I decided I'd use it on myself to have a way to conserve spell slots in tough fights. I turned into a giant ape, and crit with a rock for 14d6+6 damage, obliterating the enemy I hit with it.

One of the players griped about how much damage I was able to do at the end of that fight. The DM is like "yeah, that did seem kind of OP". I was and still am bemused by this turn of events.

A buff nobody else wanted when it was available needs to be nerfed or banned?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I once picked up Polymorph for a Sorcerer I was playing, thinking my allies would like having it for a buff. They all turned up their noses at it, because it wouldn't let them "play their character", they would be playing an animal instead.

So I decided I'd use it on myself to have a way to conserve spell slots in tough fights. I turned into a giant ape, and crit with a rock for 14d6+6 damage, obliterating the enemy I hit with it.

One of the players griped about how much damage I was able to do at the end of that fight. The DM is like "yeah, that did seem kind of OP". I was and still am bemused by this turn of events.

A buff nobody else wanted when it was available needs to be nerfed or banned?

Clearly their desire to play their characters was overwhelmed by a stronger desire to kick ass.

 

[ersatzphil]

But, honest, it really is just a mistake!

Oh, to be clear - I 100% don't mean to accuse my players of malice. My gripe is less "you're cheating!" and more "...dude, we've been playing this game for two years..."

 

[Vaalingrade]

I once picked up Polymorph for a Sorcerer I was playing, thinking my allies would like having it for a buff. They all turned up their noses at it, because it wouldn't let them "play their character", they would be playing an animal instead.

So I decided I'd use it on myself to have a way to conserve spell slots in tough fights. I turned into a giant ape, and crit with a rock for 14d6+6 damage, obliterating the enemy I hit with it.

One of the players griped about how much damage I was able to do at the end of that fight. The DM is like "yeah, that did seem kind of OP". I was and still am bemused by this turn of events.

A buff nobody else wanted when it was available needs to be nerfed or banned?

So I get why people turns up their noses at 5e Polymorph. The INT alteration suck most of the fun out of getting to be a big monkey, especially since it is tailor made for bad DMS to abuse you with.