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

[CleverNickName]

I meant "ridiculous" as in "absurd." Neither good nor bad, or maybe both, depending on the context. But they were always just...weird. It always felt like the player expected them to do one thing, the DM expected another, and both of us usually ended up disappointed. But yep, @Mort is right: that's a different thread. It has nothing at all to do with PC abilities being nerfed by the DM.

 

[James Gasik]

I wasn't going to sidetrack the conversation, I swear! Maybe throw out a link or two, that's all!

(I sidetrack enough forum threads as it is).

 

[Lanefan]

That said, I think that if everyone at the table is having less fun, that is a valid reason to make adjustments. In that case you should have buy in from the group, and it should be able to be resolved with a quick discussion: "Hey Tom, I think we all agree that Turn Undead is ruining this zombie campaign. If you're down, I'll let you swap it out for a different Channel Divinity of your choice. Cool?"

What if Tom says "Not cool. Not my fault I lucked into having the perfect character for this campaign, and I'm a-gonna rock it as long as I can!"

Then where are you?

 

[Fanaelialae]

What if Tom says "Not cool. Not my fault I lucked into having the perfect character for this campaign, and I'm a-gonna rock it as long as I can!"

Then where are you?

Then clearly not everyone at the table agrees that they're having less fun.

In which case, I (as DM) would diversify my encounters. Add some enemy types that aren't so susceptible to turn undead. Maybe some giant zombies with turn resistance. Or some fungal zombies that are plant type (and therefore immune to turning). Or even some enemies that aren't zombies (as long as they don't ruin the theme).

 

[Hussar]

What if Tom says "Not cool. Not my fault I lucked into having the perfect character for this campaign, and I'm a-gonna rock it as long as I can!"

Then where are you?

Where we should have been in the first place - point buy or standard array.

Funny how people would so ardently defend the character's die rolls against being changed by the DM, but, if the player were to similarly insist on playing a particular race or class, he's a bad player.

Hard to know which of the "pick and choose" things I need to remember. I'm not supposed to insist that I can play X race or Y class, but, dammit, if I rolled really well, the DM better not do anything about it.

 

[Lanefan]

Where we should have been in the first place - point buy or standard array.

What's roll-up method got to do with anything?

In this example, and regardless how he rolled it up, by sheer luck Tom just happens to have brought a character with good Turn Undead ability into an adventure that's all about dealing with easily-Turned undead.

Funny how people would so ardently defend the character's die rolls against being changed by the DM, but, if the player were to similarly insist on playing a particular race or class, he's a bad player.

Hard to know which of the "pick and choose" things I need to remember. I'm not supposed to insist that I can play X race or Y class, but, dammit, if I rolled really well, the DM better not do anything about it.

I kinda think you're looking at an apple here and telling us it's got a problem with its outboard motor.

 

[Hussar]

What's roll-up method got to do with anything?

In this example, and regardless how he rolled it up, by sheer luck Tom just happens to have brought a character with good Turn Undead ability into an adventure that's all about dealing with easily-Turned undead.

I kinda think you're looking at an apple here and telling us it's got a problem with its outboard motor.

Sorry, misread. My bad. Was thinking high stats, not a particular class ability.

If we're talking a single adventure? There's nothing that should be done. Let Tom shine. If it's an entire campaign, well, that's probably something that needs to be dealt with.

 

[James Gasik]

I should take a closer look at Turn Undead. I'm so used to it being a trap option that I really didn't notice if it was any good in 5e. I may have only seen it used once...

In the old days, sure, great, wonderful, the undead run away, either never to be seen again, or to come back with friends.

 

[amethal]

Also, I think you've overlooked that heavy handed use of nerfing can wreck a campaign just as easily, if not moreso, as doing nothing. And in those cases, it really is the DMs fault (as the one presumably wielding the nerf bat).

That's a good point.

I get frustrated with "core only, for the sake of balance" DMs in Pathfinder games, since I'm perfectly capable of breaking the game with a core-only Wizard or Druid (I choose not to, obviously) but this means I can't try out something that looks be fun but certainly not unbalanced, like a Sylph Investigator. (I get especially grumpy if we then have to fight an NPC investigator at a later date ...)

I remember when the Synthesist Summoner archetype came out for Pathfinder. There was a clamour for it to be banned, as clearly overpowered (and I believe it was banned for organised play) but it became clear (to some people, at least) that the way the action economy works in Pathfinder, a Synthesist Summoner was probably less powerful than the standard summoner, since its personal power came at the cost of giving up the eidolon.

The problem with the synthesist summoner was that it was clearly better at fighting than any of the martial classes (if "clear" is the right word, given how confusingly written it was) but for a normal summoner to be (even) better the player had to properly design the eidolon and then support it with appropriate spells.

(We once did a one off session where everybody brought along a level 15 character designed for the occasion; the summoner's eidolon would win initiative, charge/pounce, attack a dozen times and rip apart a CR 15+ monster before it even got a chance to act.)

 

[James Gasik]

The Synthesist was a strange a beast. Really, the least powerful thing a Summoner could do. But the ability to mostly ignore one's physical attributes while outperforming a martial was really what people were annoyed by. It highlighted the martial/caster disparity in an extreme way, by showing that a guy who has basically 6 level spells (if beefy ones) can more or less ignore the bulk of his casting ability, and gain more power than a Fighter for no other reason than he wasn't bound by the limitations of the Fighter.

Because the Summoner was a magic class, some developer apparently thought that by downgrading the ability to fill the battlefield with chumps and have the action economy of a companion creature, it was perfectly fine to let them cheat point buy and get more hit points and special abilities like Pounce or a gazillion natural weapons that were just out of reach to the average martial.