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

[Ancalagon]

I suggested that he buff the monsters instead, but he didn't like that idea.

The thing is here that the balance that is important is not between your pc and the monsters - like you said, a DM could easily make make the monsters tougher- but rather between your PC and the other PCs

I personally think the moon druid is ok, but I haven't had much experience with them at my table. I have banned other subclasses following a short campaign, so while I might not agree with your GM re the moon druid in particular, in general I do agree that they have the right to ban certain subclasses.

 

[Quickleaf]

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 would not mind as a player.

There are good reasons to nerf certain RAW abilities. For instance, my observation is that moon druids are overpowered at 2nd level compared to the majority of other builds (e.g. twilight clerics and gloomstalker sharpshooters would be on similar footing), but then they even out towards parity (well, closer to parity) around 5th level.

One of the things I try to do as a player – and which I would encourage anyone communicating with a DM recalcitrant to allow certain RAW abilities without nerfing – is I try to clearly let them know the PC's weak points. Especially if it's a build either I am unfamiliar with or I know my DM is unfamiliar with. It really saves the DM time and energy hunting down / parsing those weak points, and once a DM understands that, yeah, this PC has some awesome strengths to design for as well as weaknesses that can be leaned on, then it's easier to say "yes." At least IME. YMMV.

 

[Lycurgon]

I am okay with it if it is something I agree is overpowered. I am happy to discuss things and agree on what the changes are. If we can't agree and I feel the changes are too much I might decide to play something else and save that concept for a different game. If I thought the person had no idea what they were talking about and it made me doubt their understanding of the game, it could put me off playing with them at all. So depends on what they want to nerf and how far they want to go.

In the case of a moon Druid, I do agree that it is way out of whack at some levels. It is crazy good at 2nd level where it can provide 68 extra HP per short rest. There is no way that is balanced! But 2nd level doesn't normally last too long and the ability doesn't get a boost in power (just versatility) until 6th level. So it evens out a pretty quickly, so while it is unbalanced it is not a big deal for me but I can see why it could be for some DMs. Especially if the campaign was going to focus on those lower levels where the problem is obvious.

Personally I would prefer a better, smoother progression for wildshape, one that wasn't so broken at some levels and perfectly fine at others. While having the flexibility to allow all Beasts is good, I think it might work better with a set of stat blocks to give a variety of forms that can simulate a variety of Beasts and have them power up as the druid levels up. For example having a tiny spider/insect form for scouting, a tiny cat/fox sized animal, a medium dog/wolf sized form and a big battle form that can be a bear/tiger/lion etc. Giving each a few different abilities to choose one from could make animals feel more unique from one or another. Then add more forms as they level up and unlock new things like swimming and flying.
And have them all balanced for their level and getting better as the level up for a smoother progression.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I'd be ticked off because Moon Druids doesn't warrant a nerf. They have power spikes at certain levels, but overall they are balanced. Many classes have one or two subclasses that are on the higher end of the power curve, doesn't mean they should be nerfed.

But above all, such attitude worries me because it might be a sign of him being a 'discipline teacher' DM. Even if I agree with his nerfs now, he might nerf things on the fly in the future, most of which i would not agree since most people dont have a good sense of balance.

Any buffs or nerfs to PC abilities should be compiled in a list of houserules and shown to players BEFORE they create their characters, not after. If he insist on looking at your character sheet first, then leave quickly because you don't want to be dealing with moving goalposts all the time.

 

[Hussar]

My answer would generally be "it depends".

I'll certainly listen to the argument for nerfing. Fair enough. But, far too often, DM's get ideas in their heads about power (and I count myself among them here) and feel the need to step in when it's not needed.

For example, in one campaign I got to play a Forge Priest. Now, the DM insisted that having a +1 weapon at 1st level was WAY OP and there was no way I was going to be allowed to have it. I wound up just having a sort of unmagical +1 bonus instead.

The argument that my Mace+1 wasn't doing any more damage particularly than my Sacred Flame and would be doing less damage by 5th level didn't make a difference. So, I accepted the nerf.

In the course of the campaign, the nerf made a difference in exactly 1 encounter over 12 levels. So, I guess on one side, it made so little difference that I didn't really need to fight about it, but, on the other side, it did show pretty clearly that the nerf really wasn't necessary.

And, like others, I find that this sort of thing serves as a red flag moment. If the DM is so convinced of his or her own gut over any actual evidence, what else is coming down the pipe?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't bother myself but I just say no to stuff I can't be bothered dealing with.

If I could be bothered I would ban all the S tier snd D tier stuff.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I just limit the books that are allowed to be used for character creation, and during Session Zero I will ask the players if they think that the party is balanced (meaning: nobody is envious of the other PCs abilities). After that, no nerfing. Only beefing up the monsters!

(And some DMs don't want to hear this, but you really need to accept that sometimes the combat ends in a bloodbath for the NPCs without doing much damage to the PCs).

 

[Oofta]

I ban a couple of warlock options for thematic and tone reasons but that's it. I tell people that ahead of time if they're going to play a warlock.

Beyond that, none of the classes or options are so OP as to deserve a nerf IMHO. It's my job as DM to come up with challenges for the group, I've never had a problem doing that.

 

[dave2008]

I don't have any issue doing that, but I don't think I have ever felt the need.

 

[Cadence]

I'd be ticked off because Moon Druids doesn't warrant a nerf. They have power spikes at certain levels, but overall they are balanced. Many classes have one or two subclasses that are on the higher end of the power curve, doesn't mean they should be nerfed..

I kind of read the solution as delaying/splitting up some of the powers to smooth out the spikes. Assuming that's what OP meant, would that be a problem (as you admit there were spikes, and that the Nerf wouldn't change much at the non-spikey levels)?