Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8595014" data-attributes="member: 22779">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?</blockquote>