Nerfing rules in game

[GMforPowergamers]

was that Dispel Magic changed the pre-determined(?) stats for the bad guys. And I did not want the game to grind to a halt while I recalculated stats for what was now 6 different duergar. I probably could have just made it up on the fly, but coulda woulda shoulda.

Yea, I had a GM that use to love haveing NPC clerics or wizards buff up, then come in. He threatened to ban Dispel magic when I used it and turned off some (but not all) buffs and items based on d20 rolls. It took long enough for my turn for one player to go down the street, order pizza, bring it back, and start eating it, before the DM was done... then the fight was over in 5 mins not even...

 

[slwoyach]

I nerf stuff all the time but that ruling on glitterdust is ridiculous, that's the whole point of the spell. Might as well just delete the spell from existence, it's worthless now.

 

[Jhaelen]

As a DM, would you have handled it differently? Do you nerf things on the fly? I think I would have been a lot less frustrated if it had been let stand in game and he had nerfed it afterwards.

Yes, no, and I agree

Identifying and nerfing or banning problematic spells should ideally happen before play starts. If I as the DM have been surprised by a spell that turns out to be more powerful than I thought, I'd definitely let it work. If I feel it's unbalancingly powerful I'd afterwards discuss with the group if they think we should do something about it or not.

If the consensus is that it shouldn't be nerfed or banned, I simply take it into account when planning future encounters. The latter is something I need to do anyway:
Characters get more powerful all the time, it's the whole point of an advancement system.
Nerfing pcs willy-nilly, so my puny opponent's don't get crushed by them is very bad style.

 

[Jhaelen]

[double-post]

 

[Umbran]

I would have had no problem with him nerfing that, except (a) it had come up before, and it really should have been nerfed then and (b) it was two spells in one game, both of which had been used before.

For some folks, it takes perspective of earlier events to bring them to see the problem in full. So, I'd cut him some slack on (a).

I see (b) as a non-issue. He didn't get to choose what spells you cast, so he didn't get to choose when the ruling was required.

And, honestly, I think your (a) and (b) are in conflict. He let something slide earlier in (a), and you didn't like that. But apparently, not letting it slide in (b) is not acceptable. He can't put it off for later, and he can't do it now? The only other time to do it would be in the past, and I doubt he's got a TARDIS handy.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

My opinion

nerf a: sure, doesn't often come up, but when it does it's bit annoying so nerfing not a bad thing

nerf b: not ok, looks more like npc-protection rather than honest ruling of problematic spell, if these kinda rulings would be common I would quit the game

 

[Elf Witch]

While I can see the ray of stupidity if it had never been used before being nerfed at the table. But if it has been used before and the DM knew how it worked sorry suck it up and let the purple worm die.

Then after the game talk with your players about changing how it works.

The glitterdust incident was just poor DMing an it sounded like sour grapes on the DMs part because you found a way to use your spells to take out his NPC. As a player I would get really annoyed over it.

As for people saying that a player using dispel magic makes the combat take longer to run to me that is a sign of not properly prepping for the encounter. If you know your players have access to dispel magic then plan that they might use it and write up the stats for the NPC both buffed and not buffed.

As a DM you should know what spells your players have access to and plan according as a player it is really irritating to be told after you have already taken a spell that no you can't use it because it makes the DMs job harder.