D&D 5E So my Dm wants to nerf my Vengence paladin against all but chosen foes?!

[Centurion!]

My player took your advice, and asked me to read all of this. Bad advice. Not a bad advice in general, but because he has been such a powerplayer that my other players have begged me to nerf him as the group is now totally unbalanced because of him. To Top this, he has been playing in a player vs DM-style, and in the end I just gave up the servant/stort-teller angle, and just came down hard on him. Somehow he thought this thread would help me see that I was being unfair, calling for "back-up" I guess. But reading his "portrait" of me and my understanding, has been very dissapointing as well. Yet another attempt to set up a power-struggle, in hopes of running my game. I lost count of how many times he has taken the part as DM in mid-play. Sigh... if this is how he truly feels, then I would say he should take your advice and walk. Or play a figher at best.

He now plays the paladin like a fighter, with bonus-powers, without purpose. As his DM, I read an oath-paladin to adventure with a purpose. Old-school understanding perhaps, but as long as there is divine spells involved, there is a divine will and a directed purpose expected. As a DM I try to flavour the game with Gods being actual real gods in this world, where divine magic flows from them as divine favour. So if if my priest is way out of character or straying from his priestly ethics, his powers will flicker. A paladin is a worrior within a clergy. When I asked the paladin what he felt it would take to be an oath-breaker, there was no answer, as his enemy was noone and everyone. Id like some suggestions from you guys mostly from those who feel I should not play the part of whomever the paladin gave an oath. In my world divine magic is lent to mere mortals, according to their divine will. If Thats unfair, so be it.

And yes, I just told a new player in the group.. he is a transmuter, that I want him to be aware that in my world the schools are like political parties in our world, working together behind closed doors, but officially and in public they are alienating oneanother, due to different understanding and ethics. As for him, he would loose his rep as an upstanding transmuter if caught casting abjuration spells. Limitations? Yes! For the better? According to many of you, and players like this paladin, no. But for some, they might actually like the idea, that wizardry is more than just spells. In my world of causiality, players are bound to the world they live in and interact with (RAI). And the way I read 5e paladin is that he/she rose from a context, with a purpose and an enmity, and was given/chose a cause. This cause is what gave him his powers... so im pretty sure 5e paladin RAW are crusaders like the previous versions, just with a bigger variation, like this LN Bane-paladin (actually Hoar). As he didnt answer to any institutionalized body, any cause, no crusade etc, and lack of emphasy on the religious part, I couldnt find any paladin left. I would be fine with a cause like Let there be freedom for love-poems, or any other weird "holy" crusade. But no. Nothing. I had nothing to work with as DM. And now this. Well.. this p..... me off.

Other than that, I agree with most of the comments

 

[Centurion!]

Honestly, I'd just ask to play a Fighter instead. This house rule suggests an intention to interfere with your character because he is a Paladin, and if that turns out to be true then I doubt that this would be the last time that it happens.

I do have an intention to interact (I prefer interact, as interfering has a negative ring to it inclining that a player is playing without having to relate to a DM) with the paladin, as paladin. Sure, if he wants to be treated like a fighter with special abilities, he should be just that. Why? Read above.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wow, you really limit spells available to wizards by school with some weird social thing? Are you certain that it's this player playing like a powergamer and not just a normal person not expecting very weird and crippling restrictions like those you place on wizards?

But, that aside, if this is your opinion (and, as you claim, your other players' as well) of this player, why is he in your game?

 

[Centurion!]

Wow, you really limit spells available to wizards by school with some weird social thing? Are you certain that it's this player playing like a powergamer and not just a normal person not expecting very weird and crippling restrictions like those you place on wizards?

But, that aside, if this is your opinion (and, as you claim, your other players' as well) of this player, why is he in your game?

No limitation, just a social stigma among his fellow wizards (transmuters).. To make the world a more challenging place, and for more roleplaying and flavour.

Because he is a lovely person and a friend (to some extent), and I hoped he would have a good time playing with us. Nobodys perfect, and untill now I have been trying hard to make it fun for all... then this...

 

[Ovinomancer]

No limitation, just a social stigma among his fellow wizards (transmuters).. To make the world a more challenging place, and for more roleplaying and flavour.

A neat roleplaying bit would be to increase social standing for creative uses of transmutation spells. Applying social opprobrium for using the class' core feature isn't flavor -- it's punishment.

Because he is a lovely person and a friend (to some extent), and I hoped he would have a good time playing with us. Nobodys perfect, and untill now I have been trying hard to make it fun for all... then this...

Well, I have quibbles about making things fun (punishing classes for using their features with in game repercussions), but if you don't like playing a game with him and become so angry about it that you rant and tear him down (which he didn't do to you) online where he can see it and to total strangers, then you're now jeopardizing that friendship for stupid reasons. Cut bait, explain your reasons, because your current path with end up with a bad game and no friend.

 

[Centurion!]

Are a lot of people fully aware that the OP seems to only be talking about the subclass abilities?

Paladin's don't use their Channel Divinities very often, he'd still have plenty of effective spells to prepare, the only actual ability he'd lose out on on a regular basis is the the 7th level pursuit ability.


Now, I also don't think I fully agree with the DM, because your paladin under this interpretation has a hard time declaring new " Enemies" to pursue, while realistically, the same rage and fury that inspired you to pursue your first evil, may be found against other evils that you come across. This sort of thing is clearly best done as a player choice, so that the player can choose when is an appropriate time to change their stance.

He finally chose the Cult of the Dragon during the Rise of Tiamat campaign.. at level 12. so pretty much, evry foe he meet during the next 10 games is his special enemy. So in effect, NOTHING was nerfed. This thread is just to make me as a DM look bad, the way I see it.

But its a good point you rause.. During the course of gaming I should naturally let him pick other special foes as the stories unfold

 

[Sunseeker]

As a player, I wouldn't stand for it. I'd ask the DM to trust me to play my character, just as I trust him to adjudicate the game fairly.

As the player sitting next to this player, I would have absolutely no fun around him, since racist zealotry is typically something adventurers fight against, not for. I have a zealot paladin of Bahamut at one of my tables, there have been many times where, he playing to his zealotry has answered situations with violence when other members of the party have sought alternative resolutions. Eventually I stopped backing him up in a fight.

 

[Centurion!]

Quite right. What I wil be losing is the level 7 move ability(and I have the halberd feat), wov of enmity, Abjure enemy and all the Oath spells.
So Its not a deal breaker, I was more curious what people where thinking since he seemed so sure it was clear rules in phb and I couldent understand that!

Iv now later gone into talks about changing my sentinel feat with 0 speed abit aswel so it wount be as overpowered. Adjusting for size(harder to reduce bigger creatures) and splitting the Oa attack into 2 attacks one for OA damage and one for reducing(the one with minuses). So im not against fluff and rule alterations, but I like to se a good reason and in most case a rule reason if possible.

I actually specified that Sentinel is NOT overpowered. I dont Get why you are bringing this up here under false presumptions. This change was to make the feat better, not to nurf it, as you wanted to use the feat to stop dragons flying with it. Sigh...

 

[Centurion!]

Maybe the DM knows exactly what he is doing and that's the way paladins work in his game. Either give it a go, play another class, or don't play at all.

It's your choice.

[MENTION=6776087]maraxion[/MENTION] Pretty much sums it up.

 

[dagger]

This thread has gotten really interesting. I think we need to have a trial of some sort, with advocates for both sides and Enworld users as the final arbiters.

I am a sucker for train wrecks though.