Your Prc gets nerfed!!! what to do?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
I agree. Hurting a player merely because they factored build power into their character development is lame. D&D has rules for a reason and players shouldn't be punished for wanting to build the best character they can that is within those rules. Thats not to say that you shouldn't nerf him down to the errata, just that you shouldn't base your choice on his play style.
The way I see it, if he is a powergamer than he will understand the change as a live by the sword die by the sword kinda thing. If he is motivated by roleplaying than just work it into the story and you should be fine.
I would handle it by nerfing him in game. Say a curse or something. Then allow him to quest/earn back some of his lost power.
The way I see it, if he is a powergamer than he will understand the change as a live by the sword die by the sword kinda thing. If he is motivated by roleplaying than just work it into the story and you should be fine.
I would handle it by nerfing him in game. Say a curse or something. Then allow him to quest/earn back some of his lost power.
Warren Okuma
First Post
Tell him the class is damaged goods so make a new character.Gundark said:
What I would do I is that I would pick a PC and sell him all my magic items for all of his current cash (i.e. selling cheap for a fast buck, plus friendship discount etc...) so I could buy a farm/business and then retire that character. I would make a serenade of oh, how badly the fates have cursed me, and how the wizards in the tower hath cursed me... farewell... fare thee well... forever. And place the back of my hand on my forehead.
CanadienneBacon
Explorer
Vanuslux said:
I certainly am not trying to be snarky here, but maybe the player is willing to abandon the PrC and make a new character not because he craves power but because he senses tension in the group regarding whether to use or not use the errata. If that's the case, then I could see where I personally might be inclined to ditch the trouble-causing character in favor of something new and different. Wouldn't be because I didn't want to play something less uber, it'd more just be that I wanted to play something that people weren't arguing about.
green slime
First Post
This problem is one created by the DM. Yes, Gundark, I'm looking at you. To me, it was painfully obvious that the Weretouched Master was a poorly thought out, prone-to-abuse PrC, right from the get go.
Of course some of the others are complaining that their melee characters are playing second fiddle. As a DM, it is your responsibility to exam each PrC before allowing it into your game. Question your player about his motives, and what he intends to do. Ask the opinions of the other players, if you find it difficult to gauge the power level of PrC's. Don't be afraid to tone down the power level of the suggested PrC.
You do this, so then you are far less likely to have to rectify these problems after the fact. I do this, because I too have to suffer through a powergaming player. Somehow I can't seem to get through his thick skull, that it should be more "Role" than "L337 powerz". So basically, I know if he approaches me about some PrC, then I know to go over it with a fine tooth comb. If (or more often, When) I point out imbalances, and suggest a few changes, he loses interest. So much for flavour.
Of course some of the others are complaining that their melee characters are playing second fiddle. As a DM, it is your responsibility to exam each PrC before allowing it into your game. Question your player about his motives, and what he intends to do. Ask the opinions of the other players, if you find it difficult to gauge the power level of PrC's. Don't be afraid to tone down the power level of the suggested PrC.
You do this, so then you are far less likely to have to rectify these problems after the fact. I do this, because I too have to suffer through a powergaming player. Somehow I can't seem to get through his thick skull, that it should be more "Role" than "L337 powerz". So basically, I know if he approaches me about some PrC, then I know to go over it with a fine tooth comb. If (or more often, When) I point out imbalances, and suggest a few changes, he loses interest. So much for flavour.
green slime
First Post
Secondly, I'd suggest: ignore the errata, confer with the player, and get him to agree that his character needs toning down. Then proceed to chnge the character so that it meets a power level that everyone can live with.
Failing that, let him either create a new character (if a friend), or alternatively, drop him from the game.
Failing that, let him either create a new character (if a friend), or alternatively, drop him from the game.
Chimera
First Post
"Well you know, dude.... Your character was pretty powerful and some of the other guys kind of felt that it was overshadowing their characters and making things less fun for them. So if you want to drop the character just because he's less powerful, that's ok. But please don't think that this is an opportunity to design something else overpowered.
Rather than go down that road, why don't you just give the changes a try and let's see how they work out?"
Rather than go down that road, why don't you just give the changes a try and let's see how they work out?"
Hussar
Legend
pawsplay said:
That's a strawman though. And, ignoring the point as well.
The player is considering chucking the class, not because he knows what the changes are, but, because his power level is getting scaled back.
To turn the question around: If you were told that there were errata on the WOTC site for the wizard class and the DM was considering using them, would your first reaction be to chuck your wizard? Before you even know what those errata were?
QFT
delericho
Legend
Normally, I advocate using a fixed and unchanging ruleset for a given campaign. So, if errata are issued, they don't get applied in mid-campaign. It just cuts down on issues of this sort.
That said, if your group have been in the practice of incorporating errata as they become available, then you should apply the errata, and deal with the consequences. The player saying he'll drop the character if you do that shouldn't be an issue - the group have a practice in place, and so it should be followed.
Now, what to do about that character?
I would advocate giving the player three choices:
1) Continue playing the character as-is (post-errata).
2) Retire the character, and run something else. (I always allow my players this option anyway, so the errata doesn't make any difference to me here. My thinking is that there's little point 'forcing' a player to run a character he has no interest in.)
3) Allow the player to rebuild the character in a more palatable form. Essentially, do a retcon, allowing the player to make the choices he would have made had the errata been available when he started on the character.
(One other thing - you might consider extending the PrC by a few levels, adding back the now-missing powers. This has the advantage of maintaining balance and allowing the player to retain the powers he had before... at the cost of something else.)
That said, if your group have been in the practice of incorporating errata as they become available, then you should apply the errata, and deal with the consequences. The player saying he'll drop the character if you do that shouldn't be an issue - the group have a practice in place, and so it should be followed.
Now, what to do about that character?
I would advocate giving the player three choices:
1) Continue playing the character as-is (post-errata).
2) Retire the character, and run something else. (I always allow my players this option anyway, so the errata doesn't make any difference to me here. My thinking is that there's little point 'forcing' a player to run a character he has no interest in.)
3) Allow the player to rebuild the character in a more palatable form. Essentially, do a retcon, allowing the player to make the choices he would have made had the errata been available when he started on the character.
(One other thing - you might consider extending the PrC by a few levels, adding back the now-missing powers. This has the advantage of maintaining balance and allowing the player to retain the powers he had before... at the cost of something else.)
Kae'Yoss
First Post
I don't know the class, or the errata, so I'll only have a general opinion:
What I hear here is that the class is considered overpowered enough to nerf it in the errata, and that indeed the character has been quite good at what he's doing, maybe too good.
I'd say that you should go ahead and implement the errata and bring him back to normal power levels. If he's in it for the interesting choises the class presents, he won't be bothered that he suddenly is no better than the rest. If he's in for the power, he should accept that overpowered choices can get taken away.
It's not punishment, either. It's as if a father decides to give each of his children 50 quid, only he inadvertantly gave one child 100. He realizes it, and asks for the money back. It's not punishing the child, it got more than it was due, it was an error, and will be fixed now. In fact, you could say that not taking the 50 quid back would be a punishment for the other children, because they got less.
Should the father give everyone another 50? Anyway, shouldn't the child that got too much money not give it back by himself?
Personally, I like powerful characters. I guess I am powergaming to some extend (though the characters still have, well, character). But If the DM thinks that something is too powerful, I won't throw a fit because of it. I might discuss it and show my point of view if I think that it isn't, actually, too much, but if I see that it is too much, I will gladly exchange whatever it is for something else. Happened a couple of times so far, and it never took the fun out of the character.
What I hear here is that the class is considered overpowered enough to nerf it in the errata, and that indeed the character has been quite good at what he's doing, maybe too good.
I'd say that you should go ahead and implement the errata and bring him back to normal power levels. If he's in it for the interesting choises the class presents, he won't be bothered that he suddenly is no better than the rest. If he's in for the power, he should accept that overpowered choices can get taken away.
It's not punishment, either. It's as if a father decides to give each of his children 50 quid, only he inadvertantly gave one child 100. He realizes it, and asks for the money back. It's not punishing the child, it got more than it was due, it was an error, and will be fixed now. In fact, you could say that not taking the 50 quid back would be a punishment for the other children, because they got less.
Should the father give everyone another 50? Anyway, shouldn't the child that got too much money not give it back by himself?
Personally, I like powerful characters. I guess I am powergaming to some extend (though the characters still have, well, character). But If the DM thinks that something is too powerful, I won't throw a fit because of it. I might discuss it and show my point of view if I think that it isn't, actually, too much, but if I see that it is too much, I will gladly exchange whatever it is for something else. Happened a couple of times so far, and it never took the fun out of the character.
Similar Threads
