Your Prc gets nerfed!!! what to do?

This is one of the reasons the Retraining Rules in the PHB II were created. To account for changes in rules and new options that were made available.

Try using those, but this only works if the player wants to run the same "theme/concept" character. He might want to do a swap out anyway becasue he is "tired" of current character.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pawsplay said:
Would you continue playing a wizard if it was abruptly cut down to four levels of spells?

Sure, if my wizard was demonstratively overshadowing the other full casters in the group. I don't need to be Mr. Uber-Caster to enjoy playing a wizard. This player, at least as described, clearly won't be satisfied with the character anymore based solely on the fact that it won't be powerful enough to overshadow the other characters anymore.
 

Before judging the player too harshly, remember that there may be other reasons why he would prefer to run a completely new character than an errata'ed one. Some players just like continuity. The idea of running a character that has changed drastically (especially for a metagame reason like errata) might just be unpalatable.
 

FireLance said:
Before judging the player too harshly, remember that there may be other reasons why he would prefer to run a completely new character than an errata'ed one. Some players just like continuity. The idea of running a character that has changed drastically (especially for a metagame reason like errata) might just be unpalatable.

You could always put the PC through some torture via an overzealous Silver Flame inquisitor...once he's been pricked with a thousand alchemical silver needles, he could reasonably suffer a permanent weakening of his quasi-lycanthropic abilities.
 

JPL said:
You could always put the PC through some torture via an overzealous Silver Flame inquisitor...once he's been pricked with a thousand alchemical silver needles, he could reasonably suffer a permanent weakening of his quasi-lycanthropic abilities.
Yeah, and if you want to change how magic works in your campaign, you can always kill off the old goddess of magic and replace her with an ascended mortal.

The point is, if you know the change is made for a metagame reason, almost any in-game explanation the DM comes up with is going to sound contrived.
 


Perhaps so, but if he wants to keep playing this character, it comes down to either a change with an in-game explanation (i.e., Mystra dies), or a change without an in-game explanation (i.e., FR 2.0 ---> 3.0).

Interestingly, I've never heard anyone complain about continuity when errata or new rules make their character more powerful rather than less.
 

JPL said:
Interestingly, I've never heard anyone complain about continuity when errata or new rules make their character more powerful rather than less.

Nor should they. It's the same feeling as if you'd been told that the salary you were making all this time was wrong and now would be scaled back to 75% of what you were making before. Unless they're in dire straits, most people will tell the company exactly what they can do with that idea.
 

JPL said:
Interestingly, I've never heard anyone complain about continuity when errata or new rules make their character more powerful rather than less.
I've heard paladin players complain about the 3.5e revision to the special mount, even though it made the class ability more useful.

All I'm saying is, don't be too quick to judge. A player's dissatisfaction with rules changes can come from any number of sources, including a simple dislike of the flavor, or difficulty in reconciling the new rule with the character's past actions.
 

WayneLigon said:
Nor should they. It's the same feeling as if you'd been told that the salary you were making all this time was wrong and now would be scaled back to 75% of what you were making before. Unless they're in dire straits, most people will tell the company exactly what they can do with that idea.

I'm not sure that I would call my salary being reduced by 75% "the same feeling" as having my D&D character scaled back to the same power levels as the other PCs.

Setting aside the whole "reality" issue...while larger salary is just plain better than a smaller one, a more powerful character is not always "better" than a less powerful one. If sloppy rules-writing has given me an overpowered character compared to the rest of the party, the group has less fun. Since my goal in playing D&D is for everyone to have a good time, then a balanced character is the better of the two.

Of course, if a player is concerned only about his own fun, and enjoys outgunning all the other PCs, the analysis changes. And some groups might be just fine with an unbalanced party.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top