DM Survey: What do YOU nerf in 5e?

[KOLE]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

[Waazraath]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

I think ran a game without feats and multiclass the 1st time I ran a campaign in 5e, partly cause relative new players to RP in general, partly cause I think it makes sense to try the rules without optional rules. Last game I didn't restrict anything, but I don't have the kind of players that want to bring in homebrew or UA. If one ever does, I'll review it on a case by case base (some players are more likely to abuse something than others, for example).

[Boci]

Vumans. I know they're not overpowered, but I dislike only one race starting with a feat, it means they can do a lot of things that no other race can. I tweak the standard human to compensate, since that one is a little boring.

[ImproperJustice]

Healing Spirit.
It only triggers once per round.
Still powerful, still useful, but no more congo lines.

Staff of the Woodlands and some of its awaken shenanigans have been changed.

[JNAProductions]

By default? Nothing.

If something becomes an issue, or I foresee an issue, I'll act to stop it, but generally nothing's come up that needs nerfs to resolve.

[Man_Over_Game]

Lemme look at my notes....



Moon Druid forms now have 1/2 HP than normal, but have Expertise on any skill the form gives you and you get resistance to all damage types after losing your form due to damage.

You don't gain any special information about the area or enemies unless you take the Search Action.

Drawing a weapon provokes an Opportunity Attack, unless the weapon you draw is a Light weapon. P)A targeted nerf towards ranged combatants.

Polearm Master no longer grants a bonus action attack, but instead allows you to spend your Bonus Action to increase your Reach by 5 feet until your next attack.

You have a quickbelt, which can hold up to double your strength attribute in pounds. Anything not on your quickbelt takes an Action to pull out.

Sharpshooter can no longer ignore cover, and you can only shoot beyond your normal range by spending your Bonus Action and an amount of movement equal to your maximum speed.

There is no longer a Counterspell spell. It's replaced by a Dispel Magic spell that acts as the same, except you now have to Ready it. You can cast it up to 1 minute after Readying it, and you can only cast cantrips while Readying it.

You can also Ready a weapon attack to attempt to stop a caster from casting a spell, forcing them to make a Concentration Check or fail the casting. Mage Slayer's Reaction attack is considered this kind of maneuver.

Hexblade is changed into the Tormented Patron. No emphasis on weapons, but new emphasis on curses. Armor proficiencies and CHA-attacking is now moved to Pact of the Blade.



While not a change I enforce, a few I do prefer is:

Removing the Paladin's Divine Smite feature and replacing it with Divine Might: When you cast a Paladin spell with a Paladin spell slot, you get a bonus to your AC and Attack rolls equal to the spell slot level until the start of your next turn.

Turning the "Action Fighter" into a "Superior Fighter", by replacing Action Surge with a Superiority Die and 2 maneuvers, gaining 1 dice every time you get the Extra Attack feature.

[Ortho]

I think in my campaign I've buffed a lot more than I've nerfed. I'm also in a shared campaign with 5 other DMs, so we have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to change something and it's often easier to just ban the offending article.
The only thing that's been nerfed in my current campaign is Goodberry (it now consumes the material components), the Outlander background (you can only find enough food for 1 person, not 6), and the amount of gold our players found. We were trying to do a survival-focused campaign, y'see.

In terms of buffing, we've done a bit more.
Racial restrictions for subclasses are removed
Removed requirements for multiclassing
Buffed the starting gold
Made Aaracokra able to wear medium and heavy armor, for some reason
A few other things I can't recall right now

[MaxWilson]

Biggest things I nerf are

(1) Cyclic initiative (having the same initiative every round makes it too easy to exploit the initiative order--instead I use an 'everybody declares, then everybody acts' variant somewhat like 5E's DMG Speed Factor initiative),

(2) Simulacrum (only 55% as powerful as the original, but no restrictions on regaining spell slots), and

(3) Unseen ranged attackers (unseen attackers gain advantage only on melee attacks, not ranged, but unseen ranged attackers still get Sneak Attack damage bonus).

Edit: oh yeah, and Healing Spirit is 1/round only as a side effect of #1.

Edit2: I guess nerfing magic also counts as a nerf.

(4) Magic is less reliable.

If you don't have Warcaster, casting a full-action spell (or being incapacitated) within melee range of an enemy triggers an opportunity attack. (The third bullet point of Warcaster then becomes the removal of this opportunity attack, instead of the silly reaction spellcasting thing that makes it easier to Polymorph enemies than allies.) This opportunity attack is allowed to disrupt concentration on the spell that was just cast, if it's a concentration spell.

Magic Resistance works against Eldritch Blast/Telekinesis/Maze/Wall of Force/Conjure Animals/etc., instead of only against saving throw-debuffs. Has a chance to negate the spell entirely, as a reaction, when the creature is first directly affected by the spell (e.g. hit by a summoned or Planar Bound creature).

Both of these bring the tradeoffs between spells and weaponry closer to what it is in AD&D. Magic weapons are reliable but single-target, spells are powerful but unreliable.

[Misterwhisper]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

I find it shocking that someone who would not allow an artificer would allow things built by Matt, he doesn’t have even the slightest clue how to actually build something balanced or even well written.

Things I ban:

Force cage
All M:tG material

Things I change:
Critical hits also multiply static modifiers.
Max Hp every level up
No variant humans but everyone gets a free feat at level 1.

Basic additions:

Custom feats:

Combat Trained
+1 to either str or dex and gain a fighting style.

Casting Trained
+1 to int, wis, or cha and learn any one cantrip.

Keen Sight:
+1 to int or wis and gain darkvision 60.
If you already have DV + 30
If you have daylight sensitivity, it is gone.

Expert Agility:
+ 1 str or dex
You gain a climb and swim speed.

[stoutstien]

Things I change in way that could considered nerfs:
Yuan-ti. The magic resistance costs a reaction to use. Works against a single effect type until the end of the player's next turn. Example would be if a NPC casts scorching Ray at them they could active it and gain resistance to follow ray attacks and potentially other NPCs casting the same spell.

Heavy Armor. If you don't meet the strength requirements you also have disadvantage on Str and Dex checks/saving throws.

Hexblade. Cha to weapon attack/damage is moved to pact of the blade lv 3. They also can gain shield OR medium armor proficiency.

AoA/abjur ward. AoA must take damage to proc damage effect. Player can choose how the effects stack when cast.

Booming blade- add Con save to additional damage when target moves.

Wish. Unavailable to learn automatically. Can still be found in most games.

Druid wildshapes/ polymorph/ true polymorph/shapechange. All HP gained by these spells count as THP. *Moon druid's combat healing feature reworded to work with this change.*


I think those are the big ones

[Pex]

I only ban Blade Singer for reason of being overpowered. A player taking one level of fighter for heavy armor and CON save proficiency then taking wizard levels is a loophole/"cheesy" way around it, but aesthetically I'm ok with that. Blade Singer just irks me. In my hypothetical next campaign I'll reconsider since other things also not in the game but for story reasons (such as no tiefling/aasimar) will no longer be restricted. Unearthed Arcana might be case by case basis allowed.

[MaxWilson]

Heavy Armor. If you don't meet the strength requirements you also have disadvantage on Str and Dex checks/saving throws.

This is very logical. I like it.


Wish. Unavailable to learn automatically. Can still be found in most games.

I like this.

[stoutstien]

This is very logical. I like it.



I like this.

aye. i buff up rather than nerf almost all the time but i wanted to buff H armor but increase the buy-in for it as well so it felt natural that if your are not strong enough to wear the armor than it would do more than slow your run speed down.

[Avonar]

Only thing I nerf is the Heat Metal spell. Guaranteed disadvantage on all attacks for 1 minute with 2d8 unavoidable fire damage, that doesn't get halved, every single turn as a 2nd level spell? It's ludicrous, and I find that it trivialises any encounters with creatures that use/wear metal.

I rule that a succesful Con save means half damage from the fire and no disadvantage, because succeeding on the save just to not have to drop a weapon seems weird. It's still a powerful spell, but I don't absolutely hate it like this.

[stoutstien]

Only thing I nerf is the Heat Metal spell. Guaranteed disadvantage on all attacks for 1 minute with 2d8 unavoidable fire damage, that doesn't get halved, every single turn as a 2nd level spell? It's ludicrous, and I find that it trivialises any encounters with creatures that use/wear metal.

I rule that a succesful Con save means half damage from the fire and no disadvantage, because succeeding on the save just to not have to drop a weapon seems weird. It's still a powerful spell, but I don't absolutely hate it like this.

It is also only found on class spell lists that are lacking spells with instant damage options in the 1-2 lv range. If you offered a druid, bard, or artificer to trade heat metal with magic missile I think you would have alot of takers.

[Keravath]

Nothing. :)

Well not quite ... abuses of simulacrum and coffeelock get shut down along with anything that seems exploitative.

Also, if playing an FR game, I'd usually limit the options to FR materials. Same goes for Eberron. Homebrewed game might be a mix of what is allowed or not. However, the more source material allowed for use the more likely the players are to find something that might break something else ... though the first time it comes up is usually cool. I haven't run into any of these yet though to be honest.

[jas61292]

I have very rarely nerfed anything for being too good. If something is an issue, then for the most part it gets banned, not nerfed. I have occasionally nerfed spells in my own campaign setting for internal consistency reasons, but not really for power.

As for what is not allowed, I typically allow any class or race from a published book, so long as it is not too setting specific. The one exception here is Hexblade, which will never be allowed, ever. It is by far the worst piece of design to be published, by a far margin, and its not even worth the effort to fix, as it would require an entire rewrite, in my opinion. I also do not allow the variant Human, because I personally do not believe anyone should be getting feats before level 4, but as that is a variant, I don't consider this a ban.

Feats and multiclassing are for the most part allowed, but the troublesome combat feats (GWM, SS, PAM) are not. And when it comes to spells, while no game I've DMed ever has had players get to the point of wanting to pick such spells, certain high level options such as Simulacrum and Wish are just entirely off the table. Some of these things may still be available in the world (genies can grant wishes, for instance) but they are not simply things players can just choose to have and use every day.

[Keravath]

It is also only found on class spell lists that are lacking spells with instant damage options in the 1-2 lv range. If you offered a druid, bard, or artificer to trade heat metal with magic missile I think you would have alot of takers.

To add to this, most of the characters I have had with the option to take heat metal haven't bothered since its application is limited to creatures wearing metal armor. It is surprising how uncommon these can be. In addition, it is concentration, affects only one target, and uses your bonus action to inflict damage in future rounds. Yes, under specific circumstances, against a single difficult opponent wearing metal armor it is amazing. If there are multiple opponents in armor my bard would rather try hypnotic pattern than heat metal. The number of prepared or known spells is so small that there are better choices. (Typically, I would take blindness/deafness for a single target disable ... no concentration required and everyone in the party gets advantage to hit the target ... they do get another save every turn BUT it works on anything that needs to see whether it wears metal armor or not).

If your players are somehow abusing heat metal, the issue is the DM and the encounters, not the spell.

[Keravath]

I only ban Blade Singer for reason of being overpowered. A player taking one level of fighter for heavy armor and CON save proficiency then taking wizard levels is a loophole/"cheesy" way around it, but aesthetically I'm ok with that. Blade Singer just irks me. In my hypothetical next campaign I'll reconsider since other things also not in the game but for story reasons (such as no tiefling/aasimar) will no longer be restricted. Unearthed Arcana might be case by case basis allowed.

Most folks I know who want to dip fighter on a wizard take two levels for action surge and the ability to cast two spells in the first combat round. That can be a very effective ability.

As for bladesingers, I can understand any class or archetype causing personal irritation, but I am not sure I see how a bladesinger is overpowered. They are a wizard with some mediocre combat abilities that can wear light armor. I have a character that accomplishes that and more since they started off as a knowledge cleric of Mystra researching magic and decided the only way to really understand it was to practice it. Medium armor + shield + shield spell gives AC that is comparable to the bladesinger ... especially later when magic armor and shields come along. They also get emergency heals, some decent 1st level cleric spells, some very role playable knowledge skills (that fit perfectly with a wizard), and full spell slot progression.

[Renvir]

Counterspell: First, I removed the ability for a spellcaster that is casting a spell to use their reaction to counterspell a counterspell. It never came up in a game I was running but once I saw that was a thing I told my players it wasn't going to fly. Second, I changed counterspell for when it is used against a spell with a saving throw or attack roll (otherwise it stays the same). Instead of either ending the spell entirely or failing to do anything, counterspell instead lowers the spell's attack roll and/or saving throw by 3. That number increases by 1 for each spell slot level above 3rd that is used. Honestly, I just don't like counterspell, but I don't think I could convince my players to remove it from the game.

Otherwise I love the suggestion of moving Hexblades +Cha to attack/damage and armor proficiencies to the Blade Pact. Definitely going to use that going forward.

[SociopathFriend]

Unpopular view perhaps but I'm also not 100% sure how it normally works so I don't know if it's "nerfing" or not but pretty much every DM and Player I try this with hates it.
Mind you most of my DMs and Players actually really like Rogues and inter-party theft is extremely common and not liked by the Players who aren't Rogues. The Wizard that got an Artifact was not at all happy when the Rogue stole it just to sell it.

I 'nerf' Rogues in a few ways when I DM:
1) They need to actually give me something for their Hide action or bonus action. If they're standing in an empty hallway I won't let them successfully Hide or I will impose penalties on them for it.
2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception.
3) People can notice something is gone even if you successfully Stealth and Slight of Hand it. It might not be instantly but it's not some video game checkbox where after you steal it's over and done. They might not notice a coin gone immediately but stealing an entire purse would be noticed in short order. The greater the object the more likely someone is to frequently check on it and pay attention to it.

2 and 3 in particular get me the most nasty looks and words. However I find the idea of walking up to a person, pulling a single Skill check, and then walking away without consequence to be illogical; especially when it's frequently done to pick on other players.

An example:
If you walk into someone and bump into them on 'accident' and then walk away you can Sleight of Hand to steal a wallet but obviously you didn't Stealth enough to remain unnoticed. They might later realize what happened and recall your face because you weren't Stealthing.

[MaxWilson]

It is also only found on class spell lists that are lacking spells with instant damage options in the 1-2 lv range. If you offered a druid, bard, or artificer to trade heat metal with magic missile I think you would have alot of takers.

Artificer would take it in a heartbeat, because Magic Missile synergizes incredibly well with their 5th level feature for adding +d8 to the damage roll of an artillerist spell.

[Lupine]

1) They need to actually give me something for their Hide action or bonus action. If they're standing in an empty hallway I won't let them successfully Hide or I will impose penalties on them for it.
2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception.
3) People can notice something is gone even if you successfully Stealth and Slight of Hand it. It might not be instantly but it's not some video game checkbox where after you steal it's over and done. They might not notice a coin gone immediately but stealing an entire purse would be noticed in short order. The greater the object the more likely someone is to frequently check on it and pay attention to it.

None of those are nerfs, but are just proper interpretation of rules (1) or an instance of properly running a "living world." (3, and a mild example, at that. If you steal the princess's gem, chances are she'll guess it was stolen by the random group of four people who arrived in court that she's never seen before, before insulting another noble.)

Ok, Number 2 might be a nerf. I'm not certain about the RAW here.

Overall though, you should just tell your players up front that they cannot steal from party members. "It's what my character would do" is ok when interacting with NPCs, but "what's fun for the table" is the rule for interacting within the party (or just in the game in general)

[Dr. Cliché]

Only thing I nerf is the Heat Metal spell. Guaranteed disadvantage on all attacks for 1 minute with 2d8 unavoidable fire damage, that doesn't get halved, every single turn as a 2nd level spell? It's ludicrous, and I find that it trivialises any encounters with creatures that use/wear metal.

You know, I've had a few characters who've had Heat Metal.

The vast majority of the time, it was a dead spell. A great deal of enemies don't use metal armour or wield metal weapons. What's more, when we found enemies that did, there were almost always more useful spells to spend Actions and Concentration on. For example, it was usually much more helpful to try and take multiple enemies out of the combat, rather than really inconveniencing one of them. Or, in other cases, the guy we really needed to take down ASAP was the one guy not wearing armour.

Don't get me wrong, when Heat Metal works it really works.

However, in my experience it's actually a very niche spell which the caster rarely gets to use to its full potential. Hence, if I ever wanted to nerf spells, it would rank pretty damn low on the list.

[MrStabby]

Very little directly nerfed, although I often regret that. Rather there is a lot of nerfing through circumstances and a reactive world.

For example if fire damage and radiant damage are the "best" damage types in terms of damage per resource usage then anyone making magic items that offer resistance will make them to resist these damage types. If particular spells are powerful then they will become common and common spells will engender countermeasures.

Don't expect to find many high level enemies (CR8+) without at least a touch of magical defence - a few spell slots for a misty step and a couple of shield spells for example.

Anyone who can have access to it will be taking counterspell.

Magical enemies are as common as non magical.

My next campaign will use something close to the Xanathar's rules for identifying a spell: skill check and a reaction. This weakens counterspell a bit. Arcana/Divine/Nature using same attribute as casting stat to identify.

A clarification/houserule/ruling that stealth is pretty much just sound and smell. If you are in a creatures field of view and unobscured you can be seen. No hiding then wandering out into the open and wondering why people spot you. Invisibility excepted. Attacking from hiding is first attack in the turn you reveal yourself - even if you sprint out of hiding all the way across the room.

The world is pretty aggressive and wont follow your timetable. You will not always chose when things happen. This disfavours prepared casters and without knowing what is up ahead (by chosing to go there) it is harder to prepare spells. It also disfavours those who cannot shepherd resources - the big dangerous fight might be the unexpected one that lands on you in the middle of the night.

Factions/encounters are themed, so there may be a mages guild - your counterspells will work till you run out of reactions - but whilst themed, these factions will have survived in a hostile world. This means they are robust/balanced/"optimised" enough to survive.

Enemies will respond to light. They will also infer that if you are carrying a light that you need it.

There is racial profiling in my worlds. Gnome adventurers are pretty likely to be wizards or at least spellcasters. Half elves: spellcasters, Half Orcs: warriors with poor int saves and so on. Enemies will, if they don't know better, target the stereotypical weakness of the class/group of classes that your race represents. This slightly nerfs playing to type and will result in a pogrom against gnomes with damage based attacks/spells.

Possibly a "nerf" but the spell polymorph and druid wildshape is confined to creatures in the campaign setting. There are usually a few of the appropriate power though. Same for the summon spells like conjure animals. I allow casters to pick what they want from spells like conjure woodland beings, because the most egregious things are not in the campaign setting.

Owning a reference copy of the monster manual is nerfed hard, as almost all enemies are homebrew.

Verbal components of spells are loud. They will be heard in the next room unless there are significant and continuous sounds masking what is happening.

Illusion magic is a thing. Not my fault if you didn't thoroughly inspect the programmed illusion before throwing a fireball into that room

Enemies will grapple you if it seems a valid combat tactic.

Everyone has a backup weapon.

[MaxWilson]

For example if fire damage and radiant damage are the "best" damage types in terms of damage per resource usage then anyone making magic items that offer resistance will make them to resist these damage types.

I always look askance at the assumption that magic items are the product of a market economy instead of, for example, a magical ecology. It's a perfectly valid way to run a campaign world but it leads to a high-magic world which IMO tends to have trouble explaining why NPCs don't just handle all of the important problems instead of PCs needing to risk their lives.

[stoutstien]

Artificer would take it in a heartbeat, because Magic Missile synergizes incredibly well with their 5th level feature for adding +d8 to the damage roll of an artillerist spell.

And SSI. Was just an example. Just as well say scorching Ray or shield.

MM on artificer would be nasty...

[MrStabby]

I always look askance at the assumption that magic items are the product of a market economy instead of, for example, a magical ecology. It's a perfectly valid way to run a campaign world but it leads to a high-magic world which IMO tends to have trouble explaining why NPCs don't just handle all of the important problems instead of PCs needing to risk their lives.

I agree - I mean I do tend to run a magic rich world anyway, but some of this is for balance reasons: a lot of spells are fine if people are ready for them, totally unreasonable otherwise. In a world with fireball squares of infantry are... sub-optimal, having tactics that involve spreading out where possible is beneficial.

[Dork_Forge]

No spells from backgrounds and it hasn't come up yet but I would remove the spells known from the Dragonmarks as well.

UA is a case by case basis.

Yuan-Ti is a maybe based on the game.

I'd happily strip Arcane Recovery out of Wizard and bump Druid to a D6 class if it wouldn't cause uproar with players.

Aasimar toe the line between simultaneous nerfing and buffing

Otherwise I'm usually more inclined to increase power than ban something.

[47Ace]

Wish Simulacrum loops if it ever comes up.
The SCAG trips only get the extra d8s to attack damage not the random free utility riders (with extra damage) that were added for some inexplicable reason. If it ever comes up.
The SCAG trips may not work with the eldritch knight 7th level feature I'm not sure. Maybe if it ever comes up.
Hexblade multiclass loses chr to hit and damage possible
Coffelocking -maybe


Edit: Healing spirit if it ever comes up once a round seems reasonable.

[OldTrees1]

Healing Spirit is limited to once per round as a preemptive nerf.

I have not nerfed anything else. This is mostly due to responsible players*, and partially due to 5E being stingy.

*In hindsight I don't expect Healing Spirit would have been an issue.

[SociopathFriend]

Ok, Number 2 might be a nerf. I'm not certain about the RAW here.

Overall though, you should just tell your players up front that they cannot steal from party members. "It's what my character would do" is ok when interacting with NPCs, but "what's fun for the table" is the rule for interacting within the party (or just in the game in general)

Same for number 2 but the other DMs run it otherwise so regardless of whether it's RAW or not it's considered a nerf by the group I play with.
I frankly consider it a nerf but the thing about a nerf is where the 'start' is to work from. If I'm running it correctly then it's not a nerf- everyone else is running it as a buff. If the other DMs are running it correctly then I'm indeed nerfing it. The other DMs who run it thus outnumber me so regardless of who is actually correct it will 'feel' like a nerf.

I don't like barring specific actions when instead I can (so far as I'm concerned) directly curb said actions by enforcing the rules as I see them. And the players I roll with do not handle that sort of thing with good grace. Rule enforcing they understand and don't really complain about. Barring of given actions however gets them annoyed quickly.

[iTreeby]

I nerf real world skills being used in game.
Player: "I follow the north star"

Me: "what north star?"

[Luccan]

I wouldn't say I nerf anything. There are definitely things I ban, but they're specifically rules abuses, not the rules themselves. You can play a sorcerer/warlock, but don't play a coffeelock.

[Keravath]

Unpopular view perhaps but I'm also not 100% sure how it normally works so I don't know if it's "nerfing" or not but pretty much every DM and Player I try this with hates it.
Mind you most of my DMs and Players actually really like Rogues and inter-party theft is extremely common and not liked by the Players who aren't Rogues. The Wizard that got an Artifact was not at all happy when the Rogue stole it just to sell it.

I 'nerf' Rogues in a few ways when I DM:
1) They need to actually give me something for their Hide action or bonus action. If they're standing in an empty hallway I won't let them successfully Hide or I will impose penalties on them for it.
2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception.
3) People can notice something is gone even if you successfully Stealth and Slight of Hand it. It might not be instantly but it's not some video game checkbox where after you steal it's over and done. They might not notice a coin gone immediately but stealing an entire purse would be noticed in short order. The greater the object the more likely someone is to frequently check on it and pay attention to it.

2 and 3 in particular get me the most nasty looks and words. However I find the idea of walking up to a person, pulling a single Skill check, and then walking away without consequence to be illogical; especially when it's frequently done to pick on other players.

An example:
If you walk into someone and bump into them on 'accident' and then walk away you can Sleight of Hand to steal a wallet but obviously you didn't Stealth enough to remain unnoticed. They might later realize what happened and recall your face because you weren't Stealthing.

There is nothing wrong with playing realistic games :)

"1) They need to actually give me something for their Hide action or bonus action. If they're standing in an empty hallway I won't let them successfully Hide or I will impose penalties on them for it."

I don't really understand this one. If there is no one in the corridor to see the rogue then of course they can hide. They don't even need to roll for it. Of course, if anyone opens a door and looks into the corridor the rogue isn't hidden because they can be clearly seen. Hiding isn't invisibility. You can't hide with nothing to hide behind. If you want to move stealthily so that someone in a room can't hear you thats fine but if someone glances through the open door when you move by, it doesn't matter how good your "hide" roll was. You don't remain hidden when you can be clearly seen (or heard for that matter). So ... I suspect that you must think of hide differently than I do since hiding in an empty corridor honestly makes no difference.

"2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception."

Personally, I put the two together "Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully." without being noticed.

If you succeed at sleight of hand then you succeed at not being noticed. Considering both stealth and sleight of hand are dex checks and the character is likely proficient at both, you are just turning a successful pick pocket attempt into two checks rather than one and thus increasing the chance of failure. Personally, I'd rather adjust the DC and have one roll but there is nothing inherently wrong with two rolls. Folks will just try pick pocketing less often due to the extra mechanics and greater chance of failure.

"3) People can notice something is gone even if you successfully Stealth and Slight of Hand it. It might not be instantly but it's not some video game checkbox where after you steal it's over and done. They might not notice a coin gone immediately but stealing an entire purse would be noticed in short order. The greater the object the more likely someone is to frequently check on it and pay attention to it."

ABSOLUTELY :) ... just because you steal something without being immediately noticed doesn't mean that 10 seconds later the person won't notice that their purse is missing. They won't immediately know who took it (unless there is only one possibility) but they will know it is missing. I wouldn't have it happen every time and I would likely base it on a perception check by the victim but in reality, if something you pay close attention to goes missing, you might notice it quite quickly. This is perhaps especially true with a heavy purse. Unless the victim gets hit pretty hard or otherwise distracted the missing weight of the purse is likely to be noticed quite quickly.

However, the successful sleight of hand check means that the target did not notice who took the purse so you can't expect the target to turn around and immediately identify the thief unless there is only one person it could have been.

[Keravath]

I nerf real world skills being used in game.
Player: "I follow the north star"

Me: "what north star?"

Ummm ... unless your planet doesn't rotate or you have implemented different physics for your universe or there are no stars in your sky then there WILL be a equivalent stellar object to the north (and south) stars. If there is any sea travel in your game, or your characters are aware of navigation then this is probably reasonable.

On the other hand if the players start collecting the white stuff from under manure piles, a bit of charcoal from the fire and some of this smelly yellow stuff from rocks ... then definitely put a halt to it. :)

[Veldrenor]

Nerfs:
1) Fireball's base damage is 6d6 instead of 8d6.
2) Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are "-proficiency bonus to attack, +2x proficiency bonus to damage" instead of "-5/+10." I'm considering changing Sharpshooter further so that it downgrades cover 1 step instead of outright eliminating it.
3) Failing the save against Zone of Truth imposes disadvantage on Deception checks rather than preventing you from lying. I'm running a group through an Innistrad campaign and the ability to guarantee that someone's words are true undermines some of the paranoia and horror of the setting.
4) When you first learn a Conjure/Summon spell, you choose a preferred creature for each of the options in the spell. Whenever you cast the spell you can only summon from your preferred creatures. You can change your preferred creatures whenever you gain a level. It makes summoning spells faster when they don't go looking through the Monster Manual for the perfect creature each time.
5) Remove Curse functions like Dispel Magic instead of automatically ending all curses. Additionally, Remove Curse can no longer cure lycanthropy. If cast on a werewolf it gives the target advantage on Wisdom saving throws to resist transforming for 24 hours.
6) There are no dinosaurs, apes, or elephants in the setting, so Polymorph can't be used to assume such forms.
7) Mechanical rests are independent of story rests. The party has 2 short rests and 1 time out (5 minute break during which hit dice may be spent) to use between long rests. A long rest is earned every 8 medium fights, with harder fights earning more notches on the tracker.

Buffs:
1) Flanking gives +2 to hit.
2) Sorcerers can use any metamagic option they don't know, but doing so costs twice the normal amount of sorcery points.
3) Casting Protection From Evil and Good at 3rd level or higher lets a charmed/frightened/possessed creature make an immediate saving throw against the effect that has them charmed/frightened/possessed.
4) Potions can be consumed as a bonus action.

YMMV:
1) I allow the Blood Hunter, specifically the wisdom-based one. The Int-based one has some cool abilities but I'm concerned that it's overpowered in its new form.
2) Human is the only available race, but instead of using the PHB human I use a series of setting-specific variants.
3) Death Saves are rolled in secret. With the exception of visible failures (attacks/damage on an unconscious character), neither I nor the other players know the results until someone attempts to heal the unconscious character. As a result, my players work hard to make sure that no one goes unconscious.

[SociopathFriend]

I don't really understand this one.

Hiding isn't invisibility. You can't hide with nothing to hide behind. If you want to move stealthily so that someone in a room can't hear you thats fine but if someone glances through the open door when you move by, it doesn't matter how good your "hide" roll was. You don't remain hidden when you can be clearly seen (or heard for that matter). So ... I suspect that you must think of hide differently than I do since hiding in an empty corridor honestly makes no difference.

I think of Hiding exactly as you do. If you and I stood in the center of a well-lit and empty hall 30 feet wide with nothing besides us there- you (as the Players I generally game with) would still attempt to Hide because, "Rogues can do that".
However some of the DMs my group uses favor Rogues (and also past editions) and insist that it can be done. Which builds a sort of difference in standards for what they expect vs what is.




"2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception."

Personally, I put the two together "Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully." without being noticed.

I looked at it like this- Indiana Jones and replacing the relic with something else to fool the pressure plate. Absolutely Sleight of Hand. Absolutely no Stealth whatsoever required to do it- everyone present would know he was responsible.
Jared from the Labyrinth does his pseudo-juggling with the orbs. Absolutely Sleight of Hand. Absolutely no Stealth whatsoever required to do it.
It just never made sense to me to lump Stealth into Sleight of Hand when clearly you should use both and the main class that does this (Rogue) has plenty of methods for gaining skills.




ABSOLUTELY :) ... just because you steal something without being immediately noticed doesn't mean that 10 seconds later the person won't notice that their purse is missing. They won't immediately know who took it (unless there is only one possibility) but they will know it is missing. I wouldn't have it happen every time and I would likely base it on a perception check by the victim but in reality, if something you pay close attention to goes missing, you might notice it quite quickly. This is perhaps especially true with a heavy purse. Unless the victim gets hit pretty hard or otherwise distracted the missing weight of the purse is likely to be noticed quite quickly.

However, the successful sleight of hand check means that the target did not notice who took the purse so you can't expect the target to turn around and immediately identify the thief unless there is only one person it could have been.

That one is admittedly almost entirely based on the PVP part simply because (ironically) the Players almost never steal from NPCs and because Players wield meta-gaming as a weapon,
"You don't know it's missing so you can't check to see if it's gone. Otherwise you're meta-gaming."
(If that's not word for word then it's quite close)
It's inherently loading the line of reasoning that the person would not check his/her possessions if they had not just been stolen from and the person can't even argue otherwise because the alternative is to randomly state at the table they check their possessions despite every single person at the table being well aware nothing had happened to those possessions as neither the DM or the Players had done anything at the time.

[iTreeby]

Ummm ... unless your planet doesn't rotate or you have implemented different physics for your universe or there are no stars in your sky then there WILL be a equivalent stellar object to the north (and south) stars. If there is any sea travel in your game, or your characters are aware of navigation then this is probably reasonable.

On the other hand if the players start collecting the white stuff from under manure piles, a bit of charcoal from the fire and some of this smelly yellow stuff from rocks ... then definitely put a halt to it. :)

Not on a planet, the sky is filled with views of the planes interacting in various ways. CHARACTERS who know about navigation or astronomy can say why they know which way "North" is.

[Man_Over_Game]

There is nothing wrong with playing realistic games :)

"1) They need to actually give me something for their Hide action or bonus action. If they're standing in an empty hallway I won't let them successfully Hide or I will impose penalties on them for it."

I don't really understand this one. If there is no one in the corridor to see the rogue then of course they can hide. They don't even need to roll for it. Of course, if anyone opens a door and looks into the corridor the rogue isn't hidden because they can be clearly seen. Hiding isn't invisibility. You can't hide with nothing to hide behind. If you want to move stealthily so that someone in a room can't hear you thats fine but if someone glances through the open door when you move by, it doesn't matter how good your "hide" roll was. You don't remain hidden when you can be clearly seen (or heard for that matter). So ... I suspect that you must think of hide differently than I do since hiding in an empty corridor honestly makes no difference.

"2) Sleight of Hand is not against Perception. Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully. You have to Stealth to deal with Perception."

Personally, I put the two together "Sleight of Hand is to successfully take the object such as actually getting your hand into a pocket and out successfully." without being noticed.

If you succeed at sleight of hand then you succeed at not being noticed. Considering both stealth and sleight of hand are dex checks and the character is likely proficient at both, you are just turning a successful pick pocket attempt into two checks rather than one and thus increasing the chance of failure. Personally, I'd rather adjust the DC and have one roll but there is nothing inherently wrong with two rolls. Folks will just try pick pocketing less often due to the extra mechanics and greater chance of failure.

"3) People can notice something is gone even if you successfully Stealth and Slight of Hand it. It might not be instantly but it's not some video game checkbox where after you steal it's over and done. They might not notice a coin gone immediately but stealing an entire purse would be noticed in short order. The greater the object the more likely someone is to frequently check on it and pay attention to it."

ABSOLUTELY :) ... just because you steal something without being immediately noticed doesn't mean that 10 seconds later the person won't notice that their purse is missing. They won't immediately know who took it (unless there is only one possibility) but they will know it is missing. I wouldn't have it happen every time and I would likely base it on a perception check by the victim but in reality, if something you pay close attention to goes missing, you might notice it quite quickly. This is perhaps especially true with a heavy purse. Unless the victim gets hit pretty hard or otherwise distracted the missing weight of the purse is likely to be noticed quite quickly.

However, the successful sleight of hand check means that the target did not notice who took the purse so you can't expect the target to turn around and immediately identify the thief unless there is only one person it could have been.

Two important things to consider:

The more you demand a dice roll for permission to do something the less likely they'll be able to do it. So a Stealth check, followed by a Sleight of Hand check, will result in a smaller chance of success than either. Ask for less dice rolls, and players will fail less often.

The more you decide on failure or success, the more you're pushing your players towards a way of playing. By deciding that a Stealthy Sleight-of-Hand check is more difficult, you are making the decision that the players should not attempt that way of playing. They should resort to magic (guaranteed successes) or attacking (mechanics the DM can't lower the success rates for, or at least have easier rewards).

You can still make things realistic when using multiple skills by having them combine for a degree of success rather than a degree of failure (you succeed on a DC 20 of one, or a DC 10 with both. Or, you roll both and use the higher of the two).

That's how you convince your players to not be boring and to use risky mechanics.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally don't go around with a list of stuff. Something can be nerfed if it becomes a problem. The one thing I always apply is that you can only ever have 3 active characters in combat ( I e your character plus 2 extras), no matter the source. No more than 2 summoned creatures, hired people, or whatever else.

[Edenbeast]

Lots of interesting suggestions!



Polearm Master no longer grants a bonus action attack, but instead allows you to spend your Bonus Action to increase your Reach by 5 feet until your next attack.

I like this simple but elegant solution, and yet completely in "theme" of a pole-arm master. With the bonus action attack from the PHB I so far ruled that the weapon must wielded in both hands, but with your solution, spear/staff+shield is a reasonable option.


Some nerfs I've been using so far:

Variant humans - I like that humans get a feat, much like in 3.5, it shows their adaptability. But like their 3.5 counterparts they should be getting less in terms ability scores. V. human is not overpowered per sé, but in my opinion it offers a bit too much compared to other races. In the previous editions most races received a +2 and -2 to some abilities, while the humans only got a feat and one extra skill. In 5e all races get +'s to ability scores, so taking these away felt a bit unfair. I therefore go with +1 to one ability score of your choice. You can then get a second +1 from a feat, or get something like Crosbow Expert, PAM or GWM.

Half elves - same reasoning, reigned back like V. human. In 3.5 half-elves were probably the least attractive race, receiving no ability score adjustments and some elf traits. Maybe the +2 charisma is WOTC's way to make up for their past unattractiveness? No idea, but I feel they are bit overcompensated by getting a lot of other extra features! Again, not really overpowered, and the +2 charisma is fine. Like V. human, +1 to one other (than charisma) ability score of choice (their human heritage).


Maybe not so much a nerf, but a hard rules enforcement - costly material components must be bought and be in your possession when casting the spell. Availability is based on rarity and location. So, good luck if you're in a small village or in the middle of nowhere.

More spell caster "nerfs": you must be able to speak the language of summoned creatures in order to command them (e.g. primordial, sylvan, etc.), if you don't speak their language, the DM decides what they will do, and yes in that case they can just wonder why they were summoned and just run off again because there's an ogre standing in front of them... Again, not so much a nerf as more an enforcement. And it's that simple really, wizard guides such as Treeantmonk's list the "linguist" as red, saying you can cast Tongues as wizard, why take such a feat? Tongues has a 1 hour duration, and it's level 3. How many times do want to cast it? If you're into summoning otherworldly creatures, you must spend a good deal into studying their languages and customs as well. Why does Circle of Shepherd druid gain Sylvan as free language? It's commonly ranked as of meh feature, or "situational," but no, there's a reason you gain that language, because your class concept relies heavily on summoning animals and woodland beings that speak Sylvan. Moreover, on your turn (no action cost) you need to give the actual command. I like to reward (and enforce) roleplaying, so if you forget about this or just expect your "robot" will act on their own, then it might actually do act on it's own and look at you and think "hey! You did't tell me to do anything!" Unless, of course, it's still busy trying to eat that ogre.

Edit: I also want to add the example for higher level summons, some might be able to speak multiple languages including Common. Yes, that is handy. But I don't see summons as creatures that, upon summoning, do as you command. It's much more based on your attitude towards them. Let's take a real world example: I can speak Dutch, English, French and German. If I summon a Frenchman and ask him to cook for me, I create a lot more sympathy when I ask this in French. Sure, he might be able to understand and speak English, but if I would ask this in English, he could just pretend to not understand me. Now imagine what those 8 pixies might do...

Mind you, these are rather indirect nerfs, but make the life of spell casters a bit more complicated (more book keeping, indeed). Spell casters get a lot of power, especially later on. Spell casting is not easy, and if you want to play something easy, then don't play a spell caster. And it's simple to enforce. As DM I have the right to look into the player's character sheets at any time: before, during, or after play. It's basically like ticket control in public transport, you know they're there and you don't want to get caught not having a ticket. In the end, there's basically no extra work for me as DM, because the players will just want to play "legal."

[EggKookoo]

I don't currently have any blanket nerfs. I do have homebrew stuff that typically clarifies how something works, but that's different. One thing I've seen is how Wild Shape is very powerful at early levels, but not so bad so far that I've had to make any changes. I just enforce that the druid can't really talk to the rest of the party or do much more than fight, and it seems to work out.

My players aren't typically interested in multiclassing, so while I can see that there might be some class combos that are a little extreme, I haven't run into them in practice.

[Sigreid]

Our group took away the kobald's grovel and their strength penalty. We agreed that the basic premise of the game was PCs don't get negatives to attributes and were as a group disappointed that volos broke that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: DM Survey: What do YOU nerf in 5e?
Nothing.
I use UA in our games unless I make a modification to the parts I find questionable. UA is play test material. In a few of our games, play test was good with everyone. In others, not so much.

Also: no Yuan Ti PC's.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

Not a lot.

For the most part level 1 - 10 is pretty good but things need a boost and a consolidation.

We play a lot of homebrew and I started on putting together some e10 stuff that has a while before I get it right.

Some basic rules I add to the game.

You get 2 additional saving throws you can add half your proficiency to. One good and one bad save. Might be surprised how often this helps my players.

Your racial ability score bonuses are flexible. +2/+1 for most and +2/+2 for mountain dwarf. People have made some cool combos like a High Elf that had +2 Str / +1 Wis and was made into a strength based melee cleric.

When outside combat you can expend hit dice and recover if you have a healing or Herbalism kit. You don't need to stop and take a short rest unless you want your short rest features back.

UA variant class features remind me of some of the Homebrew I've seen come through my games so most of that is good to go.

[KOLE]

I find it shocking that someone who would not allow an artificer would allow things built by Matt, he doesn’t have even the slightest clue how to actually build something balanced or even well written.


Artificer has little to do with balance concerns- although I did not like the UA when it came out, and had a lot of concerns with it. I'm sure it's better now. But I hate the fluff, the class itself bores me, and I have no motivation to buy the book, look it over, assess it, and see if I want it in my games. I just don't like it. And I don't allow any player to run something I don't have the book for. If one of my players buys the book, lets me look it over, and REALLY wants to play, I may take a different stance, but I dislike it enough I won't put ANY effort into making it accessible.

I've seen very little of Matt's work other than the Gunslinger and Blood Hunter. I think they're very solid and compared to PHB options maybe even a little undertuned. I looked at the Cobalt Soul monk and was very underwhelmed. I think rumors of his broken builds are greatly exaggerated, unnecessarily so. I follow Critical Role and I see the passion and dedication he puts into his work. To say he has no sense of balance or good writing is a hell of thing with little evidence to support it. So I give him the benefit of the doubt, though I've never run any of his material personally.

[stoutstien]

Artificer has little to do with balance concerns- although I did not like the UA when it came out, and had a lot of concerns with it. I'm sure it's better now. But I hate the fluff, the class itself bores me, and I have no motivation to buy the book, look it over, assess it, and see if I want it in my games. I just don't like it. And I don't allow any player to run something I don't have the book for. If one of my players buys the book, lets me look it over, and REALLY wants to play, I may take a different stance, but I dislike it enough I won't put ANY effort into making it accessible.

I've seen very little of Matt's work other than the Gunslinger and Blood Hunter. I think they're very solid and compared to PHB options maybe even a little undertuned. I looked at the Cobalt Soul monk and was very underwhelmed. I think rumors of his broken builds are greatly exaggerated, unnecessarily so. I follow Critical Role and I see the passion and dedication he puts into his work. To say he has no sense of balance or good writing is a hell of thing with little evidence to support it. So I give him the benefit of the doubt, though I've never run any of his material personally.

Artificer can easily be refluffed Into a rune priest.

[Galithar]

So not all nerfs per say. But my big changes.


No humans (which also means no Vumans)

Sharpshooter/spell sniper lessens the degree of cover instead of ignoring it. 3/4 becomes 1/2 and 1/2 becomes none.

I don't outright ban, but highly discourage most forms of powergame multiclass dips. I push players to do something more original and interesting then Hex 1/Pal 2/Sorc X. But Wizard 3/Gunslinger X (my own Homebrew, not Matt Mercer's. Mine is a full class not a fighter subclass) was a very fun multiclass to see. I did have to give him a little favor to make up for lost levels in combat (I give magic items in 'rounds' where I try to keep everyone even. I almost always had him be the start of the round so he was often up one magic item on others for at least a time. Made him feel most balanced since he sacrifices combat potential for fun and fluff.)

Flying races, if allowed at all, don't get their ability to fly until level 5. If the caster can't expend a resource to do it, you can't do it for free. (This isn't true of everything, it's just the point that seemed to work for me) This is more to help my sanity of balancing low level encounters. If one person can kill most encounters with little danger to themselves without me specifically engineering them to counter flying (making sure fights are indoors, all enemies use longbows etc.) Then it's easier to say "don't fly until level 5 when it gets easier for me to deal with" then get frustrated because I forgot the Aarokocra could fly 400 feet above them out of shortbow range and murder them with a Longbow. Better DMs than me probably don't have this issue.

Healing Spirit can heal once per round. This is to keep resource management and out of combat healing more relevant. Not everyone agrees it's needed, but since debate isn't the point here I'll go no further.

[JNAProductions]

So not all nerfs per say. But my big changes.


No humans (which also means no Vumans)
Sharpshooter/spell sniper lessens the degree of cover instead of ignoring it. 3/4 becomes 1/2 and 1/2 becomes none.
I don't outright ban, but highly discourage most forms of powergame multiclass dips. I push players to do something more original and interesting then Hex 1/Pal 2/Sorc X. But Wizard 3/Gunslinger X (my own Homebrew, not Matt Mercer's. Mine is a full class not a fighter subclass) was a very fun multiclass to see. I did have to give him a little favor to make up for lost levels in combat (I give magic items in 'rounds' where I try to keep everyone even. I almost always had him be the start of the round so he was often up one magic item on others for at least a time. Made him feel most balanced since he sacrifices combat potential for fun and fluff.)
Flying races, if allowed at all, don't get their ability to fly until level 5. If the caster can't expend a resource to do it, you can't do it for free. (This isn't true of everything, it's just the point that seemed to work for me) This is more to help my sanity of balancing low level encounters. If one person can kill most encounters with little danger to themselves without me specifically engineering them to counter flying (making sure fights are indoors, all enemies use longbows etc.) Then it's easier to say "don't fly until level 5 when it gets easier for me to deal with" then get frustrated because I forgot the Aarokocra could fly 400 feet above them out of shortbow range and murder them with a Longbow. Better DMs than me probably don't have this issue.

In response to this, and just in general, there's nothing wrong with nerfs/bans made before the game starts. Giving your players a page or two of houserules before they begin making characters is fine, though if your rules aren't good, you might not retain players well.

While I'm a believer in the general philosophy of "Buffs are better than nerfs" (in general, mind you-this is not a universal truth) if you as a DM handle it best with lower power instead of higher, and you still make a fun game, that's awesome! Just don't do it mid-campaign, or, god forbid, mid-session unless something is REALLY wrong!

My general point, overall, is just that it's a game meant to be fun. If you and your players have fun, I don't really care whether you play RAW 5E, RAI 5E, houseruled 5E, chutes and ladders, or anything else-just make sure no one's left out in your group.

[Galithar]

Artificer has little to do with balance concerns- although I did not like the UA when it came out, and had a lot of concerns with it. I'm sure it's better now. But I hate the fluff, the class itself bores me, and I have no motivation to buy the book, look it over, assess it, and see if I want it in my games. I just don't like it. And I don't allow any player to run something I don't have the book for. If one of my players buys the book, lets me look it over, and REALLY wants to play, I may take a different stance, but I dislike it enough I won't put ANY effort into making it accessible.

I've seen very little of Matt's work other than the Gunslinger and Blood Hunter. I think they're very solid and compared to PHB options maybe even a little undertuned. I looked at the Cobalt Soul monk and was very underwhelmed. I think rumors of his broken builds are greatly exaggerated, unnecessarily so. I follow Critical Role and I see the passion and dedication he puts into his work. To say he has no sense of balance or good writing is a hell of thing with little evidence to support it. So I give him the benefit of the doubt, though I've never run any of his material personally.

Not the best place to put this since it's off topic, but Matt's Blood Hunter is overtuned in comparison to PHB classes. The Lycan is the most egregious. At level 5 it can hit for 2d6+Dex/Str 3 times with no feat investment and only the cost of taking 1d6 damage once. The closest comparison is the Monk who can hit for 1d6+Dex/Str 3 times, or expend a limited resource to do it 4 times. Now I understand that the Monk is not all about damage, especially at level 5 when they get stunning strike, but I needed a comparison to number of attacks. Any one with Martial proficiency can hit for (1d10+Str)*2 and 1d4+Str at the cost of their level 4 ASI. This just isn't close.to equal and the Lycan still has other features. Now I THINK it balances out later in the game, but I have only seen it in action at lower levels.



In response to this, and just in general, there's nothing wrong with nerfs/bans made before the game starts. Giving your players a page or two of houserules before they begin making characters is fine, though if your rules aren't good, you might not retain players well.

While I'm a believer in the general philosophy of "Buffs are better than nerfs" (in general, mind you-this is not a universal truth) if you as a DM handle it best with lower power instead of higher, and you still make a fun game, that's awesome! Just don't do it mid-campaign, or, god forbid, mid-session unless something is REALLY wrong!

My general point, overall, is just that it's a game meant to be fun. If you and your players have fun, I don't really care whether you play RAW 5E, RAI 5E, houseruled 5E, chutes and ladders, or anything else-just make sure no one's left out in your group.

I actually throw a lot of buffs in as well, which make my games higher power overall. But the thread is about nerfs :P
I also give my houserules out in advance, and give warning of anything that may see changes mid game (usually when introducing my own Homebrew, or allowing someone else's/material I haven't thoroughly analyzed)

[JakOfAllTirades]

Aside from the obvious (Hexblade; I might just ban that one), I'm going to have to do something about the Artificer's "Spell Storing Item" feature before my party hits 11th level. Nothing is going to convince me this isn't overpowered: TWENTY free spells levels in a mundane item: no action required, no gold required, no spell slots required, so spell preparation required, no attunement required. Um... no.

This is basically similar to a Ring of Spell Storing, but with four times as many spell levels stored in it, that the Artificer can fill up with no action and no spells used, for no cost in gold pieces. If it was a magic item it would be "artifact level." Even if I nerf and it just change it to an Infusion that emulates a Ring of Spell Storing, that's giving the Artificer a Rare item about three levels early. Which he'd better be okay with, because that's probably what I'll do.

[stoutstien]

Aside from the obvious (Hexblade; I might just ban that one), I'm going to have to do something about the Artificer's "Spell Storing Item" feature before my party hits 11th level. Nothing is going to convince me this isn't overpowered: TWENTY free spells levels in a mundane item: no action required, no gold required, no spell slots required, so spell preparation required, no attunement required. Um... no.

This is basically similar to a Ring of Spell Storing, but with four times as many spell levels stored in it, that the Artificer can fill up with no action and no spells used, for no cost in gold pieces. If it was a magic item it would be "artifact level." Even if I nerf and it just change it to an Infusion that emulates a Ring of Spell Storing, that's giving the Artificer a Rare item about three levels early. Which he'd better be okay with, because that's probably what I'll do.

So your nerfing a defining class feature without seeing it in extended play first? It's on par with other options entering tier 3.

[EggKookoo]

So your nerfing a defining class feature without seeing it in extended play first? It's on par with other options entering tier 3.

One of my players has a 2nd level artificer, and I'm curious how he'll use this. Right now the obvious go-to is cure wounds but things will be different at 11th level.

I must be an odd DM because I love giving players items or abilities like this. It makes it easier to throw really tough opponents at them knowing they can handle themselves. More fun for all.

[Zetakya]

I don't nerf Hexblade; I just plain don't allow it.

[stoutstien]

One of my players has a 2nd level artificer, and I'm curious how he'll use this. Right now the obvious go-to is cure wounds but things will be different at 11th level.

I must be an odd DM because I love giving players items or abilities like this. It makes it easier to throw really tough opponents at them knowing they can handle themselves. More fun for all.

It's very flexible and powerful but if we compared it to say extra attack (3), improved divine smite, sharpen the blade, reliable talent, or full casters getting 6th lv spell I can't see how it's out of line.

A clever player will have a ton of fun with it.

[Dark.Revenant]

Even if I nerf and it just change it to an Infusion that emulates a Ring of Spell Storing, that's giving the Artificer a Rare item about three levels early. Which he'd better be okay with, because that's probably what I'll do.

If anything, giving the Artificer a free Ring of Spell Storing is actually a net buff over their 11th level class feature.

[JeffreyGator]

Healing Spirit.
It only triggers once per round.
Still powerful, still useful, but no more congo lines.

Staff of the Woodlands and some of its awaken shenanigans have been changed.

My games require bonus and/or reaction to trigger healing spirit. So up to twice a round and it has a cost.

For one game we added spellcasting stat bonus to the rolls as a balance that was probably unneeded.

The Ranger was still a better healer than the trickster cleric for the party.

[Trask]

I have a lot of little things, but here are some non-class specific standouts that genuinely improve the game (in my opinion)

- Strength modifier determines HP, not Constitution. You can now apply Constitution to death saving throws and still use it to determine healing during a short rest. This makes Strength not utterly useless if you dont use it for attacking. (A nerf to some, a buff to others.)

- You lose your Dexterity bonus to armor class when incapacitated or blinded. Helps bring a weakness to a score that is overpowered.

- Background skills are gone, instead each class can pick 4 skills from their class list. This throttles access to Perception and Acrobatics which, in my opinion, should be treated more like class features than goodies.

- Long rests can only be taken in a "sanctuary", a safe place where the party can let their guard down entirely. Camping in the woods is a short rest, unless by happenchance or a survival check they find a cozy spring or cave behind a waterfall or something. Examples of sanctuaries might include, a friendly farmstead, the cave of a mother bear that the druid has befriended, a druid's sacred grove, things like that. No more plopping down behind in a dungeon room behind a leomund's tiny hut for a long rest. Throttling access to easy long rests is the single most contributing factor to improving my game that I've found, bar none.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I'm seeing a lot of is nerfing related to martials, either from a "basic attacks are boring" standpoint or a "I want more realism standpoint" (and I'm guilty of the former with my PAM example).

From most that I've seen, Martials and Casters are at least comparable to being on the same level for combat, yet the contribution from non-combat features from Martials is nearly 0 in comparison to Casters.

There's a power difference there, and the main defense I hear for it is summarized as "it doesn't matter".

Are there any examples of players nerfing magic?

[Luccan]

One thing I'm seeing a lot of is nerfing related to martials, either from a "basic attacks are boring" standpoint or a "I want more realism standpoint" (and I'm guilty of the former with my PAM example).

From most that I've seen, Martials and Casters are at least comparable to being on the same level, yet the contribution from non-combat features from Martials is nearly 0 in comparison to Casters.

There's a power difference there, and the main defense I hear for it is summarized as "it doesn't matter".

Are there any examples of players nerfing magic?

I don't really do any nerfing, but if I wanted to nerf magic, I'd just limit your highest level of spell access. No complicated or annoying mechanics, just say "you can only get spells of up to level x". For full casters, I'd still let them make use of their higher level slots, because you're cutting off most of their progression already

[MaxWilson]

Are there any examples of players nerfing magic?

Assuming DMs count as players, yes, I have nerfed magic in several ways:

If you don't have Warcaster, casting a full-action spell (or being incapacitated) within melee range of an enemy triggers an opportunity attack. (The third bullet point of Warcaster then becomes the removal of this opportunity attack, instead of the silly reaction spellcasting thing that makes it easier to Polymorph enemies than allies.) This opportunity attack is allowed to disrupt concentration on the spell that was just cast, if it's a concentration spell.

Magic Resistance works against Eldritch Blast/Telekinesis/Maze/Wall of Force/Conjure Animals/etc., instead of only against saving throw-debuffs. Has a chance to negate the spell entirely, as a reaction, when the creature is first directly affected by the spell (e.g. hit by a summoned or Planar Bound creature).

Both of these bring the tradeoffs between spells and weaponry closer to what it is in AD&D. Magic weapons are reliable but single-target, spells are powerful but unreliable.

[Man_Over_Game]

Assuming DMs count as players, yes, I have nerfed magic in several ways:

If you don't have Warcaster, casting a full-action spell (or being incapacitated) within melee range of an enemy triggers an opportunity attack. (The third bullet point of Warcaster then becomes the removal of this opportunity attack, instead of the silly reaction spellcasting thing that makes it easier to Polymorph enemies than allies.) This opportunity attack is allowed to disrupt concentration on the spell that was just cast, if it's a concentration spell.

I like this, but I think I'd might add a separation between Concentration spells and Non-Concentration spells.

I want my players to be spending their spell slots on Thunderwave, not Hypnotic Pattern. Interesting and risky, not generic and easy.

So OA's when casting Concentration spells only. However, War Caster removes the OA penalty, but also allows you to cast a Non-Concentration spell as a Reaction as normal.

That's not meant as a critique for your changes-I like them overall-just a note as to what I'd do for my own.

[sithlordnergal]

Its interesting to see what people nerf, especially since I've never actually nerfed anything, nor do I have any plans to. I tend to buff things that are weak instead of nerfing things that are strong.

EDIT: Of course I'm also the kind of DM that puts in cursed weapons that will give you a small amount of free gold if you crit, with the curse that you can't spend/give up any gold you have. I'm also the kind of DM that allows a characters to use Longbows as improvised weapons to stack Heavy Weapon Master and Sharpshooter on an attack cause its just too funny to disallow.

[MaxWilson]

I like this, but I think I'd might add a separation between Concentration spells and Non-Concentration spells.

I want my players to be spending their spell slots on Thunderwave, not Hypnotic Pattern. Interesting and risky, not generic and easy.

I wanted to make sure a Booming Blade wizard wasn't a no-brainer replacement for a Fighter.

There's still a difference between concentration and non-concentration: if you Thunderwave while in melee, at least you'll definitely get your spell off, but Hypnotic Pattern may be disrupted while you're still casting it.

I considered going even further and letting even non-concentration spells like Fireball be disrupted, and I tried that for a while, but it was a bit too much. Likewise I'm happy to still let bonus action spells like Misty Step not trigger opportunity attacks: it gives more of a niche to spells like Power Word: Stun which otherwise are too weak (Power Words are bonus actions at my table).


So OA's when casting Concentration spells only. However, War Caster removes the OA penalty, but also allows you to cast a Non-Concentration spell as a Reaction as normal.

I hate that "cast a spell as a reaction" ability of Warcaster because it makes absolutely zero sense. Why is reaction: Longstrider (non-concentration) easier to cast on an enemy running past you than an ally actively cooperating with you? I was happy to have an excuse to replace it with a different benefit.


That's not meant as a critique for your changes-I like them overall-just a note as to what I'd do for my own.

Likewise. I think it's fine that you leave the reaction spellcasting intact, I just don't like it myself.

[SociopathFriend]

Are there any examples of players nerfing magic?

The thing to remember is a lot of spells already rely on your DM to rule how they work on a case/case basis to begin with.
Such as whether Enlarge successfully can make a chandelier or stalactite heavy enough that they break free from the ceiling and fall on the enemy.
A DM is "nerfing" if they said no but perhaps buffing if they say yes.

Magic beyond simple blasting changes call by call to the point that outright nerfing it is rather difficult to point out.

[JakOfAllTirades]

So your nerfing a defining class feature without seeing it in extended play first? It's on par with other options entering tier 3.

Show me anything else comparable that any other class receives at 11th level. Spell Storing Item is 20 free spell levels with no downside.

[MaxWilson]

Show me anything else comparable that any other class receives at 11th level. Spell Storing Item is 20 free spell levels with no downside.

Well, there's the fact that the Artificer is 28 spell levels behind the wizard at that point (three 4th, two 5th, one 6th) and has much lower-level spells. I'd call that a downside.

If you count it in spell point terms, the wizard is 18 + 14 + 9 = 41 spell points ahead, and the Spell Storing Item is sort of like +20 or +30 SP, depending on whether you store a first- or second-level spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

The thing to remember is a lot of spells already rely on your DM to rule how they work on a case/case basis to begin with.
Such as whether Enlarge successfully can make a chandelier or stalactite heavy enough that they break free from the ceiling and fall on the enemy.
A DM is "nerfing" if they said no but perhaps buffing if they say yes.

Magic beyond simple blasting changes call by call to the point that outright nerfing it is rather difficult to point out.

Part of the problem there is that you're hammering down creativity for a gamist concept.

Enlarging a chandelier to make it crush your enemies is a good use of the spell (a lot more interesting than shrinking a door or enlarging a Monk). Everyone thinks it's cool, +1 to everyone's fun. Fighter realizes he can't do anything cool like that, -1 to Fighter's fun. It's still a net positive experience for the table, the problem is that the Fighter still feels like he isn't contributing. Removing that creativity would remove the level of fun for the majority of the table.

Cutting down on numbers is difficult, since it comes of as strictly a nerf-that is, a punishment-as opposed to a change in mechanic. Strict nerfs can feel like you're trying to worsen the game. For example, I change Polearm Master to add reach instead of an attack, and now it's not about making PAM worse but making it interesting. Everyone's a winner.

However, spells have their own unique mechanics, so you can't reliably change every spell to be balanced without reducing their numbers or changing 200 different spell mechanics.

But, mostly, the example you used is of someone spending something of notable value, on a circumstantial scenario, for a one-time-use effect. That's exactly what we should be encouraging players to do. Less metagaming about "how efficient should my 2nd level spell slot be", more of "I cast a spell to drop the ceiling on these fools".

Your solution sounds like it brings more problems, as it encourages players to rely on spells that the DM cannot interact with (that is, number-based spells that are much more boring and worse for the game).

Similarly, setting up a mechanic that makes it harder for Rogues to Hide will result in them to stop trying to Hide. But what you're describing isn't going to encourage a Caster to rely on their warriors, but instead encourage a Caster to rely on their damage spells.




Hmm...that does give me a new perspective on the idea. If nerfing encourages a playstyle, and Martials aren't feeling useful, then the solution should revolve around Casters needing Martials for success. That way, when the Caster succeeds, it's because he had help. Caster's spell, Martial's assistance, both are the cause of success.

Opportunity Attacks and such are one way of doing it, but I think there may be ways of doing it that make martials' contribution more substantial than preventing the occasional extra hit against a player mage.

[stoutstien]

Show me anything else comparable that any other class receives at 11th level. Spell Storing Item is 20 free spell levels with no downside.

I guess you missed a list of other 11th level class features that are just as powerful if not more so. I've yet to see a single use that is out of line.
Do you have any specific spell that they put in there that somehow breaks your game?

[MaxWilson]

Hmm...that does give me a new perspective on the idea. If nerfing encourages a playstyle, and Martials aren't feeling useful, then the solution should revolve around Casters needing Martials for success. That way, when the Caster succeeds, it's because he had help. Caster's spell, Martial's assistance, both are the cause of success.

Opportunity Attacks and such are one way of doing it, but I think there may be ways of doing it that make martials' contribution more substantial than preventing the occasional extra hit against a player mage.

I see this happening with my Magic Resistance variant (replacement for legendary resistance). If a warrior can tempt a big monster into using its reaction on an opportunity attack, the wizard has a better chance of landing a spell. (Or they can do it the other way around, where the spellcaster blesses the warrior with enhancements like Foresight.)

[47Ace]

I see this happening with my Magic Resistance variant (replacement for legendary resistance). If a warrior can tempt a big monster into using its reaction on an opportunity attack, the wizard has a better chance of landing a spell. (Or they can do it the other way around, where the spellcaster blesses the warrior with enhancements like Foresight.)

That is a very good idea, I may try that.

[LordCdrMilitant]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

Well:

I don't implement Legendary Saves. I don't believe in the motivation behind their existence, to protect "big badass boss monsters" from being suppressed or eliminated while presenting minimal threat. There's no reason to do so, because the game is about the players, not whatever my biggest nasty is.

I usually structure battlefields and encounters in way to discourage "walk into B2B, race to the bottom, repeat" as a combat strategy. I don't directly nerf it with any rulings, I just build encounters to counter it. Enemies will utilize protected and elevated firing positions, obstacles, traps, and sometimes expendable additional troops to keep melee people out of melee with anything important, and will disengage and cover each other when engaged if you don't have something to prevent them from doing so.

[EggKookoo]

Opportunity Attacks and such are one way of doing it, but I think there may be ways of doing it that make martials' contribution more substantial than preventing the occasional extra hit against a player mage.

A few years ago I was building my own game system. It was class-based like D&D. One concept I played around with was to set up a bunch of mid-level features that worked off actions taken by teammates. So for example, translated to D&D, you might see a feature designed for a spellcaters. If you (the spellcasting PC) see a creature not-hostile to you make a successful save against a spell in order to reduce or avoid damage, and you know a spell of the same school or have one prepared, you can cast your spell without using a spell slot if you do so before the end of your next turn. Or if you're a fighter (or perhaps any of a set of martial classes). If a nearby non-hostile creature scores a critical melee hit, you get advantage on your next melee attack as long as you make the attack roll before the end of your next turn. And so on...

The idea being to create a system where players could take advantage of actions taken by their allies, but that those actions weren't under their allies' control. I never got around to playtesting it but my hope was that you could build up some cool "proc chains" with it that the whole party could benefit from. And it would encourage players to pay attention to what their allies were doing to make sure they didn't miss any opportunities.

[Man_Over_Game]

I see this happening with my Magic Resistance variant (replacement for legendary resistance). If a warrior can tempt a big monster into using its reaction on an opportunity attack, the wizard has a better chance of landing a spell. (Or they can do it the other way around, where the spellcaster blesses the warrior with enhancements like Foresight.)

It seems like it could be effective, but gaming an Opportunity Attack through retreating, so a caster can cast a curse, sounds kinda...dumb?

"Quick, run away to distract him! He...didn't attack you? Well...run back and forth until he does! Reel him like a fish. Like a FIIISH!"




Thinking about it, I like the idea of Channeling:
When you cast a spell who's level is equal or greater than your Proficiency, and has a casting time of an Action or a Bonus Action, it is first "Channeled" (Readied) until just before the start of your next turn when it is then cast.

If there are no valid targets at the time of casting, you can choose to cast a different spell, who's spell level is less than your Proficiency, using your channeled spell slot.

If you need to cast a spell with a casting time of Reaction while Concentrating on a Channeled spell, you can use the spell slot of the Channeled spell for the new spell instead of losing it.

Gives extra value to lower level spells, lowers the value of Shield and other universal Reaction spells, gives martials a means to interact with enemy casters, gives martials an additional bonus for defending their casters, gives reasons for casters to rely on martials, and it does so without interfering with the Action economy (your action is delayed, not slowed).

The only weaknesses it adds are:


Bigger spells are prone to interruption and loss through damage (because you're Concentrating for 1 round to cast them).
Bigger spells cannot be cast while Concentrating on a spell, unless you want to lose one of your two spells.
You cannot cast defensive spells while casting a bigger spell.


As a reminder, proficiency bonuses are gained at 5, 9, 13 and 17.

[Dork_Forge]

Not the best place to put this since it's off topic, but Matt's Blood Hunter is overtuned in comparison to PHB classes. The Lycan is the most egregious. At level 5 it can hit for 2d6+Dex/Str 3 times with no feat investment and only the cost of taking 1d6 damage once. The closest comparison is the Monk who can hit for 1d6+Dex/Str 3 times, or expend a limited resource to do it 4 times. Now I understand that the Monk is not all about damage, especially at level 5 when they get stunning strike, but I needed a comparison to number of attacks. Any one with Martial proficiency can hit for (1d10+Str)*2 and 1d4+Str at the cost of their level 4 ASI. This just isn't close.to equal and the Lycan still has other features. Now I THINK it balances out later in the game, but I have only seen it in action at lower levels.


Just a note on the power of the Lycan, in actual play it shouldn't really be an issue: You need to bonus action Hybrid Form (a limited resource with potential to attack your allies) THEN bonus action Blood Rite (You can only target your unarmed strike for the extra damage after assuming Hybrid Form and then you're damaging yourself on the second round of combat). The action economy really reigns it in and the costs/risks of the abilities themselves aren't insignificant, in contrast the Monk can just attack 3 times every turn for free and can burn limited resources on top of that (note this is addressing a full Blood Hunter to a subclassless Monk, factor in a subclass and the Blood Hunter doens't really stand out damage wise at all). The only time I can see a Lycan being a stand out is in a long combat, where their self damage and risk of attacking friendlies also impacts them more.

[SociopathFriend]

Part of the problem there is that you're hammering down creativity for a gamist concept.

To be clear- I'm not saying I would do that but that is the sort of question that happens pretty much every time someone tries being inventive with a spell. A given DM will be almost always having to rule on using magic outside of strictly stated boundaries.

As such it's not typically considered a "nerf" because of how case-by-case it is in the first place. Nerfing requires a consistent base to work from and magic quite often for the parts a DM rules on doesn't have that base established in the first place.

You outright say my point later,



However, spells have their own unique mechanics, so you can't reliably change every spell to be balanced without reducing their numbers or changing 200 different spell mechanics.

That's why I said you aren't seeing much about magic in the thread- because raw numbers are rarely a problem. It's the weird and unique stuff that generally leads to problems and that's rarely something that is a proper 'nerf' so much as a DM calling whether something works or not.

I don't think I even GAVE a solution to the problem- it was an example of a call a DM would have to make. I don't think I even said what I would do.

[P. G. Macer]

I have several nerfs:

• Like many of you, I move Hex Warrior from Hexblade to Pact of the Blade
• A spear or quarterstaff must be used two-handed to benefit from the Polearm Master Feat
• Simulacra cannot create more simulacra. Both a simulacrum and its creator suffer the negative effects of casting a wish spell if the spell is not used to cast a spell of 8th level or lower.
Those are my general nerfs. I also have some world-specific nerfing house rules for my post-apocalyptic Ice Age world:
• The amounts of material created by Goodberry and Create Food and Water is halved; Goodberry requires a piece of mistletoe worth at least one copper piece, which is consumed by the casting.
• Purify food and drink's radius is reduced to 2.5 feet
• The Outlander background’s Wanderer feature can only find food and water for two creatures.
• The Fisher background’s Harvest the Water feature can only feed up to five people.
• The eight-hour effect of Plant Growth does not work.

These (among a few others) are to create natural resource scarcity while not entirely shutting off player options.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I guess you missed a list of other 11th level class features that are just as powerful if not more so. I've yet to see a single use that is out of line.
Do you have any specific spell that they put in there that somehow breaks your game?


If there's a list, show me some examples. I'm waiting.

[stoutstien]

If there's a list, show me some examples. I'm waiting.


Extra attack (3)
Improved divine smite
Lv 6 spells for full casters
Reliable talents
Most of the rangers concave 11th lv features
Warlocks get an additional spell slot every SR And mystic arcanum

I think the only one that fall below SSI are barbarians which IMO is pretty lacking.

i think you may have misunderstood how SSI works. first off you get a number of charges equal to your INT modifier not score so without a lot of very rare magical items that are 100% DM dependent, 10 charges will be the max. the spell is limited to the artificer's list and must have a casting time of an action. you can get expanded spells from the dragon-mark sub-races but even then there just aren't many that you can cast 10 times a day that will make a huge impact. sure every once in a while having lesser restoration or cure wounds is nice but it nothing a paladin hasn't been doing with LOH the whole time. about the only thing that really helps it out is that activating it fals under the "use an object" rules so thief and the extra action granted by haste can allow for some fun.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Well, there's the fact that the Artificer is 28 spell levels behind the wizard at that point (three 4th, two 5th, one 6th) and has much lower-level spells. I'd call that a downside.

If you count it in spell point terms, the wizard is 18 + 14 + 9 = 41 spell points ahead, and the Spell Storing Item is sort of like +20 or +30 SP, depending on whether you store a first- or second-level spell.

You're comparing a half-caster to a full caster on the basis of nothing but spell points, while conveniently omitting all the half-caster's other class features from 1st to 10th level.

This is not a valid argument; the Artificer also gets spells from its archetype, eight known infusions, four infused items, flash of genius, and archetype features at 3rd and 5th level.

All of those, by the way, appear to be reasonable, level-appropriate and well-balanced. I'd have no problem if Spell Storing Item was as well-designed as the rest of the class.

[druid91]

I don't really nerf anything. The closest is my Necromancer house rule.

Animate dead says nothing more than 'The DM will give you the stats on these creatures.' So I give them creatures that tend to be more useful than default undead in that they gain levels (Usually based on what the corpse was they were raising. Usually just fighters). However I also enforce the undead getting a slice of the Necromancers XP.

[stoutstien]

You're comparing a half-caster to a full caster on the basis of nothing but spell points, while conveniently omitting all the half-caster's other class features from 1st to 10th level.

This is not a valid argument; the Artificer also gets spells from its archetype, eight known infusions, four infused items, flash of genius, and archetype features at 3rd and 5th level.

All of those, by the way, appear to be reasonable, level-appropriate and well-balanced. I'd have no problem if Spell Storing Item was as well-designed as the rest of the class.

But you need to present a case why it's out of line other than a feeling because by the numbers it's actually pretty meh. It's cool, it's flavorful, it's a barrel of laughs but in the end it's nothing new.

[Dork_Forge]

You're comparing a half-caster to a full caster on the basis of nothing but spell points, while conveniently omitting all the half-caster's other class features from 1st to 10th level.

This is not a valid argument; the Artificer also gets spells from its archetype, eight known infusions, four infused items, flash of genius, and archetype features at 3rd and 5th level.

All of those, by the way, appear to be reasonable, level-appropriate and well-balanced. I'd have no problem if Spell Storing Item was as well-designed as the rest of the class.

You seem to think that being able to use a single 1st or 2nd level spell 10 times a day, including being able to pass that spell around to your party is an overpowered/unbalanced ability. I can certainly understand a knee jerk of that seems very powerful, but I've looked over the spell list a few times regarding this and there's nothing game breaking or even particularly powerful there. An Artillerist could take Shatter and I believe add their Arcane Firearm damage to it, but that isn't particularly impressive damage at 11+ and casting AoEs in combat as your main strategy without a means of protecting your party from them is its own issue.

I would suggest just trying the feature out before nerfing it, unless you can actually provide something about it that seems out of line with the power of everything else because at the moment you are nerfing something out of unfounded fear and chances are that if anyone would find an exploit it's a bunch of powergamers like us.

[stoutstien]

You seem to think that being able to use a single 1st or 2nd level spell 10 times a day, including being able to pass that spell around to your party is an overpowered/unbalanced ability. I can certainly understand a knee jerk of that seems very powerful, but I've looked over the spell list a few times regarding this and there's nothing game breaking or even particularly powerful there. An Artillerist could take Shatter and I believe add their Arcane Firearm damage to it, but that isn't particularly impressive damage at 11+ and casting AoEs in combat as your main strategy without a means of protecting your party from them is its own issue.

I would suggest just trying the feature out before nerfing it, unless you can actually provide something about it that seems out of line with the power of everything else because at the moment you are nerfing something out of unfounded fear and chances are that if anyone would find an exploit it's a bunch of powergamers like us.

No arcane firearm because the spell isn't being cast from it or at all as SSI replicates a spell effect but in no way casting the spell. I been meaning to write up a mini guide on it because it does take a few reading to catch it all.

[iTreeby]

Just a note on the power of the Lycan, in actual play it shouldn't really be an issue: You need to bonus action Hybrid Form (a limited resource with potential to attack your allies) THEN bonus action Blood Rite (You can only target your unarmed strike for the extra damage after assuming Hybrid Form and then you're damaging yourself on the second round of combat). The action economy really reigns it in and the costs/risks of the abilities themselves aren't insignificant, in contrast the Monk can just attack 3 times every turn for free and can burn limited resources on top of that (note this is addressing a full Blood Hunter to a subclassless Monk, factor in a subclass and the Blood Hunter doens't really stand out damage wise at all). The only time I can see a Lycan being a stand out is in a long combat, where their self damage and risk of attacking friendlies also impacts them more.
Lycans can use rites on a weapon at the beginning of the day and use it instead of their unarmed strike, this is especially worth doing if the weapon is already magical.

The dangerous bloodhunter is the mutant. Rites+DEX boost potion+ crossbow expert is crazy. You save your maladicts for niche situations (like the puppet one) so you can get the extra shot off. It gets more busted when you multiclass with artificer but that's a whole other thing that I don't recall at the moment.

[Luccan]

Lycans can use rites on a weapon at the beginning of the day and use it instead of their unarmed strike, this is especially worth doing if the weapon is already magical.

The dangerous bloodhunter is the mutant. Rites+DEX boost potion+ crossbow expert is crazy. You save your maladicts for niche situations (like the puppet one) so you can get the extra shot off. It gets more busted when you multiclass with artificer but that's a whole other thing that I don't recall at the moment.

Asking a bit much for it to be balanced with multiclassing into a class that didn't officially come out until after Blood Hunter's release, don't you think?

[Captain Panda]

The only thing I nerf is simulacrum chains (which I actually don't think is a nerf, I don't think a fair reading of RAW allows it).

All the other things people get all up in arms about on the forums, I actually don't think they're that big of a deal. I play in a large, long-form West Marches campaign that ranges from low to very high tier play (and then cycles back to low tier play).

The common bugbears of the D&D forums:

Coffeelocks: I've actually played as, with, and DMed for quite a few coffeelocks. In the end coffeelock is only "broken" for mid-range levels. The build comes online slowly, so you are missing out a bit in the early levels. It comes online hard and feels extremely strong in the mid levels, then at high end play it trails off again. In contrast the wizard goes from feeling kind of weak at low levels, pretty good at mid levels, and feels absolutely godlike at 17+. If you aren't going to get past the mid levels, though, maybe it makes sense to ban them.

Healing Spirit: I can see, if you really, really want to play an attrition-based campaign that drains your characters how this spell can look overpowered. I've been playing with it regularly since it was published and honestly do not think it's that bad. At low levels it's wild overkill, you don't need that many hit points, and a couple casts of goodberry would probably be better resource usage unless your group is about to die. Use your hit dice and use the second level slot for something useful in combat. At mid levels and higher, does it really matter that your party uses this to get back into the fight? They could probably use Leomund's Tiny Hut cheese and just long rest. I'd rather than have a spell that lets them keep going without having to do that. I hate long rest cheese a lot more than a strong out of combat recovery spell.

Heat Metal: Honestly the first time I've heard complaints about it are in this thread, but really? I don't see it. It's a poor use of concentration for any druid higher than level 4. Conjure animals instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

A few years ago I was building my own game system. It was class-based like D&D. One concept I played around with was to set up a bunch of mid-level features that worked off actions taken by teammates. I think there's a little of that in 13th Age, but I am just now putting together a character that we'll play this summer.

[Dork_Forge]

Lycans can use rites on a weapon at the beginning of the day and use it instead of their unarmed strike, this is especially worth doing if the weapon is already magical.
You can, but to get the bonus action claw attack at least one of your attacks needs to be unarmed, so offloading your Rite to your weapon doesn't really help a Lycan that much. I'd also challenge any player that attempted to hold a weapon non stop all day, though that might just be me.



The dangerous bloodhunter is the mutant. Rites+DEX boost potion+ crossbow expert is crazy. You save your maladicts for niche situations (like the puppet one) so you can get the extra shot off. It gets more busted when you multiclass with artificer but that's a whole other thing that I don't recall at the moment.

Order of the Mutant is definitely more open to potential combos, but from the DM point of view all you have to do is throw whatever their Mutagen made them weak against at them. Fun combo yes, but action economy puts a muzzle on it getting too out of hand, even if you can get your Rite started before combat.

I'm actually impressed with Matt Mercer's design for the most part with BH and the Gunslinger, I just wish the trickshots a Gunslinger had were a bit more compelling for the risk they take on compared to a Battle Master.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I guess one Nerf to magic that I almost forgot about...

Wizards get three spell schools. Even as a player I limit myself as wizards have way too much flexibility.

[Dork_Forge]

No arcane firearm because the spell isn't being cast from it or at all as SSI replicates a spell effect but in no way casting the spell. I been meaning to write up a mini guide on it because it does take a few reading to catch it all.

Well I'll be damned, I didn't realise that it was worded to replicate the spell effect, not cast teh spell, that is interesting. Am I right in thinking you could still stack Enhanced Focus, Arcane Firearm and SSI into a single item, SSI just wouldn't benefit from them?

[Zetakya]

Oh, one of my house rules that needs neither explanation nor argument:

It is not possible for a Bard to play the Song of Rest on the Bagpipes, Cowbell or Steel Drums.

[iTreeby]

Asking a bit much for it to be balanced with multiclassing into a class that didn't officially come out until after Blood Hunter's release, don't you think?

Multiclassing isn't balanced anyway, it's not a big deal. I really like bloodhunter. I wish the profain soul could multiclass with warlock better( does it convert its casting stat to intelligence? I can't actually tell) I also wish the ghost hunters intangible thing was better worked out. Mutant is probably too good because it can ignore its own weak points and build to do specific things possibly too well, if it were a published class, I'd expect a few changes but it's really solid homebrew.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Oh, one of my house rules that needs neither explanation nor argument:

It is not possible for a Bard to play the Song of Rest on the Bagpipes, Cowbell or Steel Drums.

You have a heart made of ice, Mr. Lucas Zetakya, and so we're goin' tuh melt your icy heart... with a cool island song.

Steel Drums can be very peaceful when played smoothly. Melt your icy heart with a cool island melody.

[Trask]

Steel Drums can be very peaceful when played smoothly. Melt your icy heart with a cool island melody.

A big hard to lug around though, speaking from experience. But they are beautiful instruments.

[Misterwhisper]

Actually a buff but done to fix two good examples of bad design:

I remove the verbal component from the spell Silence.

Kind of stupid for a spell that makes everything silent requires you to to talk to do it.

Also I buff Hunger of Hadar. Making it 5ft radius bigger each spell level higher.

Also kind of stupid that one of the best warlock only spells does not scale at all for a class that has no choice but to upcast.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A big hard to lug around though, speaking from experience. But they are beautiful instruments.

Strap that goes from two sides around and up and around your neck shoulders and you would barely notice the weight. Especially since they come in multiple sizes.

Mini Steel Drums (Pan Drums): http://www.fancypanssteeldrums.com/products_mini.htm

Some of the other ones I've found have a shipping weight of around 20lbs (they weren't mini ones).

Easily carried if a harness is made.

[Trask]

Strap that goes from two sides around and up and around your neck shoulders and you would barely notice the weight. Especially since they come in multiple sizes.

Mini Steel Drums (Pan Drums): http://www.fancypanssteeldrums.com/products_mini.htm

Some of the other ones I've found have a shipping weight of around 20lbs (they weren't mini ones).

Easily carried if a harness is made.

I played in high school and I remember it being a real burden then, but maybe I was weaker. Talking about it now makes me miss playing, really was a fun instrument.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Pass without trace: advantage on stealth instead of a +10.
I refuse to give out the staff of the woodlands but if I did pass without trace would use 1 charge.
Healing spirit: this is more of a dm to player guideline then a nerf per se, but my players cannot use this out of combat. At the end of combat each player gets 1d6 healed if it's still up.
Leomunds tiny hut: does not have a floor, is easily recognized by any magic user, can be destroyed with enough physical damage. (I should probably create actual rules for that part but so far it's been fun to just describe the spell faltering rather then giving numbers.)
All resurrection magic requires a spellcasting ability check equal to 10+the number of times the person being resurrected has been killed. Failure means they cannot be brought back by any means short of godly or devilish influence.
Conjure woodland beings: 2 pixie max.
Animate objects: An object has a number of attacks equal to it's size. Tiny 2, Small 4, Medium 8, Large 10, and Huge 20, +spellcasting to hit and damage stays the same. (I truly love this spell but it is broken as hell if you allow it as written.) I explicitly do allow for opportunity attacks from the objects. This way the spell is useful and versatile without being too broken.

My players are level 8 so the rest of it hasn't come up yet but it will.

I also give my monsters extra skill proficiency and expertise based on their proficiency score. This is nearly always used on either perception, stealth, deception, or athletics.

[Galithar]

Just a note on the power of the Lycan, in actual play it shouldn't really be an issue: You need to bonus action Hybrid Form (a limited resource with potential to attack your allies) THEN bonus action Blood Rite (You can only target your unarmed strike for the extra damage after assuming Hybrid Form and then you're damaging yourself on the second round of combat). The action economy really reigns it in and the costs/risks of the abilities themselves aren't insignificant, in contrast the Monk can just attack 3 times every turn for free and can burn limited resources on top of that (note this is addressing a full Blood Hunter to a subclassless Monk, factor in a subclass and the Blood Hunter doens't really stand out damage wise at all). The only time I can see a Lycan being a stand out is in a long combat, where their self damage and risk of attacking friendlies also impacts them more.

Except the duration of the abilities means that it doesn't eat into action economy at all. The transformation lasts for a full hour and you can cast the Rite immediately after transforming. Unless you are surprised and had no idea combat was coming you will be prepared. Additionally because it lasts an hour you will likely/often/in my experience YMMV be able to get at least two combats in from that one expenditure and then likely have time to short rest and restore your transformation.

In a perfect world with a DM balancing encounters perfectly, sure it could be balanced. As written, with how things are run in my experience, it's not even close.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I played in high school and I remember it being a real burden then, but maybe I was weaker. Talking about it now makes me miss playing, really was a fun instrument.

Well, characters in D&D are generally better than real world humans. In D&D you can swing a sword for a full 12 hours and not get tired after all!

You should pick it back up! I'm hopelessly unable to play music of any kind, yes even the cowbell, so I'm a bit jealous of people that have the ability to play!

Search your feelings, young Trask, you know you should play the steel drum!

[Dork_Forge]

Except the duration of the abilities means that it doesn't eat into action economy at all. The transformation lasts for a full hour and you can cast the Rite immediately after transforming. Unless you are surprised and had no idea combat was coming you will be prepared. Additionally because it lasts an hour you will likely/often/in my experience YMMV be able to get at least two combats in from that one expenditure and then likely have time to short rest and restore your transformation.

In a perfect world with a DM balancing encounters perfectly, sure it could be balanced. As written, with how things are run in my experience, it's not even close.

Maybe it's a playstyle difference in some regards (I don't usually run or play in dungeon crawl type games), but it's pretty easy for an in game hour to pass between combats. I have a similar issue with the whole Artillerists will always have their cannon summoned, but it gets worse with the Lycan: You don't need to be surprised mechanically to not know enough ahead of time to trigger an ability, even if you do get it off before your first encounter of the rest you could lose it before the next encounter (time passed, dropping to 0/incapped another way/mind controlled to drop it etc.), you're turning into a werewolf, typically an Evil monster that should have enough social ramifications that you can't just free march around in Hybrid Form with a flaming claw without drawing unwanted attention from civilians and perhaps npc adventurers.

Assuming that you CAN get all of it together before an encounter, I don't really see the broken part of it, IF they make all of their attacks then they'd be hitting for 33 average damage inflicting an average of 3.5 self damage, a once per rest resource and risking losing control in the process. To compare (I'm not going to account for hit chance because I don't know how to, but assuming +4 mod and all attacks hit at average damage):
-A Monk flurrying whilst two handing a quarterstaff: 32
-A Dueling Fighter Action Surging- 42
-A Dueling Paladin Smiting both attacks at 2nd level slots- 48

It doesn't really seem out of line with other nova strategies, especially since all of the above are risk free, I didn't even factor in subclass abilities (like dropping some Superiority Dice) or feat builds.

I guess I'm just not seeing the overpowered part, is it just the number of attacks that push it to that for you? Do you just not rate the action economy and risks as costs of any significance?

[HappyDaze]

My "nerfs" are more bans of select sources of materials. For example, I don't allow anything from SCAG, GGtR, or AI. I have, in my current campaign, banned hexblade too.

Some other things that others find problematic are fine with me, like healing spirit. In combat, it isn't too powerful, and out of combat, it just lets the whole party heal more quickly to take on other encounters--something that helps to prevent the "one or two encounters, then a long rest" days.

[Galithar]

Maybe it's a playstyle difference in some regards (I don't usually run or play in dungeon crawl type games), but it's pretty easy for an in game hour to pass between combats. I have a similar issue with the whole Artillerists will always have their cannon summoned, but it gets worse with the Lycan: You don't need to be surprised mechanically to not know enough ahead of time to trigger an ability, even if you do get it off before your first encounter of the rest you could lose it before the next encounter (time passed, dropping to 0/incapped another way/mind controlled to drop it etc.), you're turning into a werewolf, typically an Evil monster that should have enough social ramifications that you can't just free march around in Hybrid Form with a flaming claw without drawing unwanted attention from civilians and perhaps npc adventurers.

Assuming that you CAN get all of it together before an encounter, I don't really see the broken part of it, IF they make all of their attacks then they'd be hitting for 33 average damage inflicting an average of 3.5 self damage, a once per rest resource and risking losing control in the process. To compare (I'm not going to account for hit chance because I don't know how to, but assuming +4 mod and all attacks hit at average damage):
-A Monk flurrying whilst two handing a quarterstaff: 32
-A Dueling Fighter Action Surging- 42
-A Dueling Paladin Smiting both attacks at 2nd level slots- 48

It doesn't really seem out of line with other nova strategies, especially since all of the above are risk free, I didn't even factor in subclass abilities (like dropping some Superiority Dice) or feat builds.

I guess I'm just not seeing the overpowered part, is it just the number of attacks that push it to that for you? Do you just not rate the action economy and risks as costs of any significance?

You are comparing single turn Novas against a combo that lasts for a full hour. And of your campaigns never have back to back combats then, yes, this weakens the combo slightly (but also makes it easier to restore between conflicts) but it also weakens ever other class ability/spell with an hour duration making them little different from a 1 minute ability in your games. In my experience shorter times between conflict are common. In published modules (which is what I pretend the game is intended to be balanced towards) multiple combats in an hour are common place.

A Paladin using his top level spell slots to smite is not at all comparable to something the Blood Hunter can repeat every round of combat for an hour.

A Monk at this level can do that 5 times, if they choose not to do anything else with ki. Closer, but still in favor of the Blood Hunter.

A fighter can action surge once. Again single turn compared to every turn for an hour.

[Sjappo]

Unpopular view perhaps but I'm also not 100% sure how it normally works so I don't know if it's "nerfing" or not but pretty much every DM and Player I try this with hates it.
Mind you most of my DMs and Players actually really like Rogues and inter-party theft is extremely common and not liked by the Players who aren't Rogues. The Wizard that got an Artifact was not at all happy when the Rogue stole it just to sell it.

I don't allow player-vs-player rolls. If you try something the other player gets to decide the outcome. If the thief tries to steal something from the wizard it could go something like this.

[Thief] I try and steal the precious from the Wizard.
[Wizard] You fail. Also, I catch you in the act.
[Thief] No you don't.

Done and done.

We did accidentally nerf the Rogue. SA only goes of once a round. And only on the Rogue's own turn. So no SA in a opportunity attack. Not realy a problem, the Rogue does enough damage as it is.

I'm trying to nerf group checks, not realy found a way yet. But I dislike everyone rolling for arcana realy badly.

[EggKookoo]

I'm trying to nerf group checks, not realy found a way yet. But I dislike everyone rolling for arcana realy badly.

It sounds like you're the DM, though? You'd be the one to decide if a group check makes sense or is warranted. Group checks are largely meant for when the entire group is trying to literally do the same thing, but all together (sneak past someone, balance on something floating) where the success or failures all influence each other directly. You wouldn't call for a group check if, say, someone filled a room with toxic gas. Sure, each party member is trying to do the same thing (avoid succumbing to the gas) but they're each doing it individually.

What would be the call for a group arcana check?

[stoutstien]

Well I'll be damned, I didn't realise that it was worded to replicate the spell effect, not cast teh spell, that is interesting. Am I right in thinking you could still stack Enhanced Focus, Arcane Firearm and SSI into a single item, SSI just wouldn't benefit from them?

Yep. No need for juggling focuses.

[Boci]

It sounds like you're the DM, though? You'd be the one to decide if a group check makes sense or is warranted. Group checks are largely meant for when the entire group is trying to literally do the same thing, but all together (sneak past someone, balance on something floating) where the success or failures all influence each other directly. You wouldn't call for a group check if, say, someone filled a room with toxic gas. Sure, each party member is trying to do the same thing (avoid succumbing to the gas) but they're each doing it individually.

What would be the call for a group arcana check?

That's seems to be the point, there's no easy way to justify one arcana check, but the bonded accuracy of 5th ed, and lack of trained vs. untrained skills, means that the rest of the party has a reasonable chance of knowing something the wizard doesn't. Lets assume DC: 15, the wizard has +5 and the other three party members all have +0. The wizard has a 55% chance of making the check, but there is a 58% that one of the other party members will make the check, meaning 3 untrained indeviduals can, through numbers, brute force the check slightly more reliably than the supposed expert of the group.

[Sjappo]

That's seems to be the point, there's no easy way to justify one arcana check, but the bonded accuracy of 5th ed, and lack of trained vs. untrained skills, means that the rest of the party has a reasonable chance of knowing something the wizard doesn't. Lets assume DC: 15, the wizard has +5 and the other three party members all have +0. The wizard has a 55% chance of making the check, but there is a 58% that one of the other party members will make the check, meaning 3 untrained indeviduals can, through numbers, brute force the check slightly more reliably than the supposed expert of the group.
Exactly this. The group has an 80% chance on success by brute-forcing the check. Which sucks and invalidates the wizards players choice to pick Arcana as one of his few skills.

[Galithar]

That's seems to be the point, there's no easy way to justify one arcana check, but the bonded accuracy of 5th ed, and lack of trained vs. untrained skills, means that the rest of the party has a reasonable chance of knowing something the wizard doesn't. Lets assume DC: 15, the wizard has +5 and the other three party members all have +0. The wizard has a 55% chance of making the check, but there is a 58% that one of the other party members will make the check, meaning 3 untrained indeviduals can, through numbers, brute force the check slightly more reliably than the supposed expert of the group.

The easiest solution is just to not let everyone roll. As DM you can decide if a task is possible for someone. If it's an Arcana check, just say that you can only attempt this check if you are proficient. Don't limit that to just Arcana though. Anything that would require training to be possible, just like most/many?/all? Locks require proficiency with thieves' tools to attempt to pick them.

[Sjappo]

The easiest solution is just to not let everyone roll. As DM you can decide if a task is possible for someone. If it's an Arcana check, just say that you can only attempt this check if you are proficient. Don't limit that to just Arcana though. Anything that would require training to be possible, just like most/many?/all? Locks require proficiency with thieves' tools to attempt to pick them.
Yes, re-introducing trained/untrained skills is one nerf I'd be willing to try. But this goes against the basic premise of every-one can try anything.

[EggKookoo]

The easiest solution is just to not let everyone roll. As DM you can decide if a task is possible for someone. If it's an Arcana check, just say that you can only attempt this check if you are proficient. Don't limit that to just Arcana though. Anything that would require training to be possible, just like most/many?/all? Locks require proficiency with thieves' tools to attempt to pick them.

Right, this was the point of my question. Not about the math.

Remember, players shouldn't be saying "I make a [whatever] check." The player should be saying "Do I know [whatever]?" or "Can I do [whatever]?" The DM decides 1) yes, they can just know/do that thing, and describes the result, 2) no, they can't possibly know/do that thing and explains the failed outcome of their attempt, or 3) maybe, make a check to find out. I mean sure, at experienced tables the players sometimes ask or decide to make checks, but that's just a shorthand for the above. The DM is in charge of when a check is warranted, not the players.

So assuming the DM is doing that properly, the only time a group check happens is when the DM decides it makes sense for a group check to happen. Which is why I asked is Sjappo was the DM, since it would be under their control.


Yes, re-introducing trained/untrained skills is one nerf I'd be willing to try. But this goes against the basic premise of every-one can try anything.

I see this a lot. Trying and making a check (with dice, I mean) are not the same thing. Everyone can try anything. Not everyone gets a check.

A PC can try to jump to the moon. The DM can't prevent the attempt. But the DM can decide the PC makes it a handful of feet into the air before dropping back down, and simply describe it. No dice involved.

[Spriteless]

Paladins with a 2 fighter levels can drop an absurd number of smites in a single round. It's true, but I don't mind it actually. I want sorcerer's quicken spell to be equal? They should both be able to spend all the spells they can, or only once per turn. Sheeze.

[Boci]

I see this a lot. Trying and making a check (with dice, I mean) are not the same thing. Everyone can try anything. Not everyone gets a check.

A PC can try to jump to the moon. The DM can't prevent the attempt. But the DM can decide the PC makes it a handful of feet into the air before dropping back down, and simply describe it. No dice involved.

That's because the DC to jump to the moon is literally over 9,000. But if the DC is 15 than anyone can try, not just the wizard. The DM can houserule otherwise, but by default if an arcane check is called for, everyone in the party can roll it.

[EggKookoo]

That's because the DC to jump to the moon is literally over 9,000. But if the DC is 15 than anyone can try, not just the wizard. The DM can houserule otherwise, but by default if an arcane check is called for, everyone in the party can roll it.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to decide a bit of arcane knowledge is too esoteric for everyone to know, especially if they're not proficient in Arcana. I'm a programmer. I can think of dozens of code-related bits of information that someone who is proficient in coding may or may not know (requiring a check), but someone who doesn't have any experience with it would have an almost literally zero chance of knowing.

[Boci]

I don't think it's unreasonable for the DM to decide a bit of arcane knowledge is too esoteric for everyone to know, especially if they're not proficient in Arcana. I'm a programmer. I can think of dozens of code-related bits of information that someone who is proficient in coding may or may not know (requiring a check), but someone who doesn't have any experience with it would have an almost literally zero chance of knowing.

Trained vs. untrained skills are not unreasonable no, but they are houserules in 5th ed.

[Galithar]

Trained vs. untrained skills are not unreasonable no, but they are houserules in 5th ed.

No they aren't. As I've repeatedly stated there are checks in the game already that specify you must have proficiency. Having a check that requires the same isn't a house rule.

[EggKookoo]

Trained vs. untrained skills are not unreasonable no, but they are houserules in 5th ed.

Not exactly true. It's not a houserule for the DM to not call for a check and simply describe the outcome.

DM: You see strange writing on the scroll.
PC 1(with proficiency in Arcana): I try to work out what the writing says.
DM: Make an Int (Arcana) check.
PC 2 (with no Arcana proficiency): I'll take a look at it, too.
DM: It's just gibberish to you.

That's not houseruling. That's by-the-RAW DMing.

[jas61292]

That's because the DC to jump to the moon is literally over 9,000. But if the DC is 15 than anyone can try, not just the wizard. The DM can houserule otherwise, but by default if an arcane check is called for, everyone in the party can roll it.

They way I handle stuff like this is simple. When it comes to things like Arcana, what you are rolling is an Intelligence check. Intelligence represents logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The wizard, trained in the arcane arts, is trying to recall the information he was educated on from memory. That might be a DC 15 check. The barbarian cannot attempt to recall it from memory, because it was never in his memory, so he gets no check. If he wants to try and figure out the information, he would have to try and use deductive reasoning to figure it out, and in most situations, the DC of a check to do that, if possible, would be much higher than the check to simply recall information you may have once known.

[Boci]

Having a check that requires the same isn't a house rule.

Yes it is, because the Dm is expanding it. Damage resistance isn't a houserule, but I give a monster reistance to a damage type they didn;t previously have it is.

[jmartkdr]

I find it's much more effective to ban munchkins, rather than trying to ban all the tools a munchkin might try to use.

I'm a bit upset at the number of people who ban hexblades like it's obvious why those would ruin everything, when in practice they're fine if you play them as intended.

[EggKookoo]

Yes it is, because the Dm is expanding it. Damage resistance isn't a houserule, but I give a monster reistance to a damage type they didn;t previously have it is.

That's debatable, but even for sake of argument, it's a different situation.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

The DM makes the determination of whether or not there's a chance of failure. That determination is not a houserule or a ruling -- it's a standard element of basic gameplay. Just as the DM must decide which PC a monster chooses to attack, or what type of attack the monster makes, or any number of variable elements that come up during play. The DM is completely free by RAW to decide a task requires proficiency before allowing a check.

[Crucius]

Hmm...that does give me a new perspective on the idea. If nerfing encourages a playstyle, and Martials aren't feeling useful, then the solution should revolve around Casters needing Martials for success. That way, when the Caster succeeds, it's because he had help. Caster's spell, Martial's assistance, both are the cause of success.

Opportunity Attacks and such are one way of doing it, but I think there may be ways of doing it that make martials' contribution more substantial than preventing the occasional extra hit against a player mage.

Have you considered the psychology of setup-part and execution-part of a combo? While teamplay is always something to strive for in my opinion, I'm often wondering who will benefit the most in any given combo with regards to 'feel good vibes'.

For example:
Martial: does a thing that allows the caster to pop off.
Caster: pops off. Rolls all the dice. Feels awesome.
Martial: I guess I'm the support now.

The only reason I'm bringing this up is because you seem to want to shift the 'fun' from caster to martial in your post. Do you think my caution is legitimate, or have you not experienced any fun-asymmetry in a combo duo?

This of course goes both ways, since the caster could be casting hold monster, which the martial benefits from tremendously, therefore shifting the balance of setup/execution once more within the combo. So if your design goal is to give martials more fun/agency then I could imagine it would feel better (for the martial) to be on the execution side of the combo, or alternatively, somehow be equal to the caster by rolling (similar) damage at the time of combo execution.

In mass effect you have several biotics which are classified as prime or detonate. Both have a cool effect on their own, but when combined, both get amplified, usually in some explosion, then both effects end.

I find it hard to envision a way where a martial has a lingering effect on an enemy which the caster detonates allowing also the martial to roll additional damage, without overhauling a lot of rules/systems. If you manage to find a way that is both mechanically and flavor...fully (?) sound, I would be very interested to read it!

[Keravath]

One thing I'm seeing a lot of is nerfing related to martials, either from a "basic attacks are boring" standpoint or a "I want more realism standpoint" (and I'm guilty of the former with my PAM example).

From most that I've seen, Martials and Casters are at least comparable to being on the same level for combat, yet the contribution from non-combat features from Martials is nearly 0 in comparison to Casters.

There's a power difference there, and the main defense I hear for it is summarized as "it doesn't matter".

Are there any examples of players nerfing magic?

The odd thing I find is that the nerfs to martials tend to make them sub-par compared to casters when you get into tier 3 and 4. Martials can do a lot of single target damage in the higher tiers but that pales in comparison to the effects of spells. Mass Suggestion, Wall of Force, even Wish (though it is most useful for replicating any level 8 or lower spell - the flexibility is amazing) .. martial abilities can be pretty insignificant compared to these. However, folks nerf them any way, perhaps because the martial abilities can be stronger in the 7-11 level range.

Anyway, for those who nerf martials ... how do they play out in the level 13-20 range or do you just not play at higher levels very often?

As for out of combat, having the right spells prepared can give an immense amount of flexibility. However, I've played a bard/warlock to level 13/2, A wizard/cleric to 10/1, A fighter/warlock/sorc to 1/2/8 ... and spell choices are always limited. The cool niche spells that make out of combat encounters easier are usually dumped for something more generally useful since days/weeks/months can go by where the out of combat spell sits unused. Kind of like Heat Metal use in combat. Absolutely perfect in specific instances of fighting difficult creatures in metal armor but it didn't come up often enough to merit taking it over Blindness or Suggestion even on the characters I have played that could take it.

If you leave the spells aside, martials have about as much out of combat contribution through skills and role playing as any other class except rogues and bards (particularly lore bards). If a fighter decides to stand around and do nothing that is a role playing choice. If a player wants to make a chatty fighter then take the persuasion skill and make charisma a tertiary stat ... like my level 6 ranged fighter. If you want to contribute to the exploration pillar more then perhaps tack on survival and/or nature ... works well for my barbarian 5/scout rogue 1 dwarven scout (though he doesn't have expertise in the skills until scout 3 at level 8). However, the character is entirely martial and has significant contributions to be made to out of combat encounters.

[Zetakya]

I buff martials by returning to the 3.5 rule on provoking attacks of opportunity (movement within reach triggers, not just movement that leaves reach).

[Sjappo]

They way I handle stuff like this is simple. When it comes to things like Arcana, what you are rolling is an Intelligence check. Intelligence represents logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The wizard, trained in the arcane arts, is trying to recall the information he was educated on from memory. That might be a DC 15 check. The barbarian cannot attempt to recall it from memory, because it was never in his memory, so he gets no check. If he wants to try and figure out the information, he would have to try and use deductive reasoning to figure it out, and in most situations, the DC of a check to do that, if possible, would be much higher than the check to simply recall information you may have once known.
You are putting fluff in the Arcana skill that isn't there. Both the Warlock and the Sorcerer have Arcana as a class skill. Both are magical savants and both go against the learned mage trope. Still, they can make the check just fine.
But Arcana was just an example. How about Nature? It stands to reason that the barbarian could recall some trivia about nature even if he has no skill in Nature. And the Wizard with no skill in Nature?
How about a Wizard making an Arcana check without skill in Arcana. Does he get to make a check or not? Where do you draw the line?

You could say this is rules vs. rulings. Sure. But I would like to make one ruling, not on a case by case basis.

Anyway, I'm going to implement some trained vs untrained housrule. Probably based on the no role, I'll add it to the description way introduced by the AngryGM some time ago.

But we're getting of topic here.

[EggKookoo]

You could say this is rules vs. rulings. Sure. But I would like to make one ruling, not on a case by case basis.

Whatever works for your table, sure. But a lot of people can't just have one ruling to rule them all, because not all checks are the same. Going with your nature check, for example. It's easy to say it's an "untrained" nature check (which is just a Wis check) to determine if it's going to rain in the next couple of hours. That's the kind of thing many people can intuit, especially if they have any outdoor experience. But which mushroom is safe to eat and which will liquefy your internal organs? That takes at least a small degree of specialized knowledge and should require proficiency.

[LordCdrMilitant]

The odd thing I find is that the nerfs to martials tend to make them sub-par compared to casters when you get into tier 3 and 4. Martials can do a lot of single target damage in the higher tiers but that pales in comparison to the effects of spells. Mass Suggestion, Wall of Force, even Wish (though it is most useful for replicating any level 8 or lower spell - the flexibility is amazing) .. martial abilities can be pretty insignificant compared to these. However, folks nerf them any way, perhaps because the martial abilities can be stronger in the 7-11 level range.

Anyway, for those who nerf martials ... how do they play out in the level 13-20 range or do you just not play at higher levels very often?

As for out of combat, having the right spells prepared can give an immense amount of flexibility. However, I've played a bard/warlock to level 13/2, A wizard/cleric to 10/1, A fighter/warlock/sorc to 1/2/8 ... and spell choices are always limited. The cool niche spells that make out of combat encounters easier are usually dumped for something more generally useful since days/weeks/months can go by where the out of combat spell sits unused. Kind of like Heat Metal use in combat. Absolutely perfect in specific instances of fighting difficult creatures in metal armor but it didn't come up often enough to merit taking it over Blindness or Suggestion even on the characters I have played that could take it.

If you leave the spells aside, martials have about as much out of combat contribution through skills and role playing as any other class except rogues and bards (particularly lore bards). If a fighter decides to stand around and do nothing that is a role playing choice. If a player wants to make a chatty fighter then take the persuasion skill and make charisma a tertiary stat ... like my level 6 ranged fighter. If you want to contribute to the exploration pillar more then perhaps tack on survival and/or nature ... works well for my barbarian 5/scout rogue 1 dwarven scout (though he doesn't have expertise in the skills until scout 3 at level 8). However, the character is entirely martial and has significant contributions to be made to out of combat encounters.

Not often [though to also be fair, I don't actually do D&D5e that often], but I have a couple of times [rough estimate, maybe half of all participated games]. There's a different sort of feel to the game and everybody's contribution, but everybody is pretty ridiculous in general and the only thing that seems really above and beyond is Wish [which is also usually either banned or limited to only replicating lower level spells].


I just, as mentioned, want to encourage my players to exit a paradigm of moving 30' forward into base to base and then whacking repeatedly until they die. I would much rather, at the very minimum, they at least take cover behind a rock and shoot them until they die; but in general I try to encourage them to do something more complex than just trading HP.

I don't directly nerf martials with any rules though, and I don't nerf shooty people at all, I just make it difficult for simple melee to be an effective strategy.

Most of my GM's, though I don't, also change Disengage to be a 5' displacement that doesn't take an op attack as an action, which is also a melee nerf, but generally hasn't drawn any complaints since it actually gets people out of combat.

[MaxWilson]

You have a heart made of ice, Mr. Lucas Zetakya, and so we're goin' tuh melt your icy heart... with a cool island song.

Steel Drums can be very peaceful when played smoothly. Melt your icy heart with a cool island melody.

I can't help noticing that you had nothing good to say about bagpipes.

[jas61292]

You are putting fluff in the Arcana skill that isn't there. Both the Warlock and the Sorcerer have Arcana as a class skill. Both are magical savants and both go against the learned mage trope. Still, they can make the check just fine.

I disagree that I'm putting fluff where it doesn't belong. Rather, I think other people often put mechanical things where they don't belong. The job of the DM in such a situation is to determine the task being attempted, decide what ability score is being used, decide what the DC should be, and determine if any skill proficiency would apply. The task being attempted is going to be something like "recalling the knowledge of magical phenomena you learned in school" or "reasoning out the effects of something based on the inscribed runes." The task is not, and never will be "making an arcana check."

You should only ever call for a roll that has an unknown chance of success, and if a character has no reason why they should already know something, they should never even get to roll for trying to remember it. Instead, they will always just be trying to reason it out, which is a different task and can thus have a different DC, even if the results of a success are the same.


But we're getting of topic here.

Fair enough.

[da newt]

I'm surprised how many of these posts don't include anything about WHY a DM decides to nerf X or Y.

[Luccan]

I'm surprised how many of these posts don't include anything about WHY a DM decides to nerf X or Y.

I'm curious how many of these nerfs are preemptive, rather than the actual rules being tested. Especially the balance-focused ones; have any players complained about X being too strong compared to the other PCs, or is this an overreaction to something the DM fears will be the case?

[MaxWilson]

I don't allow player-vs-player rolls. If you try something the other player gets to decide the outcome. If the thief tries to steal something from the wizard it could go something like this.

[Thief] I try and steal the precious from the Wizard.
[Wizard] You fail. Also, I catch you in the act.
[Thief] No you don't.

Elegant. I like it.

[Galithar]

Elegant. I like it.

I do similar by allowing the "target" player to set any relevant DC. That way they can say DC 1, it works. DC 100 it fails. Or DC 15, aka Let's see what the dice say. I heard the idea of just letting them determine the outcome (possibly on here, and possibly from the person that just posted about it haha) but the first time I tried it one of my players, not understanding that I was trying to give them control because I communicated poorly, said something like "Well roll X (whatever the relevant thing was) and then they both looked at me and asked if it succeeded. I kinda just rolled with that, but told the target he was supposed to set the DC and we've stuck with that method. Though just like I can as DM they CAN opt to not give the roll, but my players like any excuse to roll dice and want to roll even if they know it doesn't matter lmao

[Man_Over_Game]

Have you considered the psychology of setup-part and execution-part of a combo? While teamplay is always something to strive for in my opinion, I'm often wondering who will benefit the most in any given combo with regards to 'feel good vibes'.

For example:
Martial: does a thing that allows the caster to pop off.
Caster: pops off. Rolls all the dice. Feels awesome.
Martial: I guess I'm the support now.

The only reason I'm bringing this up is because you seem to want to shift the 'fun' from caster to martial in your post. Do you think my caution is legitimate, or have you not experienced any fun-asymmetry in a combo duo?

This of course goes both ways, since the caster could be casting hold monster, which the martial benefits from tremendously, therefore shifting the balance of setup/execution once more within the combo. So if your design goal is to give martials more fun/agency then I could imagine it would feel better (for the martial) to be on the execution side of the combo, or alternatively, somehow be equal to the caster by rolling (similar) damage at the time of combo execution.

In mass effect you have several biotics which are classified as prime or detonate. Both have a cool effect on their own, but when combined, both get amplified, usually in some explosion, then both effects end.

I find it hard to envision a way where a martial has a lingering effect on an enemy which the caster detonates allowing also the martial to roll additional damage, without overhauling a lot of rules/systems. If you manage to find a way that is both mechanically and flavor...fully (?) sound, I would be very interested to read it!

I think a good way of going about that is just utilizing more conditions and increasing the range for criticals.

A lot of conditions provide Advantage on followup attacks. Advantage scales with an increased crit chance dramatically. Advantage with a 5% crit chance comes out to a 9.75%, but Advantage on a 10% crit chance is 19%. Advantage effectively doubles your crit chance.

So if you made the crit chance of weapons from 5% to 15%, you'll allow a lot of wombo-combos from Martials as they use their allies to enhance their Orcish Fury or Divine Smite features.

You could halve all spell damage but it makes the target "Dazed", causing Advantage for weapon attacks to hit them until one hits or until their turn starts. Even halved, cantrips are in a better place than they were in previous editions.

Imagine that scene: Wizard casts Burning Hands on a group of zombies, stripping away their flesh. The Fighter abuses their moment of weakness with Action Surge to strike each target in a blur, deepening their burns and slaying two. The Fighter's training in heavy weapons lets him carry his momentum through the strike, and cleaves through another.

2 crits, 4 separate attacks with Advantage, abused through GWM. Gives additional merit for the Ready Action. Not sure how mages feel about doing half damage, but Bards don't seem to mind a similar problem. Hell, Bards are often considered one of the strongest in the game, and they're probably the worst at killing stuff.


If you leave the spells aside, martials have about as much out of combat contribution through skills and role playing as any other class except rogues and bards (particularly lore bards). If a fighter decides to stand around and do nothing that is a role playing choice. If a player wants to make a chatty fighter then take the persuasion skill and make charisma a tertiary stat ... like my level 6 ranged fighter. If you want to contribute to the exploration pillar more then perhaps tack on survival and/or nature ... works well for my barbarian 5/scout rogue 1 dwarven scout (though he doesn't have expertise in the skills until scout 3 at level 8). However, the character is entirely martial and has significant contributions to be made to out of combat encounters.

I disagree with this. More tools means an easier job, or even a better outcome.

If you had an experienced carpenter with no tools, and a novice carpenter with plenty of tools, they'll both be jealous of each other. Because tools matter.

An experienced player can make limited resources work, but that's due to the experience, not the chassis. That same experienced player can take great leaps and bounds for a campaign if they had more resources.

I know this, because that's exactly what I found with one of my first experiences as a 5e player.

Started as a Barbarian, went to level 6. I felt like I couldn't add any tactical or resourceful information, since my skills were fairly limited, and my character was...well, a Barbarian. If I acted out, being dumb, funny and overpowering-like a Barbarian-I would put my team in worse situations despite adding drama to the table. So I can't be dumb, and I don't have anything to add to be smart. I can't really solve problems. My one benefit was combat, and even then, it was the same thing of "Run up to badguy, hit him very hard". The same strategy, over and over.

Second character, GOO Warlock + Rogue Swashbuckler (Sword Coast had just been officially released). And the fun I had with him. Mask of Many Faces to look like badguys or guards. Actor feat to completely submerge myself into a character. Illusory Script to put up signs for my contacts and parties. Minor Illusion to put on colognes (I once used it to make myself smell like a pirate, to add to a look). Dart in-and-out of combat, feeling my life get pummeled to near-0 every fight as a firing squad of casters manipulated the battlefield to assist my suicide attempts.

It was an astronomical difference. I think I could have enjoyed the Barbarian, if I felt that I was needed, actually needed for combat to be a possible strategy.

Most of my experiences with 5e have added to my belief that combat should be nearly impossible without martials, since all of the things I did as a Warlock/Rogue would have been nearly impossible without a Caster/Skillmonkey. It's a concept that may have carried over from my history into the RIFTS system, which very much did the same (you played martials to kill stuff, mages to help martials or to do cool stuff out of combat). RIFTS is incredibly unbalanced, but it pulled it off well by adding very fatal weaknesses for each character type that your allies will cover for you.

[Dork_Forge]

You are comparing single turn Novas against a combo that lasts for a full hour. And of your campaigns never have back to back combats then, yes, this weakens the combo slightly (but also makes it easier to restore between conflicts) but it also weakens ever other class ability/spell with an hour duration making them little different from a 1 minute ability in your games. In my experience shorter times between conflict are common. In published modules (which is what I pretend the game is intended to be balanced towards) multiple combats in an hour are common place.

A Paladin using his top level spell slots to smite is not at all comparable to something the Blood Hunter can repeat every round of combat for an hour.

A Monk at this level can do that 5 times, if they choose not to do anything else with ki. Closer, but still in favor of the Blood Hunter.

A fighter can action surge once. Again single turn compared to every turn for an hour.

You ignored everything I said about the costs and risks and didn't even answer why you thought it was OP, but alright:

Using 1st level slots still keeps the damage above or at the very least comparable to the Lycan for the Paladin. I don't really see anything wrong with the Monk comparison, if anything there's just room for the numbers to grow a bit and assuming an average 3 round combat they should have enough Ki for two encounters at level 5. Action Surge is single round, I also didn't account for subclass, so sprinkle in some Superiority Dice with effects into both combats and the Fighter's damage doesn't really drop far behind with the added bonus of any effects triggered like Prone or Frightened. A Paladin has 6 slots total, if the combat is actually worth using them (not some weak mobs that will be cleaned up in a couple rounds of standard actions or almost entirely taken out by a single Fireball) then they can ration their extra damage out over a few combats. Even accounting for these being novas (which they should be, the Lycan is essentially using all of its abilities to pull off that damage), the Lycan's damage doesn't stand out head and shoulders above the rest, it doesn't even stand far from the Monk.

So given the absolute best scenario for the Lycan: triggering both abilities before every combat (this shouldn't be reliable or assumed), getting two combats in within an hour (in game time is flexible and to be honest any kind of fight in a civilised area should be forcing the Lycan to choose from keeping their form up or the public reaction/harrassment) the Lycan does pretty well, but they're hardly breaking the game.

So let's look at the balance factor: They're walking into melee below full hitpoints, not a big deal in terms of dropping but definitely something to consider when the drop below half and risk turning on your Paladin and Barbarian. To take advantage of the claws they're not using weapons, so no magic weapons and no weapon feats. They have NO damage bumps until 11th level besides bumping their mod and Brand of Castigation (which requires damage to be taken and scales off your secondary stat). 3rd-5th is the sweetspot for their power, but in Tier 2 they'll just get less impressive as everyone else manage at least some form of power boost (casters will advance 2 spell levels in the mean time, the Rogue will gain two Sneak dice, half casters will gain a spell level and Monks will gain more and more Ki etc.).

Again, I'm not seeing this being breaking the game or even being overpowered particularly. If this does ever become and issue a DM has a very easy time mitigating this, just don't let them have their form and Rite up for every combat. The moment they start losing bonus actions to set up their combo their damage plummets and if they're caught in combat without their Lycan form their damage is barely better than anyone else just swinging a weapon. What do you think is so overpowered here besides your games favouring hour long abilities (you referenced the games I play in make these underpowered, to be honest the only thing I can think of that fits in that category is the Artillerists cannons).

[Sjappo]

I disagree that I'm putting fluff where it doesn't belong. Rather, I think other people often put mechanical things where they don't belong. The job of the DM in such a situation is to determine the task being attempted, decide what ability score is being used, decide what the DC should be, and determine if any skill proficiency would apply. The task being attempted is going to be something like "recalling the knowledge of magical phenomena you learned in school" or "reasoning out the effects of something based on the inscribed runes." The task is not, and never will be "making an arcana check."

True, player declares his actions, DM imposes a check, if applicable, and narrates the result. Still, I personally find that the player should be able to guess if a task is possible. That's why I personally like to have broad rulings, like this is a trained/untrained skill. Plus, most of these skills don't get much use. So excluding the use of aid skill to the player that invested in it seems fair to me.


You should only ever call for a roll that has an unknown chance of success, and if a character has no reason why they should already know something, they should never even get to roll for trying to remember it. Instead, they will always just be trying to reason it out, which is a different task and can thus have a different DC, even if the results of a success are the same.
So a task has different DC, or is even possible, based on the proficiency a PC has? That's to fine a granularity for me. Plus I don't know each PC's skill by heart and asking about it is too time consuming for me.

[EggKookoo]

True, player declares his actions, DM imposes a check, if applicable, and narrates the result. Still, I personally find that the player should be able to guess if a task is possible. That's why I personally like to have broad rulings, like this is a trained/untrained skill. Plus, most of these skills don't get much use. So excluding the use of aid skill to the player that invested in it seems fair to me..

The price you pay for broad rulings are thresholds. If a task requires proficiency, what it really means in-universe is not that the nonproficient literally can't do it. It's that they can't do it in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time with anything close to a reasonable chance of success. That bubbles up to the DM at the table saying "it's gibberish to you" or whatever.

Otherwise you get into high levels of granularity again. Or you get cab drivers suddenly being able to perform brain surgery once in a while.

[MrConsideration]

I delete a few spells from existence:

"A number of spells do not exist for player characters in the Sea Wolves campaign world because they disrupt the balance of the game or break the integrity of the setting world.
Spells that grant absurd amounts of Healing: Healing Spirit
Spells that disrupt the resting system: Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, Catnap, Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion, Mighty Fortress.
Spells that allow you to resurrect the dead: Reincarnate, Resurrection, True Resurrection. Dead is dead in Sea Wolves. Revivify is under probation as it reflects a real-life phenomenon.
Spells that are just plain stupid: Wish. If you want to Wish you summon a Djinni and accept the ironic monkey-paw consequences of them twisting your words.
Summoning Spells: The RAW clearly stipulate that your DM chooses the creature(s) and controls their behaviour - I reserve this right. Whilst I am happy for you to summon a pack of wolves and direct them in battle for convenience, I may intervene if you are going for cheesey combinations( Eg Conjure Fey and Pixies). For the sake of your players please avoid cluttering the battlefield too much with 32 Dire Weasels."

[HappyDaze]

I find it's much more effective to ban munchkins, rather than trying to ban all the tools a munchkin might try to use.

I'm a bit upset at the number of people who ban hexblades like it's obvious why those would ruin everything, when in practice they're fine if you play them as intended.

You'll likely find that there is a great deal of disagreement over how they are intended to be played.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm a bit upset at the number of people who ban hexblades like it's obvious why those would ruin everything, when in practice they're fine if you play them as intended.


You'll likely find that there is a great deal of disagreement over how they are intended to be played.

I don't think Hexblades are overly strong. They just don't really add anything good to the table.


Most of your benefits revolve around attacking, so you're casting fewer spells to support your team with.
It doesn't add any inherent party or control benefits.
It doesn't add any features to be used out of combat, not even in its spell list.
You're less squishy than other Warlocks, so you rely less on your allies for protection, while also not having any features to protect your allies with.


With special mention from that first bullet, you actually contribute less to the table's experience than any other generic, patron-less Warlock.

Based on the features and powers, I'd say the intended way of playing a Hexblade was "selfishly", wouldn't you?

[jmartkdr]

I don't think Hexblades are overly strong. They just don't really add anything good to the table.


Most of your benefits revolve around attacking, so you're casting fewer spells to support your team with.
It doesn't add any inherent party or control benefits.
It doesn't add any features to be used out of combat, not even in its spell list.
You're less squishy than other Warlocks, so you rely less on your allies for protection, while also not having any features to protect your allies with.


With special mention from that first bullet, you actually contribute less to the table's experience than any other generic, patron-less Warlock.

Based on the features and powers, I'd say the intended way of playing a Hexblade was "selfishly", wouldn't you?
I don't know if I'd use that term, since most pc's aren't built around support, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're still contributing to the success of the team.

Unless you think there's something wrong with barbarians, druids, fighters, monks, rogues, rangers, sorcerers, and all other warlocks, since all of them are built around attacking and don't really rely on control or protection. If 8/12 classes are bad, that's not a class problem but a whole game problem.

[Belac93]

(Apparently) unpopular opinion: nerfing or banning stuff for mechanical reasons is unnecessary in 5e. You should only be buffing.

The exception is when nerfing something increases the amount of options, is a horizontal rather than vertical, or is for lore reasons; e.g. nerfing hexblade to buff blade pact, disallowing counterspell/dispel magic because you have an alternative system, etc.

Removing 'best' options can be okay, as long as you buff other options to make them more viable. If you nerf hexblade, give blade pact free extra attack or charisma attack rolls. If you remove counterspell, let fireball counter cone of cold.

[Keravath]

(Apparently) unpopular opinion: nerfing or banning stuff for mechanical reasons is unnecessary in 5e. You should only be buffing.

The exception is when nerfing something increases the amount of options, is a horizontal rather than vertical, or is for lore reasons; e.g. nerfing hexblade to buff blade pact, disallowing counterspell/dispel magic because you have an alternative system, etc.

Removing 'best' options can be okay, as long as you buff other options to make them more viable. If you nerf hexblade, give blade pact free extra attack or charisma attack rolls. If you remove counterspell, let fireball counter cone of cold.

I'm not sure it is that unpopular of an opinion. Personally, I don't have any real issues with anything in 5e myself and don't nerf anything. Howver the thread was asking for things that you nerf so it isn't that surprising that most of the folks who answered replied with the things they nerf rather than whatever they might choose to buff.

[ZorroGames]

There's been a lot of recent discussions about balancing certain aspects of 5e; feats, multiclassing, individual classes, etc.

This topic is NOT to rehash those discussions; they're better held elsewhere. I participate in the exercises sometimes but as an actual DM I'm very lenient with my PCs. It helps that most of them are new and never try to break the game. So, out of curiosity, what do you nerf or exclude?

Personally I only deny Multiclassing if the PC has made no effort to make it a part of their character. If they give me a heads up I give every opportunity to include a side plot or NPC that can allow it. Feats are definitely allowed though Racial Feats are locked to their race.

I allow the Revised Ranger, but if chosen, that character is forbidden to multiclass, and I inform the player that up front. PHB Ranger is allowed if the player wants to multiclass for any reason.

I allow all Variant Class Abilities from the November UA, but I have to personally sign off on the spell list changes as, quite frankly, some of them make me VERY nervous, like giving Paladins Spiritual Guardians. I do not allow any other UA.

I do not allow the Artificer, even though it's official now. I DO allow the Blood Hunter.

I will look at any 3rd party material a player is interested in but I rarely allow it, the only exception is anything by Matt Mercer.

Racial restrictions on Subclasses, such as Bladesinger and Battlerager, are lifted.

Drow and Kobold are allowed to ignore Sunlight Sensitivity but the Kobold loses Pack Tactics.

I only nerf two things: Hexblade loses Hex Warrior. CHA to weapons gets folded into Blade Pact. Hexblade becomes the Shadowfell Patron. Medium Armor & Shield Prof are a Blade Exclusive invocation. I am tweaking the "Shadowfell" Patron's Expanded spell list to get rid of Smites & Shield, but not totally happy with what I have so far.

The only other real nerf is Moon Druids are restricted to 1/2 cr creatures at Level 2. They get cr 1 at level 4.

Aside from that, the only thing that's different at my table is some tweaking to the Warlock and Sorcerer, to try and make them better classes. Where do you draw the line?

As a DM I don’t nerf anything.

Caveat, while I have added non-AL play I still only DM AL.

Or did until the “CCP virus” aka Coronavirus shut down shops in Missouri for group gaming. 😭. 😲

Right now I am staying home (Significantly potentially problematic Asthma, type 2 diabetes, and turning 70 this month plus a 40+ years CVR/CCU RN for a wife means I need to try and be patient and catch up on my reading and miniatures painting.)

If you don’t add odd stuff there is no need to limit odd stuff. Most UA seems unbalancing far more than MCing or Feats. Almost all the “power above character” builds I have seen have been in non-AL games. If you want an OP character you can get there it seems.

[Sjappo]

<snip> and turning 70 this month <snip>
Congrats! And good gaming. Try online for a bit. My RL group switched to Roll20/Skype for the time being. It took some investment for the GM to set up a basic Roll20 table but it wasn't to bad. RL is better but this is better than nothing.

Side note: I was wondering if I was an old bee on this site at 48 but I guess I'm not :smallbiggrin:

[Sjappo]

The price you pay for broad rulings are thresholds. If a task requires proficiency, what it really means in-universe is not that the nonproficient literally can't do it. It's that they can't do it in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time with anything close to a reasonable chance of success. That bubbles up to the DM at the table saying "it's gibberish to you" or whatever.

Otherwise you get into high levels of granularity again. Or you get cab drivers suddenly being able to perform brain surgery once in a while.
I'm fine with that price, as you call it. At the moment I'm leaning towards using "knowledge" skills passively and untrained only. Like adding some details to the exposition for the proficient characters specifically when describing a room, item, creature or whatnot. Active uses, with rolls, would be reserved for high stake scenario's like recognizing a spell or ritual, performing a religious ceremony in a foreign culture, stabilizing a dying creature (I'm counting Medicine under knowledge skills) etc. This is stolen from something I read by the Angry GM.

I find the whole skill, tools and language proficiency system a bit complicated. On the one hand you have broadly defined skills. On the other hand you have very narrow tool proficiencies. If I look closely at those tool proficiencies I find that I see some of the narrower 3.5 skills. Most can be rolled into skills, like Thief's Tools into Sleight of Hand and Healer Kit into Medicine. Other tools could really just be a background perk like Artisan Tools. I think you could do away with the whole Tool Proficiency and enrich the Skill system at the same time. Maybe, when I have time, I'll do just that.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm fine with that price, as you call it. At the moment I'm leaning towards using "knowledge" skills passively and untrained only. Like adding some details to the exposition for the proficient characters specifically when describing a room, item, creature or whatnot. Active uses, with rolls, would be reserved for high stake scenario's like recognizing a spell or ritual, performing a religious ceremony in a foreign culture, stabilizing a dying creature (I'm counting Medicine under knowledge skills) etc. This is stolen from something I read by the Angry GM.

I find the whole skill, tools and language proficiency system a bit complicated. On the one hand you have broadly defined skills. On the other hand you have very narrow tool proficiencies. If I look closely at those tool proficiencies I find that I see some of the narrower 3.5 skills. Most can be rolled into skills, like Thief's Tools into Sleight of Hand and Healer Kit into Medicine. Other tools could really just be a background perk like Artisan Tools. I think you could do away with the whole Tool Proficiency and enrich the Skill system at the same time. Maybe, when I have time, I'll do just that.

One solution I've liked that was suggested to me was just to have an Attribute Proficiency for every 2 skill proficiencies you'd normally have.

Then have a bunch of Tool proficiencies. Those get you Advantage on relevant checks rather than your proficiency bonus.

So if you are proficient in Dexterity Checks, as well as Thieves Tools, you'd roll a trap-disarming check with proficiency and Advantage.

[EggKookoo]

Side note: I was wondering if I was an old bee on this site at 48 but I guess I'm not :smallbiggrin:

Whippersnapper! Well, kidding, I'm 50, so we're close enough.


I find the whole skill, tools and language proficiency system a bit complicated. On the one hand you have broadly defined skills. On the other hand you have very narrow tool proficiencies. If I look closely at those tool proficiencies I find that I see some of the narrower 3.5 skills. Most can be rolled into skills, like Thief's Tools into Sleight of Hand and Healer Kit into Medicine. Other tools could really just be a background perk like Artisan Tools. I think you could do away with the whole Tool Proficiency and enrich the Skill system at the same time. Maybe, when I have time, I'll do just that.

I suspect they did this to give skills and tools each their own kind of progression, and to add a dimension to it. Being proficient with a tool sound more like something that relates to a job or vocation, whereas being proficient with a skill feels more like a wider set of shallower "skills" that maybe you just picked up through osmosis or just have a knack for.

Skill systems in general suffer from that problem where one skill (stealth) is really broad and general, and another skill (navigate) seems very situation-dependent, while others (perform) really encompass a whole set of sub-skills that get glossed over, or depend heavily on the type of application (singers don't automatically make great actors). Nature of the beast, I guess.

[rel]

Magical plus-numbers effects, resting and (in games where resource management is significant) encumbrance and resource management mitigation.

Magical plus numbers effects:
They don't exist. At all. Magic armour, magic weapons, aid, the shield spell, etc. simply don't exist.
Accuracy is genuinely bounded, the wizard needs to hide behind his tankier friends, PC's need to use caution when deciding what to attack and how to attack it and the goblins never stop being a threat.

Resting:
In games without a focus on resource management resting happens at thematically appropriate times and takes thematically appropriate lengths of time.
Sometimes a long rest is a few days respite in town after crossing the desert sometimes a long rest is a few seconds between round 7 and 8 as the boss unleashes yet another final form.
The point is, no amount of running back to town or spending 5 minutes a day adventuring grants you any sort of benefits. You get a short rest every few encounters and a long rest after a few short rests so you'd best pace yourself.

In a resource management heavy game long rests happen when you get back to town and short rest happen when you bed down for the night and random encounters and dungeon restocking mean doing either is a calculated risk and something you want to be careful about.

encumbrance:
again, only in a resource management game. You can carry a number of items equal to your strength score. small stacks like 10 arrows 5 potions or spell components and 50 coins are treated as 1 item.

resource managment mitigation:
Things that let you circumvent resource management like goodberry, cheap flight, bags of holding are either not available or come online at higher levels depending on the exact nature of the campaign.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Magical plus-numbers effects, resting and (in games where resource management is significant) encumbrance and resource management mitigation.

Magical plus numbers effects:
They don't exist. At all. Magic armour, magic weapons, aid, the shield spell, etc. simply don't exist.
Accuracy is genuinely bounded, the wizard needs to hide behind his tankier friends, PC's need to use caution when deciding what to attack and how to attack it and the goblins never stop being a threat.


Oh, this reminds me:

I also hit the very idea of "being a tank" and "hiding behind the tank" and "tanking for your friends" with a bat, as hard as I can. [unless, of course, "Hiding behind the tank" refers to taking cover behind an armored vehicle and screening it from enemy infantry antitank teams while it suppressed enemy anti-infantry positions to clear the way to advance]

Being beefy is not a viable battle plan on it's own. You can limit the damage output of hostile units by engaging them in close quarters, by pinning them down with good firing lines and readied attacks, or by limiting their ability to take actions with suppressing magic.

But if your planned contribution is "be resilient" and nothing more, I your GM doesn't really smile upon that.

[Boci]

Oh, this reminds me:

I also hit the very idea of "being a tank" and "hiding behind the tank" and "tanking for your friends" with a bat, as hard as I can. [unless, of course, "Hiding behind the tank" refers to taking cover behind an armored vehicle and screening it from enemy infantry antitank teams while it suppressed enemy anti-infantry positions to clear the way to advance]

Being beefy is not a viable battle plan on it's own. You can limit the damage output of hostile units by engaging them in close quarters, by pinning them down with good firing lines and readied attacks, or by limiting their ability to take actions with suppressing magic.

But if your planned contribution is "be resilient" and nothing more, I your GM doesn't really smile upon that.

Whilst exact definition are hard to nail down, simply "being resilient" is generally called being a turtle rather than a tank. Tank implies doing more than just being resilient.

[Galithar]

Whilst exact definition are hard to nail down, simply "being resilient" is generally called being a turtle rather than a tank. Tank implies doing more than just being resilient.

Yes, tanks are resilient, but just like the real world armored vehicles they are named for they have to have a big gun too. You have to get up in the enemies face, and give them a reason to want to stay there and fight. Hitting hard enough they are afraid of an Opportunity Attack is one of the best ways to do that. I have a player that I consider to play a tank role, as a rogue. His sneak attack makes him terrifying to move away from without disengaging and if they disengage they don't attack anyone that round. With a combination of Lucky dice negating crits and hits and Uncanny Dodge (and the fact that the PLAYER is just insanely lucky) he always manages to stay on his feet WAYYYYY longer than expected. Usually ending combats with a single hit point (I don't know how he does it. But in probably 30-50% of combats he will end with 1 hit point. I actually tracked it for awhile because I thought it was confirmation bias... It was only a little bit.)

[Callak_Remier]

Summoning Spells: The RAW clearly stipulate that your DM chooses the creature(s) ."

I have looked for an hour trying to find this ruling and afaik it doesn't exist, which leads me to believe that it is by a spell by spell basis. .

[Boci]

I have looked for an hour trying to find this ruling and afaik it doesn't exist, which leads me to believe that it is by a spell by spell basis. .

From the sage's advice compendium: https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf

A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from. Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

[Mr. Crowbar]

I remove Darkvision from all races except those with Superior Darkvision and half-elves of Drow descent, who have to trade their Skill Versatility for 60ft Darkvision. I feel this makes Darkvision more of a perk and less of a disability for one or two party members to be without. Darkvision from class features and other sources is still allowed.

I changed the rules for grappling so that only STR can be used to escape one that is active, based on some advice I got here to make STR more relevant. The players grumbled at first until the Fighter got some weak-ass enemies in his fists and held them up like pinatas, haha.

[Zetakya]

Yes, tanks are resilient, but just like the real world armored vehicles they are named for they have to have a big gun too. You have to get up in the enemies face, and give them a reason to want to stay there and fight.

Modern Armoured Warfare takes place at ranges of hundreds of metres, if not entire kilometres. Let's not pretend that Tank (as in armoured vehicles) has much in common with Tank (fantasy character role) in anything beyond the name and armour.

[Boci]

Modern Armoured Warfare takes place at ranges of hundreds of metres, if not entire kilometres. Let's not pretend that Tank (as in armoured vehicles) has much in common with Tank (fantasy character role) in anything beyond the name and armour.

But as mentioned, just being durable is also known as turtling or being a meat shield, neither one is as positive as tank, which is considered a legitimate party by much more.


I remove Darkvision from all races except those with Superior Darkvision and half-elves of Drow descent, who have to trade their Skill Versatility for 60ft Darkvision. I feel this makes Darkvision more of a perk and less of a disability for one or two party members to be without. Darkvision from class features and other sources is still allowed.

Do you give anything to these races to make up for what you take away, or do you find that they are comparable to the non-DV races as is? Also what about dwarves, that have always had darkvision and are meant to live underground in most fluff?

[stoutstien]

I do wish they gave races different sense bonuses like keen hearing/smell instead of DV. It would help nudge players and DMs to think about more than sight for everything.

[Zetakya]

But as mentioned, just being durable is also known as turtling or being a meat shield, neither one is as positive as tank, which is considered a legitimate party by much more.

But, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the critical ability for a Tank in an RPG sense isn't Damage, it's Control.

All the durability in the world is useless if you cannot force the enemy to engage with you. All of the best tanking characters have means to ensure that they have to be engaged, not just ignored. Battlemaster abilities, Sentinel Feat, Paladin Auras, the Fighting Styles Protection and Tunnel Fighter, several of the Heavy Armour Cleric abilities... It's all about making sure the enemy can't bypass you.

Damage is a nice addition from a RPG tank. It's not the reason you're actually there, though.

[Callak_Remier]

From the sage's advice compendium: https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf

A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from. Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

I skipped those lesser summoning spells and went straight to Conjure elemental which specifically let's me choose what and where it gets summoned. So as I said a spell by spell basis.
Also you will have to excuse me as I completely disregard all sage advice since it doesn't lend itself to a consistent experience in my world.