Some thoughts on nerfing. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Some thoughts on nerfing.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
robertliguori
Oct 12, 2004 21:20:54 Note: I'm not an expert at this. YMMV. Refunds not accepted. Comments welcome.

The nerf:
So, you're DMing a D&D 3.5 campaign, and one of your players is doing something you don't like that is within the rules. Maybe they've noticed the fact that Hulking Hurler damage output scales exponentially with strength, or that they can make an arbitrary amount of money with the right spell combinations. Maybe you don't like how they always manage to juggle combatants to get flanking bonus. Now, many DMs in this situation try to solve the problem by drastically limiting the usefulness of whatever the player is doing. This is called nerfing. Its etymology is straightforward; imagine that the player with the really big sword finds it replaced with a sword made of Nerf(tm). The basic shape remains, but it is no longer useful for its intended task.

Now, assuming your players are good at pattern recognition, they will eventually in the course of play find a very effective strategy against a certain kind of foe. They may begin to use this strategy, to the point of making combat against this foe boring or routine. And, as DM, you may feel tempted to change the way things work. Here are some basic dos and don'ts:

Don't nerf spontaneously:
If you have previously ruled that a spell or effect works a certain way, don't suddenly change the way it works, especially without telling the players. If you decide that a certain combination or strategy is simply too effective to allow, let it work through this session, and talk to the player afterwards. Speaking of which:

Don't nerf when a polite word will do:
Trust your players. Before you nerf, ask your player if they would mind not using the effect so much. Assuming the player is a good role-player, they will recognize that group enjoyment is more important than optimal performance, and will cooperate with you to adjust the power to something that everyone can live with.

Don't nerf for realism (usually).
"That makes no sense!" is a frequent call from DMs old and new. There are many applications of the rules that really don't make much sense when taken to the extremes that some people do. BUT, this is one of the worst reasons to nerf. First, attempting to rule that a certain effect is unrealistic when, e.g., wizards can chuck fireballs at people, will raise inconvenient questions. In addition, ruling so may well result in your players drawing up a realistic chart for, say, damage of objects falling on people. You don't want player with access to spells which can summon dozens of cubic feet of solid iron using realistic falling-object damage. Trust me on this. On the other hand, one of the warning signs of a strategy that needs to be nerfed is when it is totally unrealistic. Real-life tactics such as scouting ahead and preparing an effective line of retreat beforehand should almost never be nerfed. Loathe as I am to admit it, a tactic that is legally sound but flies in the face of expected reality and causes a measurable advantage may be appropriate for nerfing. In short, unrealistic is not a sufficient condition for nerfing, but it may be a necessary one.

Don't nerf for effectiveness.
Some DMs seem to think that if they're not challenging their players enough, they should negate their players' best tactics, to add excitement. If you're one of these DMs, kindly commit hara-kiri with your copy of the DMG. If you do this, you will end up with sullen players who come up with winning strategies, and then save them until the final fight, and tear through your exciting villain before the end of the surprise round, and you'll deserve it, too. Denying players use of effective tactics is tantamount to punishing thoughtful players. A side note: if, given the fact that as DM you have access to unlimited in-game resources to create your foes, you cannot have your villains research the players and find a counter to their most common tactics (a Ring of Counterspells works wonders, as does a Death Ward item), you should think long and hard about your villain's tactics. If your villains are dutifully scrying on the players before bedtime every night, making, buying, or stealing the requisite items and preparing the proper counter-tactics, then any strategy will be nerfed, and your players will learn a valuable lesson about the need for backup strategies, and no rule changes will be necessary.

Do check the rules before you nerf.
Wizards of the Coast has some very extensive errata for many of their products. It may well be that the situation you are wondering how to change has a correct, play-tested, non-house-rule solution, and you just need to look it up. Check the following link before you go off changing the rules willy-nilly: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules

Do nerf globally
If you're one of the DMs who likes to nerf strategies, and then use them in full-force against the players...I'd ask you to commit hara-kiri like the above, but I don't want you to contaminate D&D with your stupid through the Law of Contagion. I am rarely unequivocal about rules and advice, but on this I feel strongly: if you won't let your players do it to other people, damn well don't let other people do it to your players.

Do nerf for player enjoyment.
The single most important thing to remember in role-playing is that all of you are there to have fun. If a rule, combination, or strategy is interfering with the players' enjoyment of the game, change it.

Nerfing vs. Disallowing
Disallowing is simply not permitting a certain combination to exist in your campaign, rather than weakening it but letting it exist. In many cases, disallowing works better than nerfing. For instance, in the example listed above, if you don't want your players to use the Hulking Hurler, it is both easier and cleaner to drop the whole thing than to pare it down.
There is a second reason for this. Players can get attached to certain strategies or character builds. By flat-out disallowing them, you are saying "This is a very powerful build. It is so powerful, I freely admit that it would break my game." Think of it this way: if you lovingly forge a sword, and polish it until it gleams and hone it until it can cut though a leaf in a running stream by thrusting it into the water, which would upset you more: being told that you couldn't use your sword in a local fencing competition for fear you'd hurt someone, or being told you could, and arriving to find your beautiful sword made of Nerf(tm)?

Disallowing can be drastic. But, since any change of the rules can have subtle and far-reaching implications, it is frequently better to do things drastically, that you can better identify and correct for whatever problems your revised rules will create. And if you find that every time you try to correct the rules, another, similarly large problem pops up, you may wish do simply play the game as is. Sharp swords can be fun too.
#2
digoraccoon
Oct 26, 2004 7:30:56 I like your article; it has several good points to Dungeon Masters about nerfing players who come up with good strategies.

As a Dungeon Master for six years, I try not to nerf my players if they come up with effective tactics against my villains. I interpret their strategies as intelligent thinking that should be rewarded rather then punished. If the players come up with an effective fighting tactic that works well, I'll let them use it. Assuming the villains are just as intelligent as the players and they somehow live through the encounter to fight the heroes another day, I would make good to simply have the villains learn to change their own tactics every so often so that the players don't fall into the "one trick pony" stereotype.
#3
zombiegleemax
Nov 08, 2004 23:50:44 First off, good post! Second off, with a set of rules as well balanced as these are, I really think (just to be harsh) that nerfing is pretty much the last resort of an unimaginative DM. In any encounter, to be honest, you have to throttle back most monsters to keep the PCs alive. Rather than nerfing, use the monster's intelligence, and have them act in tactically sound ways. If the behavior that you would like to nerf is a tactic that the PCs have come up with, don't nerf, but do bear in mind that, especially in a small area or community of creatures, word will spread that this is how they work. Intelligent monsters will try to counteract their tactics, with no nerfing required!
#4
zombiegleemax
Nov 11, 2004 9:21:56 I run a game with a set of players in one area and I play in a game with another set of players in an area that takes me about an hour to travel to. In the game in which I'm a player I joined the campaign late and I said I'd play whatever the group needed. I was told they were weak on Melee types so I made a fighter.

Now as time went by the DM realized that my fighter did a lot of damage. Then he realized that my combat reflexes gave me more than 1 attack of opportunity per round.

Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity.

Do you guys think I should mention this to my DM? Or just ignore it and keep on playing the same way I have been?
#5
zombiegleemax
Nov 22, 2004 18:29:05
Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity.

Do you guys think I should mention this to my DM? Or just ignore it and keep on playing the same way I have been?

First, realize if the foe is going to great lengths to avoid you, you are having an effect on combat. Second, if these are just NPCs who could have reasonably heard about you, this is fine, you've gained a reputation. Play it up a bit. If these are low intelligence monsters, you can call foul. Politely. Let him know you have noticed the behavior, and ask him to remember that you paid for the feat and you seem to be getting a lot less chances to use it than before.

IMO, the best way to bring it up is to mention to the other PCs after a combat that the enemy seem to be wise to your abilities, and wonder where they got the knowledge from. Perhaps you can think of some culprits who might be blabbing party tactics and see about silencing them. Turn it into an adventure hook while reminding the DM that there need to be reasons for such tactics.

Of course, it doesn't take that much knowledge to know that you'd rather get hit in passing by the wizard looking guy rather than the guy with the big nasty weapon if you have a choice.
#6
zombiegleemax
Nov 29, 2004 1:47:25 This article is right on target. Nerfing is a serious business, because it can hamper the amount of fun everyone has, and that's the whole point of investing time and money into a game. I'd like to rephrase some of this in a more direct way. Basically, I've deduced some basic thoughts from the general body of your post.

DMs should try harder before nerfing. If their players are wading through their dungeons without even needing to camp, or if the main villain was destroyed in less than two rounds, that doesn't mean the players are too powerful. (Too powerful means that the players aren't following the rules by the word.) It actually means that they aren't challenged enough. On the other side of that coin, players may be challenged too much but usually by the time someone makes that call, they're all dead and bitter about it.

We can therefore conclude that nerfing is two-way. If your villain is too powerful, either nerf him a little or don't send the PCs against him. An even better compromise would be to make a less-powerful villain, of course, which would be akin to nerfing in this case.

Nerfing isn't a bad thing when its intent is clear and unbiased. Let's say the DM wants to set the world in a period of magical suppression. There are various ways of doing this from making in-game laws against magic, to mandating a 40% experience penalty when leveling in a spellcasting class. That's not a shot at the party's wizard; particularly when it's decided before the game starts. (And it should be.) It's a shot at all wizards, and a handful of other classes.

In any case, the DM has a lot of ramifications and reasons to consider for nerfing. To nerf the party's fighter because his damage output is higher than the barbarian's is ridiculous. Even if you compare all the weapons and attributes, you can't calculate how the dice will roll. There is always a chance of an unpredictable outcome. A wizard could end up with more hit points than a rogue, or a fighter could be worse at using his bow than a cleric. It all rests on the dice, at one point or another. That being said, the DM shouldn't consider damage output as a sole basis for a nerf. There are too many variables to point a finger at someone.

Lastly, there is homework to be done when nerfing. Never nerf and leave. Adjust your world and plot for the nerf; even the smallest change could result in a substantial outcome. Let's say you knock the monk's hit die down to d6. Ultimately, that means monks in your world are more frail, and would perhaps more likely practice ranged combat more often. If you feel the need, you could grant them access to bow proficiency to accompany the nerf. Or you could just let their frailty be the end of the story, but make sure to make your world reflect that change, and let all the players in on it too.
#7
zombiegleemax
Dec 03, 2004 15:50:14
Now as time went by the DM realized that my fighter did a lot of damage. Then he realized that my combat reflexes gave me more than 1 attack of opportunity per round.

Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity.

The thing is, he should have been doing that from the beginning. People, even relatively dumb critters, don't ignore a threat and move through its reach as if it's not there. Look at the PCs: how often do they provoke an AoO for moving through a threatened area when they don't have to?

CR is good for battlefield control because of typical battlefield conditions: lots of characters milling about in a fairly small area, and circumstances too hectic to pay attention to everyone that might take a swing at you (and even that doesn't happen in D&D, since there's no facing). In most other situations, most characters will actually go to great lengths to avoid going through an enemy's reach -- that's perfectly normal. In my opinion anyway.
#8
zombiegleemax
Feb 11, 2005 8:02:38 As an extra I'd say that players should also be allowed to nerf or disallow things too. I had a killer DM who had an inordinate love of purple worms, it got to the point where the players would go. "Oh, a purple worm, I draw my dagger so I cut \my way out of it... again." We players DESPISED purple worms.

I also nerfed a monster (or more to the point swore "I'll never do that again guys, sorry). It was in the d20 game Spellslinger (a fantasy wild west game). For those unfamiliar with the show down rules, what happens in a show down is that every hit is instantly a critical and acts as a coup-de-gras. I set them against a vampiric opponent... as an undead it ignored criticals AND the coup-de-gras. Needless to say the players were not impressed. I'm sure we've all had DMs who overuse tactics and as a DM I try to stop myself doing evil things like a vampiric gunfighter. Well most of the time I do. :P
#9
kuraito
Feb 21, 2005 9:40:47 My current DM is a genius. In a campaign we played called Twilight, the party quickly got out of hand. We had super high stats because of a bad rolling method, the bard got his hands on some Artifact level items, we had a Swashbuckler with 18 str, dex and int, weilding 2 elven lightblades (With improved Crit of course) and Me as a swash with slightly lower stats but I died and came back as a half-demon (long story). Together, we were nigh unstoppable right? Wrong.

The DM never nerfed us, he just altered his tactics. First came the T-Rexs who could kill us just as fast as we could kill them. So, we got some flying items and let the bard handle them (he had taken levels in pyro). Then came the Golems who could withstand our melee power, so the bard built our own golem and supercharged it with his artifacts. Then came the strange incorporeal undead who did random things to use when he touched us. So we ran, recruited a high level Cleric of Pelor and stomped him.

It was the classic "One side gets better armor so the other side gets a better gun" routine. And it was fun. We had to stay on our toes as the DM could throw anything at us. And the DM liked it cause we were strong enough that he could throw anything he wanted at us and not kill us all horribly. A talented DM can not only adapt to an overpowered party, but he can incorporate it into the game and use it to make the game better for everyone, even him. My DM truly handled the situation like a pro and the campaign lasted a long time, to everyone enjoyment. Nerfing may be needed in some situations, but sometimes a little overpowered-ness can make things interesting.
#10
lawless
Feb 23, 2005 15:26:34 The group I’m in we try and keep the nerfing to a minimum. We tend to limit what races and PrCs are allowable and we all tend to run low-magic campaigns, which keeps the item buffing to a controllable minimum. The PC do have above average stats but nothing outrageous IMO, (one 18 at first level and 4d6 the other 5 stats). If the PCs establish a fighting practice, such as flanking, that fine it makes sense to degree in the sense that individuals that fight together learn to do so effectively. Currently our DM has thrown trolls our way which pretty much keeps the rogue/bard from getting in close (we’re only 6th level), the party barbarian only has enough hit points to survive maybe to full attacks with rend (and that’s only if he’s raging). If the group beats an a few encounters with considerable ‘ease’ the DM tends to notch up the CR vs our effective level, (like CR8 challenges against 6th level party). We mostly nerf a few spells but not the overall rules themselves. If the PC’s get around and encounter easily we just tend to mark it off as good rping/thinking around something the DM hadn’t considered.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 robertliguori Oct 12, 2004 21:20:54	Note: I'm not an expert at this. YMMV. Refunds not accepted. Comments welcome. The nerf: So, you're DMing a D&D 3.5 campaign, and one of your players is doing something you don't like that is within the rules. Maybe they've noticed the fact that Hulking Hurler damage output scales exponentially with strength, or that they can make an arbitrary amount of money with the right spell combinations. Maybe you don't like how they always manage to juggle combatants to get flanking bonus. Now, many DMs in this situation try to solve the problem by drastically limiting the usefulness of whatever the player is doing. This is called nerfing. Its etymology is straightforward; imagine that the player with the really big sword finds it replaced with a sword made of Nerf(tm). The basic shape remains, but it is no longer useful for its intended task. Now, assuming your players are good at pattern recognition, they will eventually in the course of play find a very effective strategy against a certain kind of foe. They may begin to use this strategy, to the point of making combat against this foe boring or routine. And, as DM, you may feel tempted to change the way things work. Here are some basic dos and don'ts: Don't nerf spontaneously: If you have previously ruled that a spell or effect works a certain way, don't suddenly change the way it works, especially without telling the players. If you decide that a certain combination or strategy is simply too effective to allow, let it work through this session, and talk to the player afterwards. Speaking of which: Don't nerf when a polite word will do: Trust your players. Before you nerf, ask your player if they would mind not using the effect so much. Assuming the player is a good role-player, they will recognize that group enjoyment is more important than optimal performance, and will cooperate with you to adjust the power to something that everyone can live with. Don't nerf for realism (usually). "That makes no sense!" is a frequent call from DMs old and new. There are many applications of the rules that really don't make much sense when taken to the extremes that some people do. BUT, this is one of the worst reasons to nerf. First, attempting to rule that a certain effect is unrealistic when, e.g., wizards can chuck fireballs at people, will raise inconvenient questions. In addition, ruling so may well result in your players drawing up a realistic chart for, say, damage of objects falling on people. You don't want player with access to spells which can summon dozens of cubic feet of solid iron using realistic falling-object damage. Trust me on this. On the other hand, one of the warning signs of a strategy that needs to be nerfed is when it is totally unrealistic. Real-life tactics such as scouting ahead and preparing an effective line of retreat beforehand should almost never be nerfed. Loathe as I am to admit it, a tactic that is legally sound but flies in the face of expected reality and causes a measurable advantage may be appropriate for nerfing. In short, unrealistic is not a sufficient condition for nerfing, but it may be a necessary one. Don't nerf for effectiveness. Some DMs seem to think that if they're not challenging their players enough, they should negate their players' best tactics, to add excitement. If you're one of these DMs, kindly commit hara-kiri with your copy of the DMG. If you do this, you will end up with sullen players who come up with winning strategies, and then save them until the final fight, and tear through your exciting villain before the end of the surprise round, and you'll deserve it, too. Denying players use of effective tactics is tantamount to punishing thoughtful players. A side note: if, given the fact that as DM you have access to unlimited in-game resources to create your foes, you cannot have your villains research the players and find a counter to their most common tactics (a Ring of Counterspells works wonders, as does a Death Ward item), you should think long and hard about your villain's tactics. If your villains are dutifully scrying on the players before bedtime every night, making, buying, or stealing the requisite items and preparing the proper counter-tactics, then any strategy will be nerfed, and your players will learn a valuable lesson about the need for backup strategies, and no rule changes will be necessary. Do check the rules before you nerf. Wizards of the Coast has some very extensive errata for many of their products. It may well be that the situation you are wondering how to change has a correct, play-tested, non-house-rule solution, and you just need to look it up. Check the following link before you go off changing the rules willy-nilly: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules Do nerf globally If you're one of the DMs who likes to nerf strategies, and then use them in full-force against the players...I'd ask you to commit hara-kiri like the above, but I don't want you to contaminate D&D with your stupid through the Law of Contagion. I am rarely unequivocal about rules and advice, but on this I feel strongly: if you won't let your players do it to other people, damn well don't let other people do it to your players. Do nerf for player enjoyment. The single most important thing to remember in role-playing is that all of you are there to have fun. If a rule, combination, or strategy is interfering with the players' enjoyment of the game, change it. Nerfing vs. Disallowing Disallowing is simply not permitting a certain combination to exist in your campaign, rather than weakening it but letting it exist. In many cases, disallowing works better than nerfing. For instance, in the example listed above, if you don't want your players to use the Hulking Hurler, it is both easier and cleaner to drop the whole thing than to pare it down. There is a second reason for this. Players can get attached to certain strategies or character builds. By flat-out disallowing them, you are saying "This is a very powerful build. It is so powerful, I freely admit that it would break my game." Think of it this way: if you lovingly forge a sword, and polish it until it gleams and hone it until it can cut though a leaf in a running stream by thrusting it into the water, which would upset you more: being told that you couldn't use your sword in a local fencing competition for fear you'd hurt someone, or being told you could, and arriving to find your beautiful sword made of Nerf(tm)? Disallowing can be drastic. But, since any change of the rules can have subtle and far-reaching implications, it is frequently better to do things drastically, that you can better identify and correct for whatever problems your revised rules will create. And if you find that every time you try to correct the rules, another, similarly large problem pops up, you may wish do simply play the game as is. Sharp swords can be fun too.
#2 digoraccoon Oct 26, 2004 7:30:56	I like your article; it has several good points to Dungeon Masters about nerfing players who come up with good strategies. As a Dungeon Master for six years, I try not to nerf my players if they come up with effective tactics against my villains. I interpret their strategies as intelligent thinking that should be rewarded rather then punished. If the players come up with an effective fighting tactic that works well, I'll let them use it. Assuming the villains are just as intelligent as the players and they somehow live through the encounter to fight the heroes another day, I would make good to simply have the villains learn to change their own tactics every so often so that the players don't fall into the "one trick pony" stereotype.
#3 zombiegleemax Nov 08, 2004 23:50:44	First off, good post! Second off, with a set of rules as well balanced as these are, I really think (just to be harsh) that nerfing is pretty much the last resort of an unimaginative DM. In any encounter, to be honest, you have to throttle back most monsters to keep the PCs alive. Rather than nerfing, use the monster's intelligence, and have them act in tactically sound ways. If the behavior that you would like to nerf is a tactic that the PCs have come up with, don't nerf, but do bear in mind that, especially in a small area or community of creatures, word will spread that this is how they work. Intelligent monsters will try to counteract their tactics, with no nerfing required!
#4 zombiegleemax Nov 11, 2004 9:21:56	I run a game with a set of players in one area and I play in a game with another set of players in an area that takes me about an hour to travel to. In the game in which I'm a player I joined the campaign late and I said I'd play whatever the group needed. I was told they were weak on Melee types so I made a fighter. Now as time went by the DM realized that my fighter did a lot of damage. Then he realized that my combat reflexes gave me more than 1 attack of opportunity per round. Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity. Do you guys think I should mention this to my DM? Or just ignore it and keep on playing the same way I have been?
#5 zombiegleemax Nov 22, 2004 18:29:05	Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity. Do you guys think I should mention this to my DM? Or just ignore it and keep on playing the same way I have been? First, realize if the foe is going to great lengths to avoid you, you are having an effect on combat. Second, if these are just NPCs who could have reasonably heard about you, this is fine, you've gained a reputation. Play it up a bit. If these are low intelligence monsters, you can call foul. Politely. Let him know you have noticed the behavior, and ask him to remember that you paid for the feat and you seem to be getting a lot less chances to use it than before. IMO, the best way to bring it up is to mention to the other PCs after a combat that the enemy seem to be wise to your abilities, and wonder where they got the knowledge from. Perhaps you can think of some culprits who might be blabbing party tactics and see about silencing them. Turn it into an adventure hook while reminding the DM that there need to be reasons for such tactics. Of course, it doesn't take that much knowledge to know that you'd rather get hit in passing by the wizard looking guy rather than the guy with the big nasty weapon if you have a choice.
#6 zombiegleemax Nov 29, 2004 1:47:25	This article is right on target. Nerfing is a serious business, because it can hamper the amount of fun everyone has, and that's the whole point of investing time and money into a game. I'd like to rephrase some of this in a more direct way. Basically, I've deduced some basic thoughts from the general body of your post. DMs should try harder before nerfing. If their players are wading through their dungeons without even needing to camp, or if the main villain was destroyed in less than two rounds, that doesn't mean the players are too powerful. (Too powerful means that the players aren't following the rules by the word.) It actually means that they aren't challenged enough. On the other side of that coin, players may be challenged too much but usually by the time someone makes that call, they're all dead and bitter about it. We can therefore conclude that nerfing is two-way. If your villain is too powerful, either nerf him a little or don't send the PCs against him. An even better compromise would be to make a less-powerful villain, of course, which would be akin to nerfing in this case. Nerfing isn't a bad thing when its intent is clear and unbiased. Let's say the DM wants to set the world in a period of magical suppression. There are various ways of doing this from making in-game laws against magic, to mandating a 40% experience penalty when leveling in a spellcasting class. That's not a shot at the party's wizard; particularly when it's decided before the game starts. (And it should be.) It's a shot at all wizards, and a handful of other classes. In any case, the DM has a lot of ramifications and reasons to consider for nerfing. To nerf the party's fighter because his damage output is higher than the barbarian's is ridiculous. Even if you compare all the weapons and attributes, you can't calculate how the dice will roll. There is always a chance of an unpredictable outcome. A wizard could end up with more hit points than a rogue, or a fighter could be worse at using his bow than a cleric. It all rests on the dice, at one point or another. That being said, the DM shouldn't consider damage output as a sole basis for a nerf. There are too many variables to point a finger at someone. Lastly, there is homework to be done when nerfing. Never nerf and leave. Adjust your world and plot for the nerf; even the smallest change could result in a substantial outcome. Let's say you knock the monk's hit die down to d6. Ultimately, that means monks in your world are more frail, and would perhaps more likely practice ranged combat more often. If you feel the need, you could grant them access to bow proficiency to accompany the nerf. Or you could just let their frailty be the end of the story, but make sure to make your world reflect that change, and let all the players in on it too.
#7 zombiegleemax Dec 03, 2004 15:50:14	Now as time went by the DM realized that my fighter did a lot of damage. Then he realized that my combat reflexes gave me more than 1 attack of opportunity per round. Every since he realized this, all the bad guys realize it also. They will run from an ally and go way around me, even if it means they can't reach the doorway in one round by dodging around me, often going to even greater lengths to avoid giving me an attack of opportunity. The thing is, he should have been doing that from the beginning. People, even relatively dumb critters, don't ignore a threat and move through its reach as if it's not there. Look at the PCs: how often do they provoke an AoO for moving through a threatened area when they don't have to? CR is good for battlefield control because of typical battlefield conditions: lots of characters milling about in a fairly small area, and circumstances too hectic to pay attention to everyone that might take a swing at you (and even that doesn't happen in D&D, since there's no facing). In most other situations, most characters will actually go to great lengths to avoid going through an enemy's reach -- that's perfectly normal. In my opinion anyway.
#8 zombiegleemax Feb 11, 2005 8:02:38	As an extra I'd say that players should also be allowed to nerf or disallow things too. I had a killer DM who had an inordinate love of purple worms, it got to the point where the players would go. "Oh, a purple worm, I draw my dagger so I cut \my way out of it... again." We players DESPISED purple worms. I also nerfed a monster (or more to the point swore "I'll never do that again guys, sorry). It was in the d20 game Spellslinger (a fantasy wild west game). For those unfamiliar with the show down rules, what happens in a show down is that every hit is instantly a critical and acts as a coup-de-gras. I set them against a vampiric opponent... as an undead it ignored criticals AND the coup-de-gras. Needless to say the players were not impressed. I'm sure we've all had DMs who overuse tactics and as a DM I try to stop myself doing evil things like a vampiric gunfighter. Well most of the time I do. :P
#9 kuraito Feb 21, 2005 9:40:47	My current DM is a genius. In a campaign we played called Twilight, the party quickly got out of hand. We had super high stats because of a bad rolling method, the bard got his hands on some Artifact level items, we had a Swashbuckler with 18 str, dex and int, weilding 2 elven lightblades (With improved Crit of course) and Me as a swash with slightly lower stats but I died and came back as a half-demon (long story). Together, we were nigh unstoppable right? Wrong. The DM never nerfed us, he just altered his tactics. First came the T-Rexs who could kill us just as fast as we could kill them. So, we got some flying items and let the bard handle them (he had taken levels in pyro). Then came the Golems who could withstand our melee power, so the bard built our own golem and supercharged it with his artifacts. Then came the strange incorporeal undead who did random things to use when he touched us. So we ran, recruited a high level Cleric of Pelor and stomped him. It was the classic "One side gets better armor so the other side gets a better gun" routine. And it was fun. We had to stay on our toes as the DM could throw anything at us. And the DM liked it cause we were strong enough that he could throw anything he wanted at us and not kill us all horribly. A talented DM can not only adapt to an overpowered party, but he can incorporate it into the game and use it to make the game better for everyone, even him. My DM truly handled the situation like a pro and the campaign lasted a long time, to everyone enjoyment. Nerfing may be needed in some situations, but sometimes a little overpowered-ness can make things interesting.
#10 lawless Feb 23, 2005 15:26:34	The group I’m in we try and keep the nerfing to a minimum. We tend to limit what races and PrCs are allowable and we all tend to run low-magic campaigns, which keeps the item buffing to a controllable minimum. The PC do have above average stats but nothing outrageous IMO, (one 18 at first level and 4d6 the other 5 stats). If the PCs establish a fighting practice, such as flanking, that fine it makes sense to degree in the sense that individuals that fight together learn to do so effectively. Currently our DM has thrown trolls our way which pretty much keeps the rogue/bard from getting in close (we’re only 6th level), the party barbarian only has enough hit points to survive maybe to full attacks with rend (and that’s only if he’s raging). If the group beats an a few encounters with considerable ‘ease’ the DM tends to notch up the CR vs our effective level, (like CR8 challenges against 6th level party). We mostly nerf a few spells but not the overall rules themselves. If the PC’s get around and encounter easily we just tend to mark it off as good rping/thinking around something the DM hadn’t considered.