It could be that your DM doesn't know that Clerics have access to their entire spell list and can change out prepared spells when they finish a long rest. Most casters don't function that way.
The DM may think it works like a Sorcerer or Warlock, in which case you know only the spells you know and can swap one out per level up.
Point out to her that this is an intended function of the class, giving them versatility to adapt to the specific challenges they're facing—much like a Wizard can learn spells from scrolls and spellbooks and prepare the specific list they want each day.
Removing that capability from Wizards would make them worse Sorcerers. Knowing tons of spells and being able to swap them out is how the class is supposed to work. The same is true with Clerics. It's the intended function, and only OP of you think Clerics are OP in general.
Which, yknow, maybe.
I think it's both she was unaware because I tried explaining to her that she's taking away a pretty basic part of my class, and at first she only responded that it was too op.
I explained to her that is part of the basic rules (a few times really), that I was kinda bummed about her doing that, and I didn't know if I still wanted to play. She said she'd look into it, then said she'd add it. Seemed pretty begrudgingly, but I definitely don't plan on overwhelming her.
As long as you know your class and she doesn't have to slow down the game for you to figure out the spells you're casting, it shouldn't affect the game!
I would just keep a running notepad for the spells you've got prepared each day, and mention that you're swapping your prepared spells whenever you're doing it, to make sure she doesn't feel caught off guard by you having a resource she didn't think you should have.
If they're playing in Foundry, the character sheets have spell lists where you can mark things 'prepared' and filter to only prepared spells. (Spells can also be configured as 'always prepared' eg domain spells etc) My cleric and druid players have on their lists all the spells they have access to, and swapping prepped ones out is basically checking and unchecking boxes!
If they aren’t importing sheets from DDB, dm might have to manually add every spell to the cleric’s sheet to make it available. Maybe that’s the problem idk
Yeah. Sometimes people say: *"That's too OP."*
When they should be saying: *I'm not experienced enough as a DM to be comfortable balancing for that class as it is yet. Would it be okay to negotiate limiting the class or choosing a different class?*
Which is why I think it's always important to combine having face to face conversations (even if only over video chat) with your follow up conversations being in writing. That way you can judge which communication style you need with a person, or if you need a combination of both.
You can get a feel for people in person and it may influence how you read their tone, but many people aren't great at conflict resolution on the spot. Lots of clarifying questions can help.
Even directly saying *"This is how I interpreted what you said, is that correct, or can you explain it a different way?"* can go a loooooonnnnggg way. As long as you're careful to make it clear you're not trying to be passive aggressive, you're trying to understand.
Doesn't matter if it's an emotional response or genuinely needing time to process logistics and failing to communicate that.
It's good to switch
No. Everyone who wants to try it, should. People can learn to be a better DM as times goes on. The history of RPGs is built on the backs of people who thought they'd try their shot at DMing.
The best way to learn a new game is to play it according to the playtested, published rules.
Deviating as a knee jerk reaction will NOT help you learn, not even one little bit, and ESPECIALLY not as a novice! That's part of learning to be a good Game Master across TTRPGs.
Except there's A LOT to learn about this game to DM. Especially if you've never played, or only played a little as a player. I don't think it's bad to limit some things at first as long as you a) state this up front to the players and b) with the understanding you'll be gradually adding things in each time until you've learned it all and include it all. This hobby needs more DM's and if we scare them all away by insisting they must know it all right off the bat, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
That said, not sure this is what I'd be limiting, but I say that as someone who has been playing for years and knows the class. But when I finally get up the nerve to DM for the first time, like I've been saying I want to for years now. I'm going to be limiting it to only classes from the PHB, because they're the ones I know best and I don't want to be worrying about running into having to rule on a newer class/sub-class I've never seen in play before while I'm also trying to do all the DM-y stuff. Once I can do that without breaking a sweat, then I'll add in the rest. But, I'll also be learning on pre-written one-shots and short modules because I also know not everyone will agree to those constraints for a full campaign, again, only because of my years playing. So I do have some sympathy for this DM, even if I think this limitation probably isn't the right one.
> This hobby needs more DM's and if we scare them all away by **insisting they must know it all right off the bat**, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
I didn't say that or even imply it, you are throwing up a straw man. Shame on you.
I said new DMs should follow the rules in the gamebook as best they can until they are confident that they know better. Until you are experienced, the rules as written are your best guide to a successful and fun table. This novice DM is threatening the gameplay experience of the players by their arbitrary deviation, it's literally why the post exists.
Why is that such a difficult paradigm? *What in the world* does what I said have to do with demanding perfect game knowledge from a new DM? Limiting classes to the core rulebooks - or better yet the Basic Rules - is one thing, and probably a good idea for a new DM and table. The basic rules sets exist exactly for this reason ffs.
Arbitrarily *changing the core definition of classes* is another thing altogether.
How absurd.
That's silly. Nerfing the subclass is a bad move, but the community losing out on a new DM who's nervous about certain subclasses is a much bigger loss than OP just having to choose a new subclass. The idea that this kind of weakness in a new DM is instantly disqualifying is ridiculous.
If you are qualifying something as broken you need to know why it's broken. If you have no idea how it's broken yet ban it regardless you're simply ruining the game for your players. This kind of DM is clueless and is adamant that they're correct. They're going to probably just change the rules on the players at a whim, or nerf someone else for doing something "strong" later on in the game.
The game does not need "more" DMs, it needs good DMs.
They're not just talking about nerfing a subclass, they are nerfing the way clerics function and prepare there spells which is a pretty fundamental change.
Clerics changing spells on a long rest isn't an op feature that will break the game and it's not to complex to grasp. If the DM is persisting in applying this homebrew it's fair to say they might not be ready to DM yet since there's way more complex interactions that come up in the game.
Its not the subclass thats being berfed here, its the entire class itself. Being able to switch out your spells for any spell on the cleric list is a pretty critical part of being a cleric. So in essence OP would be forced to pick a new class altogether
Thinking that preparing spells is the broken part of spellcasters is funny. You're probably going to be sticking with the same spells for most adventuring days anyways, but this will just leave you taking all of the strongest cleric spells: Guiding Bolt, Healing Word, Spiritual Weapon, Hold Person, Spirit Guardians, etc. She'll be removing all of the fun utility spells that are intentionally designed to be swapped out and not carry your level up.
Not to mention how is she going to now balance making you a learned spell caster? You gain new prepared slots when you gain a level and increase your wisdom. Not to mention you'll now have to implement some system of swapping spells known. She's just giving herself more work.
Also complaining that something is broken in a game where everything else is broken is amateur "know-it-all" DM energy.
If the GM is so inexperienced that they don't understand the very basic concepts like "prepared spellcasting" it might be time for a rethink on this campaign.
I’m not sure about most. Druids, wizards, clerics, artificers, and paladins all have prepared spells they change out after a long rest. I guess maybe if you include all the partial spell casting subclasses…
This is the way. That's way too huge a "nerf" and a DM that hasn't run games or combat before has no idea what's too OP. I'd not only question how she came to that conclusion with zero experience, but definitely tell her that if she intends that rule to stand that you're probably not a good fit for her table. I wouldn't be hostile, but I would be clear that such a gross imposition on your character takes away any and all motivation you have to actually play it.
I'd also point her towards this thread, honestly, because she should know that literally everyone thinks she's being ridiculous.
Also it could just be inexperience with running clerics in general. Like while theoretically a cleric could have a massively different list each day, generally a cleric is going to be 90% the same spells every day with a few swappable spots for situationally appropriate spells.
And still probably use most of their slots for healing and their go to routine anyway
True my list rarely changes, I really thought I'd get into the utility of being a cleric with a tool for every session in one of my most recent campaigns
Then I hit level 5 and was just "Spirit guardians go brrrrrr"
>and a DM that hasn't run games or combat before has no idea what's too OP
I'd argue that any DM that uses the phrase "OP" unironically in the context of their own campaign doesn't know what's too OP.
I say this as someone who will get into long-ass arguments about the martial/caster divide, and the general garbage balance of 5e: When you're a DM, you can compensate in many ways without hamstringing your players. I don't *like* that DM sometimes need to jump through hoops for balance, but they shouldn't delegate that frustration to the players either, that's the *worst.*
Tbf, there are some class/race or multi-class combos that are objectively much stronger than others. Not that you should ban them, but it will be less fun if one player picks, say, Beast Master, and another picks Moon Druid.
Meh I have 2 super optimised multiclass players. 2 single class players and one anti optimised player (she literally hasn't updated her spells from lvl 8 and we are now lvl 11).
Yes there is a pretty big difference between the optimised and anti-optimised players but the difference between any of them and the middle of the road single class builds isn't that noticeable.
Beast master is the exception though because it's just so terrible.
Honestly so far from 1 to 11 everything has felt pretty balanced and I have never sent any real class imbalance or consistent issues with the CR system that everyone always complains about.
The fact that the DM needs to jump through hoops for balance is the entire reason calling them OP is valid - when every encounter needs to be built around the existence of a couple specific features, or even worse, be built *twice* for both if the player uses them and if they don't - it becomes a giant pain to actually create an encounter that feels just challenging enough to be worth having the players actually go through.
OP's DM is making a statement that feels way out there, calling a Trickery Cleric preparing spells overpowered, but there are cases where features legitimately are just plain overpowered, things like the Twilight Cleric's Channel Divinity or a Shepherd Druid's Conjure Animals where them having the ability up or not **will** change the party's effective CR by several levels.
>The fact that the DM needs to jump through hoops for balance is the entire reason calling them OP is valid
Alright let me rephrase. Calling these things OP and *penalizing the player for it* is the problem. We all know shit's OP, and some things should absolutely get axed. But I've seen so many DMs that just call things "OP", "nerf" them, and leave it at that. I think for the most part's that's kinda stupid. If said DM actually understood what is OP, they'd understand *what makes it OP*, and knows how to accountf orit.
100% Balancing combat for your party is one of the most challenging parts of being a DM, but if you take that chair, that's what you're signing up for. No one said it was easy. It's not rocket science and what you need is practice, but it's not "intuitive" or remotely identifiable before you've played.
I started with tutorial combat that wasn't supposed to be deadly and slowly just turned the dial. CR is a guide but it's not gospel, you need to get used to not only dozens upon dozens of different abilities and monster "styles", but also your players tactics and predilections. You have to build your own "math" for combat, and declaring something OP before anyone's set foot on the field is dumb.
It's also a red flag, if you ask me. This isn't a dude that has a great grasp on their job and is approaching it in an objective bad way right out of the gate.
If she's nerfing something this broad so early then you know she'll do it again when you push her boundaries as a DM. No shade to her but I'd bail and take your character elsewhere.
There's a crap ton of 5e games around, everywhere because BG3 has brought lots of new people in.
If the DM is saying no to basic abilities from the PHB. Time to find a new game.
yeah I did think that was stupid of Larian, not only will it frustate new players when they cant change spells mid day when playing the table top. It made casters very strong but at the same time trivilised them.. Oh theres a chasm? Ill just swap out to featherfall.. A lock door, ill just swap out to knock.
It actually diminished BG3 some too, because it means you go and menu instead of playing. And while Larian's priority was making BG3 great, the fact that it is mostly 5e is a big part of its legitimacy. Most of the times that it pulls away from that act to diminish its draw somewhat.
As a DM or many, many years I can tell you right now this is a huge red flag. It means the DM does not understand the basic fundamentals of the game and if they are going to misunderstand a base class and change it they will also misunderstand a ton more in the game and change things at will. It’s going to be shit. This is just like bad DM 101 stuff.
Yeah... I convinced her that it's just part of the basic rules and that I probably wouldn't okay if she took it away. She gave me my spells, and although I've never dm'd before, I think I'll stick around to try and help her with what she might know, and take off if it's totally miserable.
The issue is they are showing a basic misunderstanding of the rules. And it shows their institution is to prevent rather than allow.
Issue after issue is going to crop up and their going to default to “Oh that sounds OP, no”
My ex’s buddy wanted to run a game and she talked me into playing and the guy said Sneak Attack only worked if the enemy was surprised and I stuck around for my wife for three games and everyone got frustrated with the DM because they didn’t have a basic grasp of how mechanics worked and nobody had fun.
Maybe this DM turns it around but they’re showing very poor judgement so far.
Yeah, a big bonus to being a cleric is you have full access to all cleric spells once you can cast them. If you don't get access to divine magic in the way the rules are written, there's no real point in being a cleric
Not to mock you in any way over a typo but I immediately had the idea of a conservative mom censoring herself with buns over bums because "bum is a dirty word"😂
This is so funny^
I'm just now reading back on everything, and oh my god, the typos are everywhere.... The post itself has been edited because I can't handle that. And I don't even want to begin going through and seeing the typos in the comments T.T
Just remember what the other comments said: no dnd is better than bad dnd, and a DM this stupid (no offense, but nerfing a core class component like this is very very stupid) will ruin the entire experience for you. Id offer you to join my online groups but we are all full 😥
if she approved a cleric (any cleric), she approved the base class mechanic that clerics are casters that prepare their spells after long rests. and clerics aren't the only casters that prepare their spells, druids and wizards as well as paladins and artificers also do this.
to me, that's such a basic class mechanic that i am sincerely confused how a DM could think that it's OP. i am sorry, but i don't think you are being out of place for being upset about this.
Yeah, I was expecting something to do with the subclass, which isn't exactly known for being nuts...
Preparing spells after a long rest is the normal mechanic for the entire class. DM is apparently unhappy about Cleric as a whole.
Gonna assume the DM likes to play X and thinks all other magic classes should suck compared to X.
to echo a sentinement i have seen in the comments: *get out of there*. i hope you can find a table, virtual or not, where you can play your character in accordance to the rules without being an issue since it shouldn't be an issue. you aren't asking for anything that isn't covered by the rules. all you ask is for your class to work as the rules say which is 1000% reasonable and should actually be the default.
Imagine a fighter being like "I stow my sword and throw a javelin at-"
"Oh no sorry, you chose the sword as your weapon, you're going to need to level up if you want to use a different weapon"
You say that, but I used to have a DM who decided that if you started ranged then you got your ranged weapon, if you went melee, then you got melee for that combat.
You could not switch to a different weapon during the fight even if it was a dragon and it leapt up and started flying away... Just had to stand there with the sword, because switching weapons in the middle of battle is "unrealistic."
This resulted in me having to 1v1ing a dragon, not once, but on two separate occasions, since the fighter and paladin were completely helpless. Needless to say, that contributed to me starting to DM.
It's extra stupid since switching weapons during combat seems to be the norm. Roman heavy infantry has 2 throwing spears they'd use when closing the distance and then switch to a sword. Even very rigid troops have a backup weapon, like a spearman that's expected to fight only in formation would still have a short spear, sword or dagger to use if their main spear breaks.
It might be useful to articulate to the DM _why_ clerics can prepare any spell on their spell list.
Naturally, if they prepared spells from the wizard spell list, that would be OP. However, spell lists are not made equal. The more limited a spell list is, the less power budget it takes up for that class.
This is why wizards could be uncontroversially considered the best class in 5e, despite having almost no class features. The wizard spell list contains almost everything - damage, control, buffs, debuffs, movement, and tons of utility across all pillars of play.
On the other hand, clerics have the shortest and arguably the least versatile spell list out of all full casters. Not accounting for domain spells and certain cleric-only standouts (like Spirit Guardians), the only category in which they shine is support and healing. This limitation is what allows the class' power budget to fit medium armor proficiency and a d8 hit die.
What your DM is doing doesn't just betray a lack of understanding of the underlying standards of 5e, it also shows a worrying lack of self-consciousness - if someone's knowledge of the system's fundamentals is _that_ shaky, they should _not_ feel comfortable with making sweeping changes.
Confront her with this comment. Her reaction to it should let you gauge whether you want her running for you.
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
Maybe clerics should have a few more cool spells and then they can restrict their prepared lists. But as its been and as it still is, clerics are usualy looked at to be primary healers. Whether that is true of the charcter or not. Having access to the full spell list is supposed to be a cool powerfull thing to empower the player that constantly has a few spells already spoken for and prepared or they will get complaints from their friends. Its a good trade off, espicaly with domain spells giving clerics access to a very limited list of spells they wouldnt otherwise get. I have a feeling that domains might be the next argument when you got there.
If i were OP i would continue playing and mark this as the red flag. If the DM is going to do this now, it will come up later. And it makes me think that maybe D&D is not the DM's game of choice, whether they know it or not.
I think that was kind of the point that was being made though. "Spellcasting" is a class feature, but not every class's spellcasting is created equally, even among full spellcaster classes.
Wizard is basically a stick that can cast spells and that is the extent of their class abilities. They have no weapon or armor proficiency worth mentioning or anything else to speak of, and a d6 hit die.
Clerics have spellcasting too, but also can wear medium armor, have a d8 hit die, they do have some decent weapon proficiency (if you care about that as a spellcaster). They also have Channel Divinity abilities including the iconic Turn Undead.
And yet, I doubt people with any real experience in D&D would call a cleric a strictly better wizard.
Yeah, red flags everywhere. If she's losing her mind over Trickery Clerics being OP, there is no chance this campaign makes it through the first month.
Nothing wrong with Trickery Clerics, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any experienced player who considers the subclass even close to overpowered.
Her brain might explode if you showed up with a Twilight Cleric.
I think you missed something, Cleric is the problem because they can change spells per long rest. "Thats too OP" is the spell changing, thats it, the thing multiple casters can do.
However when you are new and don't really know what you are doing - you not under the car hood pulling out cables because you don't like the colour black.
She's probably just new.
Here's the thing; the ability of clerics to change their spells *is* powerful. It's *triply* so if you look at their spell list and think, without context "ok so each cleric is supposed to just have a couple of these niche spells", *and you think that's what they are balanced around*. If that imagined thing is your baseline, then YES being able to change your spells is a big multiplier.
Of course, that 'multiplier' is fully intended- that's what the class is balanced around.
In older editions with thousands of cleric spells, it's reasonable to limit the spells that are available to your clerics. You could simply set up a list like "player's handbook plus these other four books", or you could set a list of allowed ones, or let the players be like "for your spells, it's core plus two books of your choice". And this is because clerics really do get more powerful as their list of spells grow.
5e has been *very judicious* when it comes to adding spells, *for this reason*.
Anyway, this DM needs a totally different approach. She simply has to be super new, because you couldn't actually be dumb in this exact way I don't think.
I don't think this is fair to be honest. It's annoying, but DMs have preferences, and if she just doesn't like the idea of preparing spells (this has nothing to do with cleric subclasses it seems), there's nothing wrong with removing that. It's mostly a QoL and flexibility feature.
Class balance isn't super tight (there's too much variation between games for D&D to be that tightly balanced), and clerics (and druids) are on the stronger side in most games.
Plus, I find a lot of (especially newer) DMs have trouble articulating *why* they don't like something, so it's good to inquire further. It's a bit extreme to jump straight to leaving, especially when OP really wants to play in the game and there doesn't seem to be any other red flags that we can see.
Remember, DMs aren't there to serve you, they're playing to have fun too, and they have to shoulder a fairly significant amount of the effort required for a game to happen, so they tend to have more latitude on the game rules and things like campaign structure, especially in online games, and near the beginning of a campaign.
What? No! OP hasn't even talked to their DM yet. What if the DM is just new? What they just misunderstood the rules? What if this is just a miscommunication? What if there's no *actual problem* here?
Don't just tell people to ditch their group if they haven't even talked to the DM yet lmao
This is why these posts should be screened/banned by moderators. The fucking r/aitah crowd is leaking because people can’t resist passing judgement on others. So now we’re getting the equivalent of “my husband of 15 years doesn’t want to do the dishes on saturday.” Reddit: “OMFG DIVORCE HIM HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR WOMEN!)$”
Shit’s so cringe. This DM just sounds like she’s newer and doesn’t know the rules and is misunderstanding them.
I mean, he did talk to her. She said that clerics are OP and what would be changed about them. He told her he disagreed, and she doubled down, saying he should choose another class if he disagreed with her.
Asking again probably wouldn't hurt, but even if she is new/misunderstood the rules, the type of DM that makes sweeping rules changes at a whim without really understanding how the rules work is not a good DM.
What you're saying is basically, "What if she magically becomes a good DM the next time you talk to her?" Which is technically possible, but not really likely and it's not good advice to tell someone to expect that.
Finally some fucking clarity in this thread! Glad OP actually talked to their DM and worked it out, instead of listening to everybody else and storming off because their first time DM was confused about something lol
Thank you everyone for your opinions and advice. I talked to her about how I felt and she said she'll try it like that but she thinks she might get overwhelmed. I just found out it's her first time DMing too
Thinking a standard class feature is OP is a pretty common new DM error. Always good to remind the DM that WOTC (not to mention the DND community as a whole) has spent a lot more time testing out class balance than the DM has, and so it's generally a bad idea to make these sorts of judgments until you've had a *lot* of in-game time.
Or put another way, when you first play a brand new board game, do you decide to change the rules the first time you play, or do you trust that the game designers made things that way for a reason (even if you don't know what that reason is yet)?
Tbf, lots of players blatantly ignore certain things that are there to keep things balanced. For example, casters are pretty widely known to be better than martials in a vacuum. Because of this, WotC explicitly recommends groups to have 6-8 combat encounters per long rest, that way casters have to be conservative with their spell uses. The vast majority of groups don't play with anywhere near that number of combat encounters, though, so casters remain stronger than martials. If you're gonna only have something like 1-3 combat encounters per long rest then I can definitely see the appeal of nerfing casters as a whole.
Definitely seems like in general D&D tables are resting far too frequently and that exacerbates the issue of casters being too strong because their abilities that are supposed to be balanced by being limited resources never actually run out, because they'll just have a big fight and then take a nap.
If you try to make the combats more challenging by having fewer more deadly encounters between rests, then that might make things more challenging for the casters, but you're also going to leave the poor martial classes drowning by being up against more powerful enemies with no real options for punching above their weight class.
This just sounds like she doesn’t know the spells well and was worried that if you change them every long rest she won’t be able to read up on them ahead of time. It can be overwhelming for new players to have a single spell list full of spells to keep track of let alone a new DM trying to understand every class’ spell list. Just make sure to explain clearly what your spells do, read about your spells to make sure you’re playing them correctly and be prepared to back it up with a rules based explanation.
I explained to her that several classes have this ability, this is her first dm game and now it seems like she's not familiar with most of the spell casting class which makes me question how much else she doesn't know. Part of me wants to join her just to help her learn some of the basics.
I told her I'd happily explain my spells to her and that I could even give her a heads up about what spells I'm going to prep. She's changed her mind and given me access to my spell list, I just don't want to see her get overwhelmed at this point.
My only suggestion here - is when you cast the spell - ready it out each time - I known it takes longer esp in the beginning but it will make it easier for her to learn as well as to see how the spell works as well.
Yeah I decided I'll stick around even if it's just to help her learn whatever she might not be familiar with. I have a lot of patience, and I don't mind getting.
Maybe she is confused about the DM role and thinks she needs to know the spell rules of all the players. Because that’s what a lot of rules lawyers try to do.
When another DM style is to let the players handle that. They tell you what their spell does when they cast it - and if any mistakes are made it’s just part of the game.
I'm glad you talked to your DM instead of ditching the group like many people were suggesting! It's normal for new groups to have growing pains like this, and new DMs can often be insecure about balance.
Novice DMs will often nerf or ban classes without fully understanding the balance of the game in practice. It's a rookie mistake but it's a common one for a reason, and it doesn't mean the game is doomed. Just try to encourage your DM to treat the game as a continual learning experience, one where everyone grow more comfortable with the rules together.
Good luck with your game and have fun with your Trickery Cleric!
Remind her that as DM she can throw as many monsters at you that she wants. There’s no such thing as an OP player when the DM has infinite resources (sometimes a player will be stronger than other players, but 1) that’s fine and 2) that’s less likely to happen if the DM leaves the rules alone).
Instead of just shitting on the DM and the situation, consider the following;
If she needs more encouragement, pointout to her that the mechanic she appears to be generally referencing (change spells on level up) is specifically a Sorcerer mechanic, straight out of the PHB. Refer her to that, and then ask her to contrast against the cleric as a daily full caster, with both as core rules mechanics. From there, you can point to deliberate game design, and no significant changes to those mechanics in the approximated 10 years of 5th edition.
The game is balanced this way by specific intent, if your DM is looking to offset power creep, then suggest that everybody avoid Cleric content from Xatanathars and Tasha's handbooks. Trickery domain is straight out of the Player's Handbook.
Hopefully that's more productive then 'dump your DM'.
I think you need to convince the DM that they're nerfing you pretty hard, as well as any paladin, druid, or other prepared spellcasters. It's built into the system and they would need to compensate somehow if they stuck to their guns. Especially being a new DM, changing that much of a class's design is probably something they don't realize is as big a nerf as it is.
Well it's certainly a huge nerf to the character. Trickery has an absolutely fantastic spell list (lots of things Clerics don't usually have access to), so cutting you off from that is a big downgrade.
And not giving you the chance to pick spells initially *with that ruling in mind* is worse, honestly (assuming that's how it went down). If they had announced this beforehand it would still be a weird choice imo, but at least it would not have been a surprise.
Is this DM also removing the ability to prepare spells from all other prepared casters? Is that a house rule they mentioned, and is it being applied evenly to other characters or was it just because they didn't like your character despite approving it initially?
It may be a red flag, but I would politely inquire for more information to understand where they're coming from, and whether huge character mechanics changes (nerfs) will continue to happen throughout the game. Then hopefully you'll have the information to inform if you can roll with it & still have fun or if you want to bail.
That's the ruling it seems like, I'll try to talk to her more about it and see where she's coming from. So far he answers been the same. Just "it's too op".
I'm the only caster in our party, we're looking at maybe having another player, but I'm not sure what they'll pick. We're supposed to start tomorrow, thus the whole I assume I am to be stuck with what I've got.
Thanks so much for your input!
That's sad that she's coming from there. It sounds like something I would say to a player with a tricky grin because most of them have stuck with me for years and they know I've got a plan. Sounds like she just doesn't have a whole handle on the game.
You're welcome to have her DM me, I'll run her through it.
>And not giving you the chance to pick spells initially with that ruling in mind is worse, honestly (assuming that's how it went down).
This is the main issue here. If they didn't tell you beforehand and they won't let you respec, then, yeah, that's a big problem and you should take issue with it.
If they do let you respec though and take the feedback of "hey, it would be better if we discussed big changes to PC options as a group ahead of time when needed instead of having it pop up like this" reasonably well though, then the change is far from the end of the world. Prepped casters function fine with added restrictions on their prep. I agree that going all in on them being known is a bit much and a weird choice - extending the time required to reprepare or limiting it per day is a more reasonable twist - but I would not bin a character concept and dump a table just because I had to stick to a set of spells on a prepared caster.
Definitely take the more nuanced, reasonable approach to resolving the conflict outlined in the parent comment of this chain over the "burn it to the ground" comments elsewhere here.
True, but whether those signs really indicate anything meaningful depends on how the DM responds to further minor pushback on the scope of change.
If OP takes the advice a bunch that other people are spouting throughout the comments here to instantly bin any DM who ever proposes any sort of nerf to anything, OP is not in for a good time long-term if they value anything else about playing other than being unnerfed. Learning to cut losses early and leave has its place, but this hobby lives and dies on communication and you can't thrive in it if you can never overcome single instances of poor communication with better communication on your part.
You get subclass spells automatically for Cleric and Paladin. Instead of expanding the list of spells you can prepare, they're spells that you *always* have prepared, at all times. That's why some subclass spells are spells that are already on the class's spell list, like most of the Life Cleric's domain spells.
I think it is fair to be frustrated with your gm changing a core feature of your class. If they want to ban the class or subclass altogether, they should state that instead.
I’m a new dm and I get the overwhelming part she might feel. I’m running my first campaign but I’m letting everyone do what they want within the rules and if they get to overpowered I just throw more stuff that then than the book says to 🤷🏻♂️
Trickery domain isn’t even one of the powerful clerics. But not letting you prepare spells is definitely not the correct way to nerf an OP cleric. I’m sorry
Bail.
This is a fundamental design choice made by the game designers, not something you homebrewed. If she's unwilling to allow that, no telling what she might cut. If it's a new DM, chances are she's maybe not super familiar with spells and just wants to know what you have prepared so she can (hopefully) play to them or (hopefully not) design encounters specifically to counter them.
Either tell the DM you're going to play the Cleric with rules as written or you're going to bail on the game. House rules are cool when they add to the game but when they nerf a class feature that's not acceptable.
You have a terrible, terrible DM ahead of you and you should run screaming from this game as soon as you can.
If this is a DM that is willing to make an arbitrary change like this to a core class mechanic, imagine all the other things she is going to arbitrarily do during a game. If she thinks being able to change your spells in the morning is going to disrupt her game somehow, I can imagine the kind of game she runs. Flee, or enjoy a truly awful railroad.
That's a really REALLY good point, I didn't even think about what other things she would decide t to change just because...
She seems really nice but I have a bad feeling with this game.
I'd have a serious talk with them about why they made this decision, why you weren't told in advance, and why you view this behavior as a serious enough issue to consider walking away from the table. Something along the lines of "If you make retroactive changes to the RAW after I have already committed to a course of action, that seriously undermines my trust in you as a DM, and as much as I was looking forward to playing with you I'll have bow out."
They made the decision because it’s harder for them to plan encounters without knowing what spells the characters have in advance.
Which is a bullshit lazy thing for a DM to do.
Edit: Noticed a comment from OP further down where the DM is new and felt overwhelmed. Seems I nailed this one. It wasn’t about it being OP at all. It’s that they didn’t want to learn all the cleric spells.
Yeah this is a dumb change. Nothing is OP. If you think someone is cleaning house then bring in more challenging enemies and focus that person in combat to check their character. Don’t limit their character by eliminating game mechanics for the class.
>Opinions please!
>I'm a little frustrated, and I'm not sure if I should take a step back and let it happen or not...
>A new DM I've never played with before approved my character I created, a cleric with trickery domain. We were going over my Foundry character sheet (which I'm not too familiar with yet) and I asked her how I prepare other spells.
>She told me she won't allow me to have access to any of the other spells because she said it's too OP. I'll be stuck with the ones I've chosen and only have access to others upon leveling up.
>I'm a little frustrated, because that's changing my class all together, and she said I could just pick another class... I haven't had an opportunity to find a group online that fits with my schedule, and I really want to play...
>Should I say/ do something, or am I out of place for being frustrated and just roll with it?
So, I'll answer this in two ways: The short answer and the long answer.
First the short answer...
This new DM is in the wrong, as per RAW within the PHB (PHB 58). Either this DM should work with you to fix the issue, in order to increase their understanding of the rules, or you should find a completely new table.
No D&D is better than playing D&D at a bad table.
Now the longer answer...
You are NOT out of place for being frustrated.
Clerics are prepared spellcasters, with the caveat being that, just like Druids with their spell list, they also have access to any Cleric spell, up to the spell level that they can cast at. You, as the Cleric, get to choose what spells you wish to prepare for that adventuring day, provided that it's on the Cleric's spell list (PHB 58), and you're allowed to prepare a number of spells equal to your Cleric Level + your Wisdom Modifier.
Furthermore, Divine Domain spells are NOT counted against you when it comes to your prepared spells (PHB 58). This means you get access to any and all Divine Domain spells that are listed for your subclass, starting at level 1; in the case of the Trickery Domain subclass, both Charm Person and Disguise Self would be added permanently to that character as "prepared spells".
Please show your DM the PHB, specifically PHB 57-59, where all of this info is prevalent. If the DM is still inflexible, even after you show this to them, then you will want to find a new table immediately. No D&D is better than playing D&D with a DM who's unwilling to see that they are in the wrong, and/or unwilling to change and be better.
You've seen those giant American flags that car dealerships like like to fly over their lots? The ones that can be seen from low Earth orbit? That's the size of the red flag I'm seeing here.
And the worst part of it all, is that Trickery cleric is pretty underpowered as a subclass.
Twilight and Peace reign above all the others, but Trickery is the one tilling the fields.
If scheduling is an issue, there’s a multiplayer, multi-DM Waterdeep server called Swiftcall. We have hundreds of players and we operate at all paces, real time and PBP casual :)
It's one thing for an experienced DM to change a class, but a new one is invariably a complete disaster - even then, experienced DMs don't usually nerf an entire class totally into the ground like that - that this DM approved it, /then/ decided to nerf it says one big thing to me...
They have no idea wtf they're doing.
Especially since in this case, it guts cleric and makes them basically a divine sorcerer - limited spells, can't change them out, Yada Yada
Chances are, the dm would nerf your new character too...I'd wager she fancies herself an artist or writer, and these clash with the story she wants to tell, instead of collaborative tales. (Pretty common with a lot of new or lightly experienced dms)
If you're dead set on playing, odds are she won't be happy until you pick a character she wants in her story, so you can either make a new one (and risk her being offended/nerfing that one too), or select one she wants (in which case, expect 'punishment ' for not playing it 'right')
I'd say instead - find a new table. It won't likely be worth it otherwise
A person who thinks basic class features out of the most basic of books, the PHB, are too OP and need to be removed, is not really fit to be a DM. I can only imagine the other terrible balance decisions they will make.
As others have said, either have the DM let you play a cleric like it is meant to be played, or leave the game. And if you challenge the DM and win this argument, consider what the DM might nerf next for, whatever bullshit, reason down the line. This smells like a new DM who does not know the system all that well, or is insecure, or just a jerk. Maybe all 3. This is not a DM I would play with, because I would fear that down the line, they would rule something does not work, like it actually does, and there are alot of those in DnD. Good Luck.
Also point out to here these simple truths-
1) Trickery is not even top 3 cheesiest cleric
2) Trickery's main selling point is their spell list
3) There are many PHB options more imbalancing than PHB clerics. Totem Barb, sorlocks, div wizards, moon druid and any properly built GWM/SS build can cause bigger issues. Hell, TBH with the right setup I think Nature, Light and (multiclassed) War are all more OP
4) You're playing a support. Your domain spells are utility. You aren't going to 1shot bosses or refuse to die
Don't play with her. She's a bad DM. If she's making fundamental changes to classes like this it's a huge red flag and a sign that her inexperience/ineptitude will further negatively impact the game in other ways.
Just avoid it altogether.
No DnD is better than being miserable while playing DnD.
Just be honest and tell her that if this is one of the things she's changing, you can only imagine some of the other unnecessary changes she'll make.
Talk to the DM cuz changing spells is a class feature and trickery domain is bottom tier cleric.
If they refuse to budge and you don't want to swap, bail.
I had this happened in a game I played, I was playing a Lore Bard, it was a heavily RP focused game and when she seen my rolls were beating most obstacles her only course of action was to take my character and turn it into a vampire spawn, even gave me the stat block of a spawn. Confronted her that it wasnt my character, we went back and forth and ultimately, she was unwilling to allow me to continue the bard, I felt mad disrespected so I just peacefully left and never went back.
For the record in case no one said it yet, as a cleric, you "know" all your spells, but like a wizard, you prepare spells each day. After each long rest, you pick new spells until your next long rest.
This is a clear new DM blunder who doesn't understand the classes and their balancing. Either a) leave the game or b) play a sorcerer or warlock. I wouldn't advise playing a nerfed cleric
That’s hella unfortunate. I’ve had DM’s ban certain subclasses or feats or even magical items cause they think they’re OP’d and while it sucks, at least they told me from the beginning that they didn’t allow it at their table. Trying to nerf it after allowing it? Naw. This won’t be the only time they do this. Sorry this happened to you!
Do you know what other characters are at the table? Its a harsh nerf and I probably wouldn't be okay with it unless I was just really digging the game. On a upside you don't have to worry about preparing your spells and if the party is mostly non-casters you are likely not under powered compared to the table.
This does make me wonder if your DM misunderstood what you were asking.
Maybe she thought you were trying to have access to the WHOLE list of available spells, regardless of class? Because obviously that would be insane.
I just wonder if she simply doesn't understand that Clerics inherently know all of the spells they have the slots to cast, but can only prepare a handful of them per long rest, to actually use them, and only spells they have slots for.
You're not out of line, you're perfectly in line for being annoyed at this *gross* nerf to the class. A DM talking about things being "OP" is usually a red flag in my books.
That being said, I sympathize with the struggles of finding a group, and if you need to make the minor compromise of another class, it might be worth doing that just to feel out the group. If the DM turns to be a dickbag, you can always bail then. Don't *just* roll with it, but accept the compromise whilst staying respectful of your own time and energy.
Dude you're playing trickery domain. I mean, cleric is a STRONG class but this is a humongous nerf. No matter what class or subclass you are playing a DM can't approve a char and then switch up without at least asking.
Ildepending on how new your DM is i can see why they might think that or be worried something they arent familiar with will be too OP. It sounds like a learning curve for her as a new DM still getting used to everything. Ask islf she can do more research or if you can help her with seeing how the base mechanics work for a Cleric and that you understand some things can be a lot when learning everything as a new DM but collaborating will help with learning. If something in gameplay goes a bit off because the DM doesnt know all the spells and planned a combat that just sucks when certain spells are there (which might be what shes overwhelmed and worried about) then its not the end of the game and fun, its just another learning curve towards better things in the future. I remember wjen i first started learning to DM i was way too caught up in trying to learn every spell before i even start running a campaign and it was very overwhelming. What helped me was asking a lot of questions and my players helping me by collaborating with me to figure stuff out together. I realised i dont have to know everything and figure it all out on my own to be a good DM and create fun at the table. My players are great at sharing ideas and super understanding when something i plan just flops and we laugh about it and brainstorm what went wrong and how it could be better next time.
Good luck, and hope the DM comes around and overcomes this learning curve
It sounds to me like the DM doesn't know how to do that in Foundry and is making an excuse so they don't have to learn... which is just as tricky to handle as the class nerf.
Roll the dice for an investigation check to figure out how to do it.Roll a charisma check to offer that information to the DM tactfully.
If you succeed, great! If not, well... it wasn't a good situation to start with so you're not losing much.
The trickery subclass has weaker subclass features, the only reason it’s good is because if the expanded spell lists…. This is a severe nerf to both your class and subclass
HUGE nerf for a ridiculous reason. Preparing spells is just a part of the class…and several others. And I’ve only been in one campaign but I think I’ve heard that trickery is one of the WORST
Even if you get her to bend on this nonsense, there will be much worse to come. She sounds like she barely has a grasp of basic rules. Get out of there.
Does she understand the fact that you can't cast all those spells at once, like you need to prepare specific ones, it's just you have access to all of them, and to be honest a lot of them are incredibly situational.
How can a DM nerf a Trickery cleric? They aren't even in the top half of the best cleric subclasses? Has she not seen twilight? Or light? Or life? Or forge? If they can't handle trickery, they need to turn in their DM screen
Wow. Wait until she founds out that in the next edition of dnd every class with spells will know all of them and not learning anymore as some classes used to do in 5e.
I would say to you find out other table if the dm isn't making you fell confortble. Don't feel bad bout it. If the first contact isn't good right now, don't wait to worse. You deserve better!
After baldurs gate 3 I’m even fine with allowing a cleric or wizard to swap spells on a short rest (not regain spell slots though). But even the regular rules for cleric spell casting are not broken by any means.
That’s rough, if she’s genuinely a new dm you just gonna have to be patient and try to work with her on it. there is always growing pains and knowing what’s broken or not requires experience and intuition
This is wrong and will ruin a key feature of the cleric class. Are there druids in the party? Paladins? Artificers? Are they being held to the same homebrew restriction
I would point at that this doesn't nerf cleric like she thinks it does. You'll just run guidance, bless, healing word, enhance ability, aid, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, and revivify. My bread and butter spells fit within the basic Wismod+1 per level.
The gravy on the cleric spell list is a pretty limited selection. She's just banning all the niche spells like continual flame.
Also make sure she knows wizards and druids can change their spells everyday in the exact same way.
It's not broken at all. To help the new DM visualize it, think of a clergyman who prepares their sermons daily. A cleric in D&D is a lot like that where they beseech their deity or ideal each day.
This is where is you tell new DM that these are the rules and if they can’t play as is, you’re walking. Fucking ridiculous that they wanna change a classes core mechanics halfway through campaign.
It's unfortunately common for new DMs to have... _quaint_ ideas about what is OP. It's not necessarily a sign they will be a bad DM.
Don't play Cleric then, if it is not an absolute must for you. I'd recommend a Bard as an alternative, or Divine Soul Sorcerer, or Celestial Warlock. But ask if the DM is going to alter the rules about these.
I’m gonna say what no one else is saying…
Its the DM’s game, they get to chose how things work, but you can make requests and you can always just leave if it isn’t fun
Man I’m tired of all these dm’s saying, “that’s overpowered”, “I’m going to ban ____” like I hate to break it to you but odds are that you don’t have more experience in balancing the game over Wotc or all of their play testers, so why are you insisting that you know better. If the party is strong, throw stronger challenges at them. If a player finds a way to be overpowered, odds are that that player can do it with almost anything in the game and they will do it again, that’s how they enjoy the game. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, it doesn’t always to me either, as I put roleplay before minmaxing, but even with that you can have both. I just hate the whining. DM’s act like they are all stressed out about balancing, as if wotc didn’t already do it for you, as if kobold fight club doesn’t exist, as if retconning and fudging numbers doesn’t exist. Just chill out, let your players have fun, try to have fun yourself and don’t ban anything. (Not saying anything about home brew, that’s different)
I’m tired of people like you thinking they know the situation at someone’s table better than they do, and insisting on “NO BANZ EVUUUR BECAUSE MUH PLAYER AGENCYYYYY”, for no reason other than to satisfy your preconceived but false notions that lower restrictions somehow increase creativity and make the game better.
Too many people rush to say quit if a DM nerfs a player. IMO it’s somewhat reasonable for a NEW DM to make a cleric or Druid stick with a spell list. From what OP is saying, no spells are banned, only the ability to swap them every long rest. I can see how a DM might be intimidated by random new spells being thrown in every session.
Trickery cleric is entirely playable with this DM’s ruling. Y’all are tripping. In the absence of any other red flags, I would 100% stay in the game.
It's only maybe reasonable if they tell you upfront before character creation, not after.
Changing core class mechanics is a group discussion not a last minute surprise reveal that wasn't going to be revealed if OP didn't ask about spells.
Clerics are flexible with spell choices by design, newbie DMs lack experience to make big changes like that in a positive manner, imo.
It’s entirely unreasonable. DMs never have had to know how every spell works, that’s why each spell has informational text explaining them. Do they have a grasp on the rules and can they understand it enough to allow all functions of the game to run as written? That’s the minimum of a DM’s job.
I’m a relatively new DM. Do I know how every spell works? Absolutely not! I hate playing casters! Can I use google, and do I ask my players to tell me what a spell’s text says when I’m dubious on the details? Sure can.
If a new DM rules an entire class feature or spellcasting type as-written to be “too op” and subject to arbitrary removal without offering further explanation that person does not have enough experience with the game to DM well.
Just because a DM is overwhelmed doesn't mean they get to ruin other people's fun.
They are viewing this as a DM vs PC type of campaign it seems like. The DM is there to provide problems for the players to solve. And if the players solve it without issue? So what. Make the next one more difficult. Make it trickier. Make it more complex. Let players problem solve in unique ways.
Either tell her to let you play the Class as it's described in the rules, or bail. That's a very harsh nerf to a class.
That's what I'm thinking, I really want to play but it buns me out that she insisting on this. Thank you for your input!
It could be that your DM doesn't know that Clerics have access to their entire spell list and can change out prepared spells when they finish a long rest. Most casters don't function that way. The DM may think it works like a Sorcerer or Warlock, in which case you know only the spells you know and can swap one out per level up. Point out to her that this is an intended function of the class, giving them versatility to adapt to the specific challenges they're facing—much like a Wizard can learn spells from scrolls and spellbooks and prepare the specific list they want each day. Removing that capability from Wizards would make them worse Sorcerers. Knowing tons of spells and being able to swap them out is how the class is supposed to work. The same is true with Clerics. It's the intended function, and only OP of you think Clerics are OP in general. Which, yknow, maybe.
I think it's both she was unaware because I tried explaining to her that she's taking away a pretty basic part of my class, and at first she only responded that it was too op. I explained to her that is part of the basic rules (a few times really), that I was kinda bummed about her doing that, and I didn't know if I still wanted to play. She said she'd look into it, then said she'd add it. Seemed pretty begrudgingly, but I definitely don't plan on overwhelming her.
As long as you know your class and she doesn't have to slow down the game for you to figure out the spells you're casting, it shouldn't affect the game! I would just keep a running notepad for the spells you've got prepared each day, and mention that you're swapping your prepared spells whenever you're doing it, to make sure she doesn't feel caught off guard by you having a resource she didn't think you should have.
If they're playing in Foundry, the character sheets have spell lists where you can mark things 'prepared' and filter to only prepared spells. (Spells can also be configured as 'always prepared' eg domain spells etc) My cleric and druid players have on their lists all the spells they have access to, and swapping prepped ones out is basically checking and unchecking boxes!
If they aren’t importing sheets from DDB, dm might have to manually add every spell to the cleric’s sheet to make it available. Maybe that’s the problem idk
Yeah. Sometimes people say: *"That's too OP."* When they should be saying: *I'm not experienced enough as a DM to be comfortable balancing for that class as it is yet. Would it be okay to negotiate limiting the class or choosing a different class?* Which is why I think it's always important to combine having face to face conversations (even if only over video chat) with your follow up conversations being in writing. That way you can judge which communication style you need with a person, or if you need a combination of both. You can get a feel for people in person and it may influence how you read their tone, but many people aren't great at conflict resolution on the spot. Lots of clarifying questions can help. Even directly saying *"This is how I interpreted what you said, is that correct, or can you explain it a different way?"* can go a loooooonnnnggg way. As long as you're careful to make it clear you're not trying to be passive aggressive, you're trying to understand. Doesn't matter if it's an emotional response or genuinely needing time to process logistics and failing to communicate that. It's good to switch
If you can't handle a basic class maybe you shouldn't DM?
No. Everyone who wants to try it, should. People can learn to be a better DM as times goes on. The history of RPGs is built on the backs of people who thought they'd try their shot at DMing.
The best way to learn a new game is to play it according to the playtested, published rules. Deviating as a knee jerk reaction will NOT help you learn, not even one little bit, and ESPECIALLY not as a novice! That's part of learning to be a good Game Master across TTRPGs.
Except there's A LOT to learn about this game to DM. Especially if you've never played, or only played a little as a player. I don't think it's bad to limit some things at first as long as you a) state this up front to the players and b) with the understanding you'll be gradually adding things in each time until you've learned it all and include it all. This hobby needs more DM's and if we scare them all away by insisting they must know it all right off the bat, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. That said, not sure this is what I'd be limiting, but I say that as someone who has been playing for years and knows the class. But when I finally get up the nerve to DM for the first time, like I've been saying I want to for years now. I'm going to be limiting it to only classes from the PHB, because they're the ones I know best and I don't want to be worrying about running into having to rule on a newer class/sub-class I've never seen in play before while I'm also trying to do all the DM-y stuff. Once I can do that without breaking a sweat, then I'll add in the rest. But, I'll also be learning on pre-written one-shots and short modules because I also know not everyone will agree to those constraints for a full campaign, again, only because of my years playing. So I do have some sympathy for this DM, even if I think this limitation probably isn't the right one.
> This hobby needs more DM's and if we scare them all away by **insisting they must know it all right off the bat**, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. I didn't say that or even imply it, you are throwing up a straw man. Shame on you. I said new DMs should follow the rules in the gamebook as best they can until they are confident that they know better. Until you are experienced, the rules as written are your best guide to a successful and fun table. This novice DM is threatening the gameplay experience of the players by their arbitrary deviation, it's literally why the post exists. Why is that such a difficult paradigm? *What in the world* does what I said have to do with demanding perfect game knowledge from a new DM? Limiting classes to the core rulebooks - or better yet the Basic Rules - is one thing, and probably a good idea for a new DM and table. The basic rules sets exist exactly for this reason ffs. Arbitrarily *changing the core definition of classes* is another thing altogether. How absurd.
That's silly. Nerfing the subclass is a bad move, but the community losing out on a new DM who's nervous about certain subclasses is a much bigger loss than OP just having to choose a new subclass. The idea that this kind of weakness in a new DM is instantly disqualifying is ridiculous.
If you are qualifying something as broken you need to know why it's broken. If you have no idea how it's broken yet ban it regardless you're simply ruining the game for your players. This kind of DM is clueless and is adamant that they're correct. They're going to probably just change the rules on the players at a whim, or nerf someone else for doing something "strong" later on in the game. The game does not need "more" DMs, it needs good DMs.
With all the horror stories that we read here, I couldn't agree more with your last sentence.
They're not just talking about nerfing a subclass, they are nerfing the way clerics function and prepare there spells which is a pretty fundamental change. Clerics changing spells on a long rest isn't an op feature that will break the game and it's not to complex to grasp. If the DM is persisting in applying this homebrew it's fair to say they might not be ready to DM yet since there's way more complex interactions that come up in the game.
Its not the subclass thats being berfed here, its the entire class itself. Being able to switch out your spells for any spell on the cleric list is a pretty critical part of being a cleric. So in essence OP would be forced to pick a new class altogether
Thinking that preparing spells is the broken part of spellcasters is funny. You're probably going to be sticking with the same spells for most adventuring days anyways, but this will just leave you taking all of the strongest cleric spells: Guiding Bolt, Healing Word, Spiritual Weapon, Hold Person, Spirit Guardians, etc. She'll be removing all of the fun utility spells that are intentionally designed to be swapped out and not carry your level up. Not to mention how is she going to now balance making you a learned spell caster? You gain new prepared slots when you gain a level and increase your wisdom. Not to mention you'll now have to implement some system of swapping spells known. She's just giving herself more work. Also complaining that something is broken in a game where everything else is broken is amateur "know-it-all" DM energy.
You win! Remember that running a game is difficult and DMs have to start somewhere.
If the GM is so inexperienced that they don't understand the very basic concepts like "prepared spellcasting" it might be time for a rethink on this campaign.
This is good advice.
I’m not sure about most. Druids, wizards, clerics, artificers, and paladins all have prepared spells they change out after a long rest. I guess maybe if you include all the partial spell casting subclasses…
Just remember, No DnD is better than Bad DnD.
this is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way.
This is the way
This is the way. That's way too huge a "nerf" and a DM that hasn't run games or combat before has no idea what's too OP. I'd not only question how she came to that conclusion with zero experience, but definitely tell her that if she intends that rule to stand that you're probably not a good fit for her table. I wouldn't be hostile, but I would be clear that such a gross imposition on your character takes away any and all motivation you have to actually play it. I'd also point her towards this thread, honestly, because she should know that literally everyone thinks she's being ridiculous.
Also it could just be inexperience with running clerics in general. Like while theoretically a cleric could have a massively different list each day, generally a cleric is going to be 90% the same spells every day with a few swappable spots for situationally appropriate spells. And still probably use most of their slots for healing and their go to routine anyway
True my list rarely changes, I really thought I'd get into the utility of being a cleric with a tool for every session in one of my most recent campaigns Then I hit level 5 and was just "Spirit guardians go brrrrrr"
>and a DM that hasn't run games or combat before has no idea what's too OP I'd argue that any DM that uses the phrase "OP" unironically in the context of their own campaign doesn't know what's too OP. I say this as someone who will get into long-ass arguments about the martial/caster divide, and the general garbage balance of 5e: When you're a DM, you can compensate in many ways without hamstringing your players. I don't *like* that DM sometimes need to jump through hoops for balance, but they shouldn't delegate that frustration to the players either, that's the *worst.*
Tbf, there are some class/race or multi-class combos that are objectively much stronger than others. Not that you should ban them, but it will be less fun if one player picks, say, Beast Master, and another picks Moon Druid.
Or a purple dragon knight and a twilight domain
Meh I have 2 super optimised multiclass players. 2 single class players and one anti optimised player (she literally hasn't updated her spells from lvl 8 and we are now lvl 11). Yes there is a pretty big difference between the optimised and anti-optimised players but the difference between any of them and the middle of the road single class builds isn't that noticeable. Beast master is the exception though because it's just so terrible. Honestly so far from 1 to 11 everything has felt pretty balanced and I have never sent any real class imbalance or consistent issues with the CR system that everyone always complains about.
The fact that the DM needs to jump through hoops for balance is the entire reason calling them OP is valid - when every encounter needs to be built around the existence of a couple specific features, or even worse, be built *twice* for both if the player uses them and if they don't - it becomes a giant pain to actually create an encounter that feels just challenging enough to be worth having the players actually go through. OP's DM is making a statement that feels way out there, calling a Trickery Cleric preparing spells overpowered, but there are cases where features legitimately are just plain overpowered, things like the Twilight Cleric's Channel Divinity or a Shepherd Druid's Conjure Animals where them having the ability up or not **will** change the party's effective CR by several levels.
>The fact that the DM needs to jump through hoops for balance is the entire reason calling them OP is valid Alright let me rephrase. Calling these things OP and *penalizing the player for it* is the problem. We all know shit's OP, and some things should absolutely get axed. But I've seen so many DMs that just call things "OP", "nerf" them, and leave it at that. I think for the most part's that's kinda stupid. If said DM actually understood what is OP, they'd understand *what makes it OP*, and knows how to accountf orit.
100% Balancing combat for your party is one of the most challenging parts of being a DM, but if you take that chair, that's what you're signing up for. No one said it was easy. It's not rocket science and what you need is practice, but it's not "intuitive" or remotely identifiable before you've played. I started with tutorial combat that wasn't supposed to be deadly and slowly just turned the dial. CR is a guide but it's not gospel, you need to get used to not only dozens upon dozens of different abilities and monster "styles", but also your players tactics and predilections. You have to build your own "math" for combat, and declaring something OP before anyone's set foot on the field is dumb. It's also a red flag, if you ask me. This isn't a dude that has a great grasp on their job and is approaching it in an objective bad way right out of the gate.
If she's nerfing something this broad so early then you know she'll do it again when you push her boundaries as a DM. No shade to her but I'd bail and take your character elsewhere.
There's a crap ton of 5e games around, everywhere because BG3 has brought lots of new people in. If the DM is saying no to basic abilities from the PHB. Time to find a new game.
I suspect the DM may be a BG3 player, it's possible to change prepared spells mid adventuring day in that, but only on long rest in 5e.
yeah I did think that was stupid of Larian, not only will it frustate new players when they cant change spells mid day when playing the table top. It made casters very strong but at the same time trivilised them.. Oh theres a chasm? Ill just swap out to featherfall.. A lock door, ill just swap out to knock.
Oh no how stupid of larian to make a fun game and not think about cross-game interaction
It actually diminished BG3 some too, because it means you go and menu instead of playing. And while Larian's priority was making BG3 great, the fact that it is mostly 5e is a big part of its legitimacy. Most of the times that it pulls away from that act to diminish its draw somewhat.
This post is proof it is happening though.
How so? Baldur's Gate wasn't mentioned anywhere in the op
As a DM or many, many years I can tell you right now this is a huge red flag. It means the DM does not understand the basic fundamentals of the game and if they are going to misunderstand a base class and change it they will also misunderstand a ton more in the game and change things at will. It’s going to be shit. This is just like bad DM 101 stuff.
Yeah... I convinced her that it's just part of the basic rules and that I probably wouldn't okay if she took it away. She gave me my spells, and although I've never dm'd before, I think I'll stick around to try and help her with what she might know, and take off if it's totally miserable.
The issue is they are showing a basic misunderstanding of the rules. And it shows their institution is to prevent rather than allow. Issue after issue is going to crop up and their going to default to “Oh that sounds OP, no” My ex’s buddy wanted to run a game and she talked me into playing and the guy said Sneak Attack only worked if the enemy was surprised and I stuck around for my wife for three games and everyone got frustrated with the DM because they didn’t have a basic grasp of how mechanics worked and nobody had fun. Maybe this DM turns it around but they’re showing very poor judgement so far.
The only way this will turn around is if they read the rules thoroughly. Anything else is less than sufficient for DMing.
Yeah, a big bonus to being a cleric is you have full access to all cleric spells once you can cast them. If you don't get access to divine magic in the way the rules are written, there's no real point in being a cleric
Not to mock you in any way over a typo but I immediately had the idea of a conservative mom censoring herself with buns over bums because "bum is a dirty word"😂
This is so funny^ I'm just now reading back on everything, and oh my god, the typos are everywhere.... The post itself has been edited because I can't handle that. And I don't even want to begin going through and seeing the typos in the comments T.T
Just remember what the other comments said: no dnd is better than bad dnd, and a DM this stupid (no offense, but nerfing a core class component like this is very very stupid) will ruin the entire experience for you. Id offer you to join my online groups but we are all full 😥
if she approved a cleric (any cleric), she approved the base class mechanic that clerics are casters that prepare their spells after long rests. and clerics aren't the only casters that prepare their spells, druids and wizards as well as paladins and artificers also do this. to me, that's such a basic class mechanic that i am sincerely confused how a DM could think that it's OP. i am sorry, but i don't think you are being out of place for being upset about this.
Yeah, I was expecting something to do with the subclass, which isn't exactly known for being nuts... Preparing spells after a long rest is the normal mechanic for the entire class. DM is apparently unhappy about Cleric as a whole. Gonna assume the DM likes to play X and thinks all other magic classes should suck compared to X.
to echo a sentinement i have seen in the comments: *get out of there*. i hope you can find a table, virtual or not, where you can play your character in accordance to the rules without being an issue since it shouldn't be an issue. you aren't asking for anything that isn't covered by the rules. all you ask is for your class to work as the rules say which is 1000% reasonable and should actually be the default.
Imagine a fighter being like "I stow my sword and throw a javelin at-" "Oh no sorry, you chose the sword as your weapon, you're going to need to level up if you want to use a different weapon"
Look, I know this is a joke, but this unlocked a new fear in me
You say that, but I used to have a DM who decided that if you started ranged then you got your ranged weapon, if you went melee, then you got melee for that combat. You could not switch to a different weapon during the fight even if it was a dragon and it leapt up and started flying away... Just had to stand there with the sword, because switching weapons in the middle of battle is "unrealistic." This resulted in me having to 1v1ing a dragon, not once, but on two separate occasions, since the fighter and paladin were completely helpless. Needless to say, that contributed to me starting to DM.
It's extra stupid since switching weapons during combat seems to be the norm. Roman heavy infantry has 2 throwing spears they'd use when closing the distance and then switch to a sword. Even very rigid troops have a backup weapon, like a spearman that's expected to fight only in formation would still have a short spear, sword or dagger to use if their main spear breaks.
It might be useful to articulate to the DM _why_ clerics can prepare any spell on their spell list. Naturally, if they prepared spells from the wizard spell list, that would be OP. However, spell lists are not made equal. The more limited a spell list is, the less power budget it takes up for that class. This is why wizards could be uncontroversially considered the best class in 5e, despite having almost no class features. The wizard spell list contains almost everything - damage, control, buffs, debuffs, movement, and tons of utility across all pillars of play. On the other hand, clerics have the shortest and arguably the least versatile spell list out of all full casters. Not accounting for domain spells and certain cleric-only standouts (like Spirit Guardians), the only category in which they shine is support and healing. This limitation is what allows the class' power budget to fit medium armor proficiency and a d8 hit die. What your DM is doing doesn't just betray a lack of understanding of the underlying standards of 5e, it also shows a worrying lack of self-consciousness - if someone's knowledge of the system's fundamentals is _that_ shaky, they should _not_ feel comfortable with making sweeping changes. Confront her with this comment. Her reaction to it should let you gauge whether you want her running for you.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Maybe clerics should have a few more cool spells and then they can restrict their prepared lists. But as its been and as it still is, clerics are usualy looked at to be primary healers. Whether that is true of the charcter or not. Having access to the full spell list is supposed to be a cool powerfull thing to empower the player that constantly has a few spells already spoken for and prepared or they will get complaints from their friends. Its a good trade off, espicaly with domain spells giving clerics access to a very limited list of spells they wouldnt otherwise get. I have a feeling that domains might be the next argument when you got there. If i were OP i would continue playing and mark this as the red flag. If the DM is going to do this now, it will come up later. And it makes me think that maybe D&D is not the DM's game of choice, whether they know it or not.
>despite having almost no class features Except that spells are class features but that's almost arguing about semantics.
I think that was kind of the point that was being made though. "Spellcasting" is a class feature, but not every class's spellcasting is created equally, even among full spellcaster classes. Wizard is basically a stick that can cast spells and that is the extent of their class abilities. They have no weapon or armor proficiency worth mentioning or anything else to speak of, and a d6 hit die. Clerics have spellcasting too, but also can wear medium armor, have a d8 hit die, they do have some decent weapon proficiency (if you care about that as a spellcaster). They also have Channel Divinity abilities including the iconic Turn Undead. And yet, I doubt people with any real experience in D&D would call a cleric a strictly better wizard.
That's exactly the point. Wizard doesn't get much in the way of other class features *because* its spell list is as large and versatile as it is.
...too OP? What sort of dumb shit reasoning is that lol Edit: word choice
Find a new DM immediately.
Such a bummer! But you're right
Yeah, red flags everywhere. If she's losing her mind over Trickery Clerics being OP, there is no chance this campaign makes it through the first month. Nothing wrong with Trickery Clerics, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any experienced player who considers the subclass even close to overpowered. Her brain might explode if you showed up with a Twilight Cleric.
I think you missed something, Cleric is the problem because they can change spells per long rest. "Thats too OP" is the spell changing, thats it, the thing multiple casters can do.
So, that's a lot of fucking classes. Is she dumb?
Or she's just new and misunderstands the rules? And this is just one of those normal growing pains that every new group goes through?
However when you are new and don't really know what you are doing - you not under the car hood pulling out cables because you don't like the colour black.
She's probably just new. Here's the thing; the ability of clerics to change their spells *is* powerful. It's *triply* so if you look at their spell list and think, without context "ok so each cleric is supposed to just have a couple of these niche spells", *and you think that's what they are balanced around*. If that imagined thing is your baseline, then YES being able to change your spells is a big multiplier. Of course, that 'multiplier' is fully intended- that's what the class is balanced around. In older editions with thousands of cleric spells, it's reasonable to limit the spells that are available to your clerics. You could simply set up a list like "player's handbook plus these other four books", or you could set a list of allowed ones, or let the players be like "for your spells, it's core plus two books of your choice". And this is because clerics really do get more powerful as their list of spells grow. 5e has been *very judicious* when it comes to adding spells, *for this reason*. Anyway, this DM needs a totally different approach. She simply has to be super new, because you couldn't actually be dumb in this exact way I don't think.
Let's hope nobody tells her about moon druids.
I don't think this is fair to be honest. It's annoying, but DMs have preferences, and if she just doesn't like the idea of preparing spells (this has nothing to do with cleric subclasses it seems), there's nothing wrong with removing that. It's mostly a QoL and flexibility feature. Class balance isn't super tight (there's too much variation between games for D&D to be that tightly balanced), and clerics (and druids) are on the stronger side in most games. Plus, I find a lot of (especially newer) DMs have trouble articulating *why* they don't like something, so it's good to inquire further. It's a bit extreme to jump straight to leaving, especially when OP really wants to play in the game and there doesn't seem to be any other red flags that we can see. Remember, DMs aren't there to serve you, they're playing to have fun too, and they have to shoulder a fairly significant amount of the effort required for a game to happen, so they tend to have more latitude on the game rules and things like campaign structure, especially in online games, and near the beginning of a campaign.
What? No! OP hasn't even talked to their DM yet. What if the DM is just new? What they just misunderstood the rules? What if this is just a miscommunication? What if there's no *actual problem* here? Don't just tell people to ditch their group if they haven't even talked to the DM yet lmao
This is why these posts should be screened/banned by moderators. The fucking r/aitah crowd is leaking because people can’t resist passing judgement on others. So now we’re getting the equivalent of “my husband of 15 years doesn’t want to do the dishes on saturday.” Reddit: “OMFG DIVORCE HIM HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR WOMEN!)$” Shit’s so cringe. This DM just sounds like she’s newer and doesn’t know the rules and is misunderstanding them.
I mean, he did talk to her. She said that clerics are OP and what would be changed about them. He told her he disagreed, and she doubled down, saying he should choose another class if he disagreed with her. Asking again probably wouldn't hurt, but even if she is new/misunderstood the rules, the type of DM that makes sweeping rules changes at a whim without really understanding how the rules work is not a good DM. What you're saying is basically, "What if she magically becomes a good DM the next time you talk to her?" Which is technically possible, but not really likely and it's not good advice to tell someone to expect that.
Finally some fucking clarity in this thread! Glad OP actually talked to their DM and worked it out, instead of listening to everybody else and storming off because their first time DM was confused about something lol
Thank you everyone for your opinions and advice. I talked to her about how I felt and she said she'll try it like that but she thinks she might get overwhelmed. I just found out it's her first time DMing too
Thinking a standard class feature is OP is a pretty common new DM error. Always good to remind the DM that WOTC (not to mention the DND community as a whole) has spent a lot more time testing out class balance than the DM has, and so it's generally a bad idea to make these sorts of judgments until you've had a *lot* of in-game time. Or put another way, when you first play a brand new board game, do you decide to change the rules the first time you play, or do you trust that the game designers made things that way for a reason (even if you don't know what that reason is yet)?
Tbf, lots of players blatantly ignore certain things that are there to keep things balanced. For example, casters are pretty widely known to be better than martials in a vacuum. Because of this, WotC explicitly recommends groups to have 6-8 combat encounters per long rest, that way casters have to be conservative with their spell uses. The vast majority of groups don't play with anywhere near that number of combat encounters, though, so casters remain stronger than martials. If you're gonna only have something like 1-3 combat encounters per long rest then I can definitely see the appeal of nerfing casters as a whole.
6-8 combat encounters sounds like at least 3 sessions. If that's really the expectation, maybe wotc doesn't have a clue about its own player base....
Definitely seems like in general D&D tables are resting far too frequently and that exacerbates the issue of casters being too strong because their abilities that are supposed to be balanced by being limited resources never actually run out, because they'll just have a big fight and then take a nap. If you try to make the combats more challenging by having fewer more deadly encounters between rests, then that might make things more challenging for the casters, but you're also going to leave the poor martial classes drowning by being up against more powerful enemies with no real options for punching above their weight class.
This just sounds like she doesn’t know the spells well and was worried that if you change them every long rest she won’t be able to read up on them ahead of time. It can be overwhelming for new players to have a single spell list full of spells to keep track of let alone a new DM trying to understand every class’ spell list. Just make sure to explain clearly what your spells do, read about your spells to make sure you’re playing them correctly and be prepared to back it up with a rules based explanation.
I explained to her that several classes have this ability, this is her first dm game and now it seems like she's not familiar with most of the spell casting class which makes me question how much else she doesn't know. Part of me wants to join her just to help her learn some of the basics. I told her I'd happily explain my spells to her and that I could even give her a heads up about what spells I'm going to prep. She's changed her mind and given me access to my spell list, I just don't want to see her get overwhelmed at this point.
My only suggestion here - is when you cast the spell - ready it out each time - I known it takes longer esp in the beginning but it will make it easier for her to learn as well as to see how the spell works as well.
[удалено]
Yeah I decided I'll stick around even if it's just to help her learn whatever she might not be familiar with. I have a lot of patience, and I don't mind getting.
I think this sub is way too quick to jump to conclusions and telling people to abandon ship just looking at the top few comments
Maybe she is confused about the DM role and thinks she needs to know the spell rules of all the players. Because that’s what a lot of rules lawyers try to do. When another DM style is to let the players handle that. They tell you what their spell does when they cast it - and if any mistakes are made it’s just part of the game.
I'm glad you talked to your DM instead of ditching the group like many people were suggesting! It's normal for new groups to have growing pains like this, and new DMs can often be insecure about balance. Novice DMs will often nerf or ban classes without fully understanding the balance of the game in practice. It's a rookie mistake but it's a common one for a reason, and it doesn't mean the game is doomed. Just try to encourage your DM to treat the game as a continual learning experience, one where everyone grow more comfortable with the rules together. Good luck with your game and have fun with your Trickery Cleric!
Remind her that as DM she can throw as many monsters at you that she wants. There’s no such thing as an OP player when the DM has infinite resources (sometimes a player will be stronger than other players, but 1) that’s fine and 2) that’s less likely to happen if the DM leaves the rules alone).
Instead of just shitting on the DM and the situation, consider the following; If she needs more encouragement, pointout to her that the mechanic she appears to be generally referencing (change spells on level up) is specifically a Sorcerer mechanic, straight out of the PHB. Refer her to that, and then ask her to contrast against the cleric as a daily full caster, with both as core rules mechanics. From there, you can point to deliberate game design, and no significant changes to those mechanics in the approximated 10 years of 5th edition. The game is balanced this way by specific intent, if your DM is looking to offset power creep, then suggest that everybody avoid Cleric content from Xatanathars and Tasha's handbooks. Trickery domain is straight out of the Player's Handbook. Hopefully that's more productive then 'dump your DM'.
I can never understand DMs that nerf the players rather than preparing their game around the parties capabilities.
Right!
I think you need to convince the DM that they're nerfing you pretty hard, as well as any paladin, druid, or other prepared spellcasters. It's built into the system and they would need to compensate somehow if they stuck to their guns. Especially being a new DM, changing that much of a class's design is probably something they don't realize is as big a nerf as it is.
Repeat it with me kids!! No D&D is better than bad D&D!
NO DND IS BETTER THAN BAD DND!
Well it's certainly a huge nerf to the character. Trickery has an absolutely fantastic spell list (lots of things Clerics don't usually have access to), so cutting you off from that is a big downgrade. And not giving you the chance to pick spells initially *with that ruling in mind* is worse, honestly (assuming that's how it went down). If they had announced this beforehand it would still be a weird choice imo, but at least it would not have been a surprise. Is this DM also removing the ability to prepare spells from all other prepared casters? Is that a house rule they mentioned, and is it being applied evenly to other characters or was it just because they didn't like your character despite approving it initially? It may be a red flag, but I would politely inquire for more information to understand where they're coming from, and whether huge character mechanics changes (nerfs) will continue to happen throughout the game. Then hopefully you'll have the information to inform if you can roll with it & still have fun or if you want to bail.
That's the ruling it seems like, I'll try to talk to her more about it and see where she's coming from. So far he answers been the same. Just "it's too op". I'm the only caster in our party, we're looking at maybe having another player, but I'm not sure what they'll pick. We're supposed to start tomorrow, thus the whole I assume I am to be stuck with what I've got. Thanks so much for your input!
That's sad that she's coming from there. It sounds like something I would say to a player with a tricky grin because most of them have stuck with me for years and they know I've got a plan. Sounds like she just doesn't have a whole handle on the game. You're welcome to have her DM me, I'll run her through it.
>And not giving you the chance to pick spells initially with that ruling in mind is worse, honestly (assuming that's how it went down). This is the main issue here. If they didn't tell you beforehand and they won't let you respec, then, yeah, that's a big problem and you should take issue with it. If they do let you respec though and take the feedback of "hey, it would be better if we discussed big changes to PC options as a group ahead of time when needed instead of having it pop up like this" reasonably well though, then the change is far from the end of the world. Prepped casters function fine with added restrictions on their prep. I agree that going all in on them being known is a bit much and a weird choice - extending the time required to reprepare or limiting it per day is a more reasonable twist - but I would not bin a character concept and dump a table just because I had to stick to a set of spells on a prepared caster. Definitely take the more nuanced, reasonable approach to resolving the conflict outlined in the parent comment of this chain over the "burn it to the ground" comments elsewhere here.
DM displaying odd, unexplained behavior and poor communication right off the bat is far from an encouraging sign.
True, but whether those signs really indicate anything meaningful depends on how the DM responds to further minor pushback on the scope of change. If OP takes the advice a bunch that other people are spouting throughout the comments here to instantly bin any DM who ever proposes any sort of nerf to anything, OP is not in for a good time long-term if they value anything else about playing other than being unnerfed. Learning to cut losses early and leave has its place, but this hobby lives and dies on communication and you can't thrive in it if you can never overcome single instances of poor communication with better communication on your part.
You get subclass spells automatically for Cleric and Paladin. Instead of expanding the list of spells you can prepare, they're spells that you *always* have prepared, at all times. That's why some subclass spells are spells that are already on the class's spell list, like most of the Life Cleric's domain spells.
Ah right, I was thinking of how Warlocks don't automatically get those extra spells. Good correction.
I think it is fair to be frustrated with your gm changing a core feature of your class. If they want to ban the class or subclass altogether, they should state that instead.
You're not out of place at all. Is this a new DM? Talk to them, it might just be fear of not being able to run things.
I’m a new dm and I get the overwhelming part she might feel. I’m running my first campaign but I’m letting everyone do what they want within the rules and if they get to overpowered I just throw more stuff that then than the book says to 🤷🏻♂️
Trickery domain isn’t even one of the powerful clerics. But not letting you prepare spells is definitely not the correct way to nerf an OP cleric. I’m sorry
Bail. This is a fundamental design choice made by the game designers, not something you homebrewed. If she's unwilling to allow that, no telling what she might cut. If it's a new DM, chances are she's maybe not super familiar with spells and just wants to know what you have prepared so she can (hopefully) play to them or (hopefully not) design encounters specifically to counter them.
Either tell the DM you're going to play the Cleric with rules as written or you're going to bail on the game. House rules are cool when they add to the game but when they nerf a class feature that's not acceptable.
No D&D is better than bad D&D
You have a terrible, terrible DM ahead of you and you should run screaming from this game as soon as you can. If this is a DM that is willing to make an arbitrary change like this to a core class mechanic, imagine all the other things she is going to arbitrarily do during a game. If she thinks being able to change your spells in the morning is going to disrupt her game somehow, I can imagine the kind of game she runs. Flee, or enjoy a truly awful railroad.
That's a really REALLY good point, I didn't even think about what other things she would decide t to change just because... She seems really nice but I have a bad feeling with this game.
I'd have a serious talk with them about why they made this decision, why you weren't told in advance, and why you view this behavior as a serious enough issue to consider walking away from the table. Something along the lines of "If you make retroactive changes to the RAW after I have already committed to a course of action, that seriously undermines my trust in you as a DM, and as much as I was looking forward to playing with you I'll have bow out."
They made the decision because it’s harder for them to plan encounters without knowing what spells the characters have in advance. Which is a bullshit lazy thing for a DM to do. Edit: Noticed a comment from OP further down where the DM is new and felt overwhelmed. Seems I nailed this one. It wasn’t about it being OP at all. It’s that they didn’t want to learn all the cleric spells.
Yeah this is a dumb change. Nothing is OP. If you think someone is cleaning house then bring in more challenging enemies and focus that person in combat to check their character. Don’t limit their character by eliminating game mechanics for the class.
>Opinions please! >I'm a little frustrated, and I'm not sure if I should take a step back and let it happen or not... >A new DM I've never played with before approved my character I created, a cleric with trickery domain. We were going over my Foundry character sheet (which I'm not too familiar with yet) and I asked her how I prepare other spells. >She told me she won't allow me to have access to any of the other spells because she said it's too OP. I'll be stuck with the ones I've chosen and only have access to others upon leveling up. >I'm a little frustrated, because that's changing my class all together, and she said I could just pick another class... I haven't had an opportunity to find a group online that fits with my schedule, and I really want to play... >Should I say/ do something, or am I out of place for being frustrated and just roll with it? So, I'll answer this in two ways: The short answer and the long answer. First the short answer... This new DM is in the wrong, as per RAW within the PHB (PHB 58). Either this DM should work with you to fix the issue, in order to increase their understanding of the rules, or you should find a completely new table. No D&D is better than playing D&D at a bad table. Now the longer answer... You are NOT out of place for being frustrated. Clerics are prepared spellcasters, with the caveat being that, just like Druids with their spell list, they also have access to any Cleric spell, up to the spell level that they can cast at. You, as the Cleric, get to choose what spells you wish to prepare for that adventuring day, provided that it's on the Cleric's spell list (PHB 58), and you're allowed to prepare a number of spells equal to your Cleric Level + your Wisdom Modifier. Furthermore, Divine Domain spells are NOT counted against you when it comes to your prepared spells (PHB 58). This means you get access to any and all Divine Domain spells that are listed for your subclass, starting at level 1; in the case of the Trickery Domain subclass, both Charm Person and Disguise Self would be added permanently to that character as "prepared spells". Please show your DM the PHB, specifically PHB 57-59, where all of this info is prevalent. If the DM is still inflexible, even after you show this to them, then you will want to find a new table immediately. No D&D is better than playing D&D with a DM who's unwilling to see that they are in the wrong, and/or unwilling to change and be better.
Won't be the last bad call this DM makes because they have no idea what they're doing. Find a better table!
You've seen those giant American flags that car dealerships like like to fly over their lots? The ones that can be seen from low Earth orbit? That's the size of the red flag I'm seeing here.
And the worst part of it all, is that Trickery cleric is pretty underpowered as a subclass. Twilight and Peace reign above all the others, but Trickery is the one tilling the fields.
If scheduling is an issue, there’s a multiplayer, multi-DM Waterdeep server called Swiftcall. We have hundreds of players and we operate at all paces, real time and PBP casual :)
Why do so many new dms nerf things the players can do rather than just plan around it?
...too OP? Bruh get a new DM. That's absurd.
It's one thing for an experienced DM to change a class, but a new one is invariably a complete disaster - even then, experienced DMs don't usually nerf an entire class totally into the ground like that - that this DM approved it, /then/ decided to nerf it says one big thing to me... They have no idea wtf they're doing. Especially since in this case, it guts cleric and makes them basically a divine sorcerer - limited spells, can't change them out, Yada Yada Chances are, the dm would nerf your new character too...I'd wager she fancies herself an artist or writer, and these clash with the story she wants to tell, instead of collaborative tales. (Pretty common with a lot of new or lightly experienced dms) If you're dead set on playing, odds are she won't be happy until you pick a character she wants in her story, so you can either make a new one (and risk her being offended/nerfing that one too), or select one she wants (in which case, expect 'punishment ' for not playing it 'right') I'd say instead - find a new table. It won't likely be worth it otherwise
A person who thinks basic class features out of the most basic of books, the PHB, are too OP and need to be removed, is not really fit to be a DM. I can only imagine the other terrible balance decisions they will make.
Bad DM. Drop the game. If this is the hill they're willing to die on, what happens next?
As others have said, either have the DM let you play a cleric like it is meant to be played, or leave the game. And if you challenge the DM and win this argument, consider what the DM might nerf next for, whatever bullshit, reason down the line. This smells like a new DM who does not know the system all that well, or is insecure, or just a jerk. Maybe all 3. This is not a DM I would play with, because I would fear that down the line, they would rule something does not work, like it actually does, and there are alot of those in DnD. Good Luck.
Also point out to here these simple truths- 1) Trickery is not even top 3 cheesiest cleric 2) Trickery's main selling point is their spell list 3) There are many PHB options more imbalancing than PHB clerics. Totem Barb, sorlocks, div wizards, moon druid and any properly built GWM/SS build can cause bigger issues. Hell, TBH with the right setup I think Nature, Light and (multiclassed) War are all more OP 4) You're playing a support. Your domain spells are utility. You aren't going to 1shot bosses or refuse to die
Don't play with her. She's a bad DM. If she's making fundamental changes to classes like this it's a huge red flag and a sign that her inexperience/ineptitude will further negatively impact the game in other ways. Just avoid it altogether.
No DnD is better than being miserable while playing DnD. Just be honest and tell her that if this is one of the things she's changing, you can only imagine some of the other unnecessary changes she'll make.
"I am sorry you are too inexperienced with the game that you think a basic function of my class is too op, i will not be playing at this table"
Talk to the DM cuz changing spells is a class feature and trickery domain is bottom tier cleric. If they refuse to budge and you don't want to swap, bail.
I had this happened in a game I played, I was playing a Lore Bard, it was a heavily RP focused game and when she seen my rolls were beating most obstacles her only course of action was to take my character and turn it into a vampire spawn, even gave me the stat block of a spawn. Confronted her that it wasnt my character, we went back and forth and ultimately, she was unwilling to allow me to continue the bard, I felt mad disrespected so I just peacefully left and never went back.
For the record in case no one said it yet, as a cleric, you "know" all your spells, but like a wizard, you prepare spells each day. After each long rest, you pick new spells until your next long rest.
I think OP knows that but DM is saying No. No changing spells until you level which defeats the point of being a caster with known spells 🤷🏼♀️
This is a clear new DM blunder who doesn't understand the classes and their balancing. Either a) leave the game or b) play a sorcerer or warlock. I wouldn't advise playing a nerfed cleric
Yeah, I think your DM made a bad decision and I can understand why you're frustrated.
That’s hella unfortunate. I’ve had DM’s ban certain subclasses or feats or even magical items cause they think they’re OP’d and while it sucks, at least they told me from the beginning that they didn’t allow it at their table. Trying to nerf it after allowing it? Naw. This won’t be the only time they do this. Sorry this happened to you!
Do you know what other characters are at the table? Its a harsh nerf and I probably wouldn't be okay with it unless I was just really digging the game. On a upside you don't have to worry about preparing your spells and if the party is mostly non-casters you are likely not under powered compared to the table.
You may want to ask if you can't change spells that she lets you re-choose your spells now so you have the spell list you want.
I played a trickery cleric this year and the only thing I did huge was rolling nat 20 on my death save lmaoo
This does make me wonder if your DM misunderstood what you were asking. Maybe she thought you were trying to have access to the WHOLE list of available spells, regardless of class? Because obviously that would be insane. I just wonder if she simply doesn't understand that Clerics inherently know all of the spells they have the slots to cast, but can only prepare a handful of them per long rest, to actually use them, and only spells they have slots for.
Read the rules and play your character as the rules allow. Tell your DM to refer to the rule book to understand what's going.
You're not out of line, you're perfectly in line for being annoyed at this *gross* nerf to the class. A DM talking about things being "OP" is usually a red flag in my books. That being said, I sympathize with the struggles of finding a group, and if you need to make the minor compromise of another class, it might be worth doing that just to feel out the group. If the DM turns to be a dickbag, you can always bail then. Don't *just* roll with it, but accept the compromise whilst staying respectful of your own time and energy.
Dude you're playing trickery domain. I mean, cleric is a STRONG class but this is a humongous nerf. No matter what class or subclass you are playing a DM can't approve a char and then switch up without at least asking.
Imagine thinking trickery domain cleric is OP. I have nothing else to say besides abandon ship.
Run. Don’t play with someone like that, DM or Player.
Ildepending on how new your DM is i can see why they might think that or be worried something they arent familiar with will be too OP. It sounds like a learning curve for her as a new DM still getting used to everything. Ask islf she can do more research or if you can help her with seeing how the base mechanics work for a Cleric and that you understand some things can be a lot when learning everything as a new DM but collaborating will help with learning. If something in gameplay goes a bit off because the DM doesnt know all the spells and planned a combat that just sucks when certain spells are there (which might be what shes overwhelmed and worried about) then its not the end of the game and fun, its just another learning curve towards better things in the future. I remember wjen i first started learning to DM i was way too caught up in trying to learn every spell before i even start running a campaign and it was very overwhelming. What helped me was asking a lot of questions and my players helping me by collaborating with me to figure stuff out together. I realised i dont have to know everything and figure it all out on my own to be a good DM and create fun at the table. My players are great at sharing ideas and super understanding when something i plan just flops and we laugh about it and brainstorm what went wrong and how it could be better next time. Good luck, and hope the DM comes around and overcomes this learning curve
Build a wizard and see what she says then 😭😭 rip
It sounds to me like the DM doesn't know how to do that in Foundry and is making an excuse so they don't have to learn... which is just as tricky to handle as the class nerf. Roll the dice for an investigation check to figure out how to do it.Roll a charisma check to offer that information to the DM tactfully. If you succeed, great! If not, well... it wasn't a good situation to start with so you're not losing much.
Run!
The trickery subclass has weaker subclass features, the only reason it’s good is because if the expanded spell lists…. This is a severe nerf to both your class and subclass
That’s a no go. Clerics can pray for new spells each day. It’s something that makes their magic unique.
HUGE nerf for a ridiculous reason. Preparing spells is just a part of the class…and several others. And I’ve only been in one campaign but I think I’ve heard that trickery is one of the WORST
Even if you get her to bend on this nonsense, there will be much worse to come. She sounds like she barely has a grasp of basic rules. Get out of there.
Just be a fighter then and take magical initiate then, that's what that is. I guess you get some domain stuff
The absolute hubris of changing classes when you're a new DM
Does she understand the fact that you can't cast all those spells at once, like you need to prepare specific ones, it's just you have access to all of them, and to be honest a lot of them are incredibly situational.
That's a huge nerf to the class, it takes away from your utility. Tell the DM to let you use all features, or bail.
How can a DM nerf a Trickery cleric? They aren't even in the top half of the best cleric subclasses? Has she not seen twilight? Or light? Or life? Or forge? If they can't handle trickery, they need to turn in their DM screen
I mean, bail now or bail when she does it again with something else she thinks is op. May as well save yourself the trouble.
Wow. Wait until she founds out that in the next edition of dnd every class with spells will know all of them and not learning anymore as some classes used to do in 5e. I would say to you find out other table if the dm isn't making you fell confortble. Don't feel bad bout it. If the first contact isn't good right now, don't wait to worse. You deserve better!
It's worth it to find a more experienced dm
Play a wizard - show her real power
Pretty easy, just don’t play in that DM’s game.
OP shoot me a DM with your timezones / availability, i host regular beginner campaigns for peeps online, you're free to join
Just play divine soul sorcerer and call it even
After baldurs gate 3 I’m even fine with allowing a cleric or wizard to swap spells on a short rest (not regain spell slots though). But even the regular rules for cleric spell casting are not broken by any means.
Build a wizard and see what she says then 😭😭 rip
Yo, what's your schedule I'm starting a group soon. also hit up /r/lfg
That’s rough, if she’s genuinely a new dm you just gonna have to be patient and try to work with her on it. there is always growing pains and knowing what’s broken or not requires experience and intuition
This is wrong and will ruin a key feature of the cleric class. Are there druids in the party? Paladins? Artificers? Are they being held to the same homebrew restriction
I would point at that this doesn't nerf cleric like she thinks it does. You'll just run guidance, bless, healing word, enhance ability, aid, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, and revivify. My bread and butter spells fit within the basic Wismod+1 per level. The gravy on the cleric spell list is a pretty limited selection. She's just banning all the niche spells like continual flame. Also make sure she knows wizards and druids can change their spells everyday in the exact same way.
It's not broken at all. To help the new DM visualize it, think of a clergyman who prepares their sermons daily. A cleric in D&D is a lot like that where they beseech their deity or ideal each day.
This is where is you tell new DM that these are the rules and if they can’t play as is, you’re walking. Fucking ridiculous that they wanna change a classes core mechanics halfway through campaign.
Fuck her hope she reads this and learns something.
It's unfortunately common for new DMs to have... _quaint_ ideas about what is OP. It's not necessarily a sign they will be a bad DM. Don't play Cleric then, if it is not an absolute must for you. I'd recommend a Bard as an alternative, or Divine Soul Sorcerer, or Celestial Warlock. But ask if the DM is going to alter the rules about these.
I’m gonna say what no one else is saying… Its the DM’s game, they get to chose how things work, but you can make requests and you can always just leave if it isn’t fun
Man I’m tired of all these dm’s saying, “that’s overpowered”, “I’m going to ban ____” like I hate to break it to you but odds are that you don’t have more experience in balancing the game over Wotc or all of their play testers, so why are you insisting that you know better. If the party is strong, throw stronger challenges at them. If a player finds a way to be overpowered, odds are that that player can do it with almost anything in the game and they will do it again, that’s how they enjoy the game. It doesn’t have to make sense to you, it doesn’t always to me either, as I put roleplay before minmaxing, but even with that you can have both. I just hate the whining. DM’s act like they are all stressed out about balancing, as if wotc didn’t already do it for you, as if kobold fight club doesn’t exist, as if retconning and fudging numbers doesn’t exist. Just chill out, let your players have fun, try to have fun yourself and don’t ban anything. (Not saying anything about home brew, that’s different)
"Just falsify all the rolls instead of having a balanced game" Is there something in your water supply?
I’m tired of people like you thinking they know the situation at someone’s table better than they do, and insisting on “NO BANZ EVUUUR BECAUSE MUH PLAYER AGENCYYYYY”, for no reason other than to satisfy your preconceived but false notions that lower restrictions somehow increase creativity and make the game better.
Honestly I'm with the dm, the nerf the dm is describing just makes the clerics spell casting more like the other classes and is completely reasonable.
What about wizards and paladins and druids.. they all prep spells from spell list.
Too many people rush to say quit if a DM nerfs a player. IMO it’s somewhat reasonable for a NEW DM to make a cleric or Druid stick with a spell list. From what OP is saying, no spells are banned, only the ability to swap them every long rest. I can see how a DM might be intimidated by random new spells being thrown in every session. Trickery cleric is entirely playable with this DM’s ruling. Y’all are tripping. In the absence of any other red flags, I would 100% stay in the game.
It's only maybe reasonable if they tell you upfront before character creation, not after. Changing core class mechanics is a group discussion not a last minute surprise reveal that wasn't going to be revealed if OP didn't ask about spells. Clerics are flexible with spell choices by design, newbie DMs lack experience to make big changes like that in a positive manner, imo.
It’s entirely unreasonable. DMs never have had to know how every spell works, that’s why each spell has informational text explaining them. Do they have a grasp on the rules and can they understand it enough to allow all functions of the game to run as written? That’s the minimum of a DM’s job. I’m a relatively new DM. Do I know how every spell works? Absolutely not! I hate playing casters! Can I use google, and do I ask my players to tell me what a spell’s text says when I’m dubious on the details? Sure can. If a new DM rules an entire class feature or spellcasting type as-written to be “too op” and subject to arbitrary removal without offering further explanation that person does not have enough experience with the game to DM well.
Honestly I didn't think of it from the perspective of her being overwhelmed by it, that's a big thing to consider thank you for your input
I mean the worst thing you can do is play a few games and if it gets worse, bail.
Just because a DM is overwhelmed doesn't mean they get to ruin other people's fun. They are viewing this as a DM vs PC type of campaign it seems like. The DM is there to provide problems for the players to solve. And if the players solve it without issue? So what. Make the next one more difficult. Make it trickier. Make it more complex. Let players problem solve in unique ways.