It's a balance. The DM has the final say on anything, except whether you choose to continue to play his/her game. If the DM starts ignoring rules too much they run the risk of making the game feel inconsistent or not fun for the players, but some games work perfectly fine this way. So this is something you should discuss with the DM so you can all get what you want out of the game.
It's up to a GROUP to decide between themselves how they want to play.
My preference is to focus on the story and so the rules come secondary to that - which is something I make very clear to people who play when I am DMing. That said, I never remove player agency - if a character has an ability that allows them to do something, then it will allow them to do that thing. The sort of rules I will gloss over are things that would slow down play, or where I know the relative strengths of those involved and don't believe the story needs to pause for a dice roll.
My main issue that has been occurring is that his method of DMing has lead to a feeling of unfairness (but only in me, because I'm the only player who seems to know enough about DND to realize whats wrong). one of the players made their character sheet incorrectly, giving him crazy high stats (not on purpose, he just didn't know any better) and instead of having him remake his character sheet the DM instead just wanted to tweak his stats down to make more sense, but he said he would leave his DEX at 19! When I asked how the hell he has 19 DEX, he said it was because he's a lizardfolk and that's part of their racial bonus, and he's not entirely wrong they can take a +2 on whatever stat they want(3.5e BTW) but when I told him he also has to take a -2 on another stat he danced around it and changed the subject. I'm almost certain he didn't actually know the lizardfolk racial traits and he's just lying to get me to stop questioning him, especially since he didn't even know how I had the information on lizardfolk. when I asked why he gets that high of a DEX he simply said "he's a rouge and they need DEX anyways so its fine" he didn't go through with it in the end but the fact was going to in the first place
The thing about D&D, just like every other game, is it's supposed to be fun first and foremost. The DM should make rules judgements based on the most fun for the most people.
The one time that I DM'd, which was a single shot session, I made rulings on the fly to keep the game flowing and to avoid having to look anything up in the rulebooks. As a player, I don't object to my DM's rulings during game play unless I can point to the rule where the DM is wrong in less than 30 seconds, but then between sessions I play rules lawyer, look up the rules, and ask the DM to change his ruling for the next time we play. But, once again, the primary objective is to have fun. The rules are there as a guideline for us to have fun, not as a straightjacket.
I do have to ask about the lizardman example - did you roll? Use point buy? In the former case, you could have had the player roll a 17, not unheard of. In the latter case, the DM might have allowed to purchase up to 17 and have very low stats elsewhere, which I really think is a minor houserule. Annoying if you don't know about it, admittedly; that's bad on the DM's part. But not really more than a minor annoyance and a mental note to ask for a bit more questions of the DM. What happened could very well have been the DM allowing the 17, then redoing the rest of the stats to lower numbers, and being less interested in explaining everything in detail than starting the game. That's not the same thing as not knowing the rules, or playing favorites.
I personally would give the benefit of the doubt, and just accept the DM as being a bit loose with the rules. If issues keep cropping up, then have a talk with the DM before or after the session.
I have run with DMs that didn't know the rules well enough that they made some seriously game-breaking bad calls that screwed over people, and I have had DMs that played favorites. That is a giant red flag, admittedly. But just some tweaks to a sheet pre play isn't a good barometer of ability.
When it comes to the rules laid out in the DMG/PHB, I think that normally I'd say that the DM should always strive to rule acoording to RAW unless he specifically changed that rule prior to the beginning of the campaign. There is some leeway here for obscure rules/rulings that haven't come up, so long as nobody has acted relying on the rules (eg expended resources to learn a spell that, for whatever reason the DM has decided works differently in his world). In an instance where the DM has broken this rule of thumb, in my opinion, the DM's ruling should STAND because he is the DM, however whatever harm that has resulted from the DM's ruling should be nullified and, in certain circumstances, the DM should probably give the player something extra to account for the player's loss of agency/ choice. (in the example above, I might let you pick the replacement spell from another spell list that you do not normally have access to.)
If the DM makes a bad call (eg the DM admits that his ruling conflicts with RAW) roll with it, figure it out after the game (via e-mail) and SPECIFICALLY MENTION the error at the next session to clarify the rule going forward.
Finally, when it comes to things written in a module, or a monster's stat block or whatever, the DM is god. He's not bound to follow the module even a little bit, if he doesn't want to.
____________________________
All that being said, there are a lot of good practices and bad practices that I see all the time. DM's who modify AC regularly (never do this). DM's who don't have a clue how to run darkness. DM's who give every monster a magic item and full plate, and then, at the loot the body phase, you'll find 3 silvers. These are signs of an inexperienced DM, and you need to work with them outside the game to let them understand why they are bad practices.
And yes, I did throw in modifying AC specifically to see if anyone would either defend the practice, or else ask why it's frowned on ^_)^
All that being said, I picked option 1. The DM's rulings are the DM's rulings and while he SHOULD be adhering to my best practices (because I'm awsome) he's not bound to. If you aren't having fun, dump him, if you aren't, don't. It's as simple as that. Your DM would probably like to have his saturday's back, and would be more than willing to chill out with a player sheet while someone else does all the work for him!
And yes, I did throw in modifying AC specifically to see if anyone would either defend the practice, or else ask why it's frowned on ^_)^
how about someone asking what you meant by it? Changing the AC of a monster mid-battle (effectively saying if something hits or misses)? Upping or lowering AC on stats before the game? Changing how AC works in some other way (though not sure how that would happen)?
On the topic of the lizardfolk thing, I hope that's not your only example... because god, you'd hate my table :P I let people get away with that crap all the time (although they'll TELL me when they are cheating because if I surprise check their sheet and find "errors" they go away, lol.) I also go out of my way to make sure that everybody feels useful by creating character specific plothooks, in game connections or magic items, and will force (or skip) saves based on a known-quantity like a rogue with a crazy high dex and addl bonuses. Ultimately, it doesn't make that big of a difference if someone cheats, or "cheats," The DM should be in a position to handle it.
If everyone else is having fun, and the only thing you can cite for why you aren't is because player X got a free ASI and you didn't... well... You're imaginationing wrong.
Going back to my example above, If I ruled that a cleric couldn't take/prepare the zone of truth spell (and didn't tell him) I might very well give him a pick from the paladin's spell list.... And if that pick resulted in a SMITING cleric, I'd congratulate the player on a great choice and let him smite to his heart's content.
how about someone asking what you meant by it? Changing the AC of a monster mid-battle (effectively saying if something hits or misses)? Upping or lowering AC on stats before the game? Changing how AC works in some other way (though not sure how that would happen)?
Modifying the AC in the stat block (pre-game). In 5e, we've been blessed with bounded accuracy, and we must honor the gods by not besmirching it's holy virtue.
I've never known a DM to make an issue out of lowering a monster's AC though, so mostly I meant raising it (and really when I say raising, I mean raising to absurd levels to try to mitigate a party's DPS thereby causing the players to waste turn after turn swinging at a nigh on impossible behemoth where he then loses control of the fight if players don't roll exceptionally well.) In practice, you'll almost never need to touch AC, and when you do, just give the thing a different name. Oh this is a redguard sentinal. Totally different from the Redguard veteran. watch out. Messing with AC is a bad habit to be in. You can account for the probability of a fight, and target a set number of rounds of combat much more effectively when you modify HP first, thereby lessening the odds that your party will be accidentally creamed by an easy or medium encounter that you expected them to walk over because you got over zealous. Also, people LIKE to hit. They like to do damage. They DON'T like wasting 3 turns missing 6 consecutive attacks while the rogue with a stupidly high dex (hey, back on topic ^_)^ and a +9 to hit that he "shouldn't have" cough, cough...shows off! No, not even tanks who might be poorly optimized for DPS, or face characters who might be moreso like to wiff every turn. So leave that AC at 12-14 until you get to around CR5 stat-blocks, and even then, respect it.
how about someone asking what you meant by it? Changing the AC of a monster mid-battle (effectively saying if something hits or misses)? Upping or lowering AC on stats before the game? Changing how AC works in some other way (though not sure how that would happen)?
Speaking a someone who usually plays and very rarely DM's, I love it when a DM honestly increases a monster's AC within the rules and makes it harder for us to hit before the battle! Why? Because in order to do that the DM has to give the monster either armor or a magical item that increases it's AC and after the battle is over we get it!!
Speaking a someone who usually plays and very rarely DM's, I love it when a DM honestly increases a monster's AC within the rules and makes it harder for us to hit before the battle! Why? Because in order to do that the DM has to give the monster either armor or a magical item that increases it's AC and after the battle is over we get it!!
Only humanoid creatures wear armor (for the most part) and the "armor" worn by a good number of humanoids isn't really wearable or saleable.
Also, I'm not really aware of any printed rule that suggests that a DM must do this... I do, because it's a good practice... but I wouldn't if it were considered the "normal" way to adjust the difficulty of an encounter (which again, the "rules" for how to modify encounters are practically non existant other than to say we can, and good luck... which is why I hijacked the thread 0.o Sorry 'bout that, btw :P )
Also, also, not being stuck between gifting your players rediculous stats and sums of money at low levels, or running boring encounters. One more reason to adjust HP instead :P
I mean as has been stated alot recently by the people that make DnD on twitter this is a game that the group plays how they want. The rules can be set in stone and gospel, they can be just guidelines used or ignored by the group. Or as is more often in the case somewhere in between. Usually the good course of action is the DM informs the players of their style in what is commonly reffered to as session 0 and if players have issues it can be discussed. But once game starts effectivly the DMs word is law, you should voice any issues with your DM (not during the session though) and hopefully a comprimise can be made but if not unfortunatly it will come down to either a) you leaving the table or b)having to put up with it.
I mean personally I am an in the middle of the RAW or not RAW spectrum. I try to follow the PHB closely as possible though am finding i keep learning little bits not helped by playing earlier editions. But I also break a number of rules and homebrew bits in, for example if you have a familiar touching you i let you concentrate on two spells at once, i use the old 4e rules of bloodied and minions and mess with monster stats all the time (though they are never touched once initiative is rolled unless the fight is going super unfun in either direction at which pint hp might get buffed/nered a little) though i have had making enough new monsters that i have experience enough to modify monsters that dont go out of control (often the hp adjustments have to go to RAW monsters i find XD ). But yeahthese things all come with experience and talking to players to find out what do they want and what makes their games fun.
Cause at the end of the day its not about the rules or DMs story. Its about the DM and players having fun. IF this cannot be achieved it may be better the group adjusting either who is dming or who is in it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Loex - A Lizardfolk Lvl 4/6/4 Hexblade Profane Blood Hunter/ Battlesmith Artificer/ Cleric of the Forge Arborea - A Warforged Lvl 1 Hexblade Warlock
It's up to a GROUP to decide between themselves how they want to play.
My preference is to focus on the story and so the rules come secondary to that - which is something I make very clear to people who play when I am DMing. That said, I never remove player agency - if a character has an ability that allows them to do something, then it will allow them to do that thing. The sort of rules I will gloss over are things that would slow down play, or where I know the relative strengths of those involved and don't believe the story needs to pause for a dice roll.
This.
As previously pointed out, this is supposed to be fun for all. The DM is probably trying to make it fun for the Lizardman, too. Is everybody else accepting the Lizardman?
If everyone but you is OK with it, maybe you need to reconsider your stance.
OTOH, during the game is not the time to discuss the issue. Before or after the game you should speak with the parties involved. In game, you should stay in character, and
continue the flow of the game.
I welcome powerful party members, the entire party benefits from strength
The DM has a role to play, also. It's not easy doing it well . And not all players and DMs are a match. But if you arbitrarily disregard the DM's ruling during the game, at will,
it generally has a negative effect upon the whole game and outcome.
Like monopoly or beach cricket, the further you stray from the rules the fewer people want to play the game with you.
I like pretty strict rule-following, so a DM who doesn't follow rules is pretty high on my list of "Things that would make me leave a game." The same goes for people who put fines on Free Parking in Monopoly.
Other players are going to be more tolerant.
It's a team game, so there has to be a team consensus. This probably requires a team discussion (AKA "Session Zero").
How far the DM strays from the rules and still manages to run a balanced and consistent game is down to their abilities and experience. New and inexperienced DMs who ignore the RAW and change things without understanding the consequences is a common cause of bad player experience. Sounds like that could be the case with your game. The developers went to great effort to ballance all the classes and races and test the rules to give the players a good experience. Changing and/or ignoring the rules without first taking the time to learn and understand why they work is a huge rookie mistake in my opinion.
The rules aren’t the only thing that makes a great game. A well crafted world, interesting characters and villains, and a compelling story with meaningful choices and believable consequences are all vital. But these all rest on a foundation of well constructed rules. It sounds like you are unable to relax and immerse yourself in the game because you are being distracted by the mechanics and a sense of unfairness / imbalance. The DM has lost your trust.
We all have a keen sense for judging fairness. Just cut a cake into uneven sized slices at a kids party and see how quickly everyone notices. If that sense is triggered by player imbalance, the feeling that someone is cheating or suspicion that the DM is favouring a particular player or being inconsistent, then people start monitoring the game rather than getting lost in it.
Explain to your DM that their inconsistency is ruining your immersion.
From the 'The Dungeon Master' section of the Introduction in the Dungeon Master's Guide: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you’re lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded."
I think it's important to play as close to the rules as possible, as they're the agreed upon baseline upon which players will set their expectations, but there is absolutely nothing from preventing a DM from making changes (minor or wholesale) to suit their style of play.
My main issue that has been occurring is that his method of DMing has lead to a feeling of unfairness (but only in me, because I'm the only player who seems to know enough about DND to realize whats wrong). one of the players made their character sheet incorrectly, giving him crazy high stats (not on purpose, he just didn't know any better) and instead of having him remake his character sheet the DM instead just wanted to tweak his stats down to make more sense, but he said he would leave his DEX at 19! When I asked how the hell he has 19 DEX, he said it was because he's a lizardfolk and that's part of their racial bonus, and he's not entirely wrong they can take a +2 on whatever stat they want(3.5e BTW) but when I told him he also has to take a -2 on another stat he danced around it and changed the subject. I'm almost certain he didn't actually know the lizardfolk racial traits and he's just lying to get me to stop questioning him, especially since he didn't even know how I had the information on lizardfolk. when I asked why he gets that high of a DEX he simply said "he's a rouge and they need DEX anyways so its fine" he didn't go through with it in the end but the fact was going to in the first place
It sounds to me like you have a new DM who has new players, mixed in with a single player that knows his stuff, you, and he is trying to not browbeat his new player that did their stats wrong so that player doesn't feel picked on and devalued for having done it wrong. He requested and received an adjustment to the problem character, and your issue is that he didn't go far enough in having the new player completely reroll to satisfy your desire for complete accuracy to the rules as written. He maybe didn't go far enough in "nerfing" the problem character, and there are in-game ways of fixing that, but at the end of the day if you don't like the kind of game your DM runs you have the choice of either learning to like it, or leaving. If you take the third option of "staying but complaining" or the fourth option of "staying and undermining the DM", then you're the problem, not the DM.
Your DM probably hopes and expects that as the long time player that knows the rules, you will help them out by helping your fellow players and supporting the DM so that they learn the rules in a way that's fun and engaging to them, rather than by memorization and rules lawyering. If you feel that your character, and the characters of other players, are massively underpowered compared to this problem character, and that is trivializing encounters or the contributions of other players, then that is something to address with the DM and see if there is something they can do to boost power levels slightly to bring everyone to the same level, and then increase encounter difficulty to compensate so the game can have appropriate challenge.
I definitely would not suggest a heavy handed second nerf to this single character just to make everyone else feel better about their own characters. As a DM I have learned it is always better to buff others than nerf a single OP character. With buffs everyone is generally happy, with a single big nerf no one is really made happy, and one person is definitely made unhappy.
The bottom line is the game is supposed to be fun. For some that fun is war gaming with strict rules interpretations, and that's certainly where D&D has it's roots, but part of what makes D&D superior to a computer game is that human DMs can make or break rules any time doing so makes the game more fun. D&D has come far in 40+ years and one modern interpretation is that it is a group story telling platform where everyone gets to live out a fantasy adventure under a loose and mutually agreed framework, and after 25 years of running D&D that's is my most comfortable play style.
Goadfang leans forward in his seat, his ale gently sloshing in it's tankard, he says "Let me tell you a tale that will make the hairs on your head stand up and ask for the check..."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm asking this because I feel that in the campaign I'm in, the DM is asserting too much power of things
It's a balance. The DM has the final say on anything, except whether you choose to continue to play his/her game. If the DM starts ignoring rules too much they run the risk of making the game feel inconsistent or not fun for the players, but some games work perfectly fine this way. So this is something you should discuss with the DM so you can all get what you want out of the game.
It's up to a GROUP to decide between themselves how they want to play.
My preference is to focus on the story and so the rules come secondary to that - which is something I make very clear to people who play when I am DMing. That said, I never remove player agency - if a character has an ability that allows them to do something, then it will allow them to do that thing. The sort of rules I will gloss over are things that would slow down play, or where I know the relative strengths of those involved and don't believe the story needs to pause for a dice roll.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
My main issue that has been occurring is that his method of DMing has lead to a feeling of unfairness (but only in me, because I'm the only player who seems to know enough about DND to realize whats wrong). one of the players made their character sheet incorrectly, giving him crazy high stats (not on purpose, he just didn't know any better) and instead of having him remake his character sheet the DM instead just wanted to tweak his stats down to make more sense, but he said he would leave his DEX at 19! When I asked how the hell he has 19 DEX, he said it was because he's a lizardfolk and that's part of their racial bonus, and he's not entirely wrong they can take a +2 on whatever stat they want(3.5e BTW) but when I told him he also has to take a -2 on another stat he danced around it and changed the subject. I'm almost certain he didn't actually know the lizardfolk racial traits and he's just lying to get me to stop questioning him, especially since he didn't even know how I had the information on lizardfolk. when I asked why he gets that high of a DEX he simply said "he's a rouge and they need DEX anyways so its fine" he didn't go through with it in the end but the fact was going to in the first place
The DM is supposed to know the rules well enough to be able to make an informed decision about whether or not to follow them. That's pretty much it.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
The thing about D&D, just like every other game, is it's supposed to be fun first and foremost. The DM should make rules judgements based on the most fun for the most people.
The one time that I DM'd, which was a single shot session, I made rulings on the fly to keep the game flowing and to avoid having to look anything up in the rulebooks. As a player, I don't object to my DM's rulings during game play unless I can point to the rule where the DM is wrong in less than 30 seconds, but then between sessions I play rules lawyer, look up the rules, and ask the DM to change his ruling for the next time we play. But, once again, the primary objective is to have fun. The rules are there as a guideline for us to have fun, not as a straightjacket.
Professional computer geek
Whatever works for your group.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
I do have to ask about the lizardman example - did you roll? Use point buy? In the former case, you could have had the player roll a 17, not unheard of. In the latter case, the DM might have allowed to purchase up to 17 and have very low stats elsewhere, which I really think is a minor houserule. Annoying if you don't know about it, admittedly; that's bad on the DM's part. But not really more than a minor annoyance and a mental note to ask for a bit more questions of the DM. What happened could very well have been the DM allowing the 17, then redoing the rest of the stats to lower numbers, and being less interested in explaining everything in detail than starting the game. That's not the same thing as not knowing the rules, or playing favorites.
I personally would give the benefit of the doubt, and just accept the DM as being a bit loose with the rules. If issues keep cropping up, then have a talk with the DM before or after the session.
I have run with DMs that didn't know the rules well enough that they made some seriously game-breaking bad calls that screwed over people, and I have had DMs that played favorites. That is a giant red flag, admittedly. But just some tweaks to a sheet pre play isn't a good barometer of ability.
When it comes to the rules laid out in the DMG/PHB, I think that normally I'd say that the DM should always strive to rule acoording to RAW unless he specifically changed that rule prior to the beginning of the campaign. There is some leeway here for obscure rules/rulings that haven't come up, so long as nobody has acted relying on the rules (eg expended resources to learn a spell that, for whatever reason the DM has decided works differently in his world). In an instance where the DM has broken this rule of thumb, in my opinion, the DM's ruling should STAND because he is the DM, however whatever harm that has resulted from the DM's ruling should be nullified and, in certain circumstances, the DM should probably give the player something extra to account for the player's loss of agency/ choice. (in the example above, I might let you pick the replacement spell from another spell list that you do not normally have access to.)
If the DM makes a bad call (eg the DM admits that his ruling conflicts with RAW) roll with it, figure it out after the game (via e-mail) and SPECIFICALLY MENTION the error at the next session to clarify the rule going forward.
Finally, when it comes to things written in a module, or a monster's stat block or whatever, the DM is god. He's not bound to follow the module even a little bit, if he doesn't want to.
____________________________
All that being said, there are a lot of good practices and bad practices that I see all the time. DM's who modify AC regularly (never do this). DM's who don't have a clue how to run darkness. DM's who give every monster a magic item and full plate, and then, at the loot the body phase, you'll find 3 silvers. These are signs of an inexperienced DM, and you need to work with them outside the game to let them understand why they are bad practices.
And yes, I did throw in modifying AC specifically to see if anyone would either defend the practice, or else ask why it's frowned on ^_)^
All that being said, I picked option 1. The DM's rulings are the DM's rulings and while he SHOULD be adhering to my best practices (because I'm awsome) he's not bound to. If you aren't having fun, dump him, if you aren't, don't. It's as simple as that. Your DM would probably like to have his saturday's back, and would be more than willing to chill out with a player sheet while someone else does all the work for him!
On the topic of the lizardfolk thing, I hope that's not your only example... because god, you'd hate my table :P I let people get away with that crap all the time (although they'll TELL me when they are cheating because if I surprise check their sheet and find "errors" they go away, lol.) I also go out of my way to make sure that everybody feels useful by creating character specific plothooks, in game connections or magic items, and will force (or skip) saves based on a known-quantity like a rogue with a crazy high dex and addl bonuses. Ultimately, it doesn't make that big of a difference if someone cheats, or "cheats," The DM should be in a position to handle it.
If everyone else is having fun, and the only thing you can cite for why you aren't is because player X got a free ASI and you didn't... well... You're imaginationing wrong.
Going back to my example above, If I ruled that a cleric couldn't take/prepare the zone of truth spell (and didn't tell him) I might very well give him a pick from the paladin's spell list.... And if that pick resulted in a SMITING cleric, I'd congratulate the player on a great choice and let him smite to his heart's content.
Professional computer geek
I mean as has been stated alot recently by the people that make DnD on twitter this is a game that the group plays how they want. The rules can be set in stone and gospel, they can be just guidelines used or ignored by the group. Or as is more often in the case somewhere in between. Usually the good course of action is the DM informs the players of their style in what is commonly reffered to as session 0 and if players have issues it can be discussed. But once game starts effectivly the DMs word is law, you should voice any issues with your DM (not during the session though) and hopefully a comprimise can be made but if not unfortunatly it will come down to either a) you leaving the table or b)having to put up with it.
I mean personally I am an in the middle of the RAW or not RAW spectrum. I try to follow the PHB closely as possible though am finding i keep learning little bits not helped by playing earlier editions. But I also break a number of rules and homebrew bits in, for example if you have a familiar touching you i let you concentrate on two spells at once, i use the old 4e rules of bloodied and minions and mess with monster stats all the time (though they are never touched once initiative is rolled unless the fight is going super unfun in either direction at which pint hp might get buffed/nered a little) though i have had making enough new monsters that i have experience enough to modify monsters that dont go out of control (often the hp adjustments have to go to RAW monsters i find XD ). But yeahthese things all come with experience and talking to players to find out what do they want and what makes their games fun.
Cause at the end of the day its not about the rules or DMs story. Its about the DM and players having fun. IF this cannot be achieved it may be better the group adjusting either who is dming or who is in it.
Loex - A Lizardfolk Lvl 4/6/4 Hexblade Profane Blood Hunter/ Battlesmith Artificer/ Cleric of the Forge
Arborea - A Warforged Lvl 1 Hexblade Warlock
DM - "Malign Intelligence"
This.
As previously pointed out, this is supposed to be fun for all. The DM is probably trying to make it fun for the Lizardman, too. Is everybody else accepting the Lizardman?
If everyone but you is OK with it, maybe you need to reconsider your stance.
OTOH, during the game is not the time to discuss the issue. Before or after the game you should speak with the parties involved. In game, you should stay in character, and
continue the flow of the game.
I welcome powerful party members, the entire party benefits from strength
The DM has a role to play, also. It's not easy doing it well . And not all players and DMs are a match. But if you arbitrarily disregard the DM's ruling during the game, at will,
it generally has a negative effect upon the whole game and outcome.
Like monopoly or beach cricket, the further you stray from the rules the fewer people want to play the game with you.
I like pretty strict rule-following, so a DM who doesn't follow rules is pretty high on my list of "Things that would make me leave a game." The same goes for people who put fines on Free Parking in Monopoly.
Other players are going to be more tolerant.
It's a team game, so there has to be a team consensus. This probably requires a team discussion (AKA "Session Zero").
How far the DM strays from the rules and still manages to run a balanced and consistent game is down to their abilities and experience. New and inexperienced DMs who ignore the RAW and change things without understanding the consequences is a common cause of bad player experience. Sounds like that could be the case with your game. The developers went to great effort to ballance all the classes and races and test the rules to give the players a good experience. Changing and/or ignoring the rules without first taking the time to learn and understand why they work is a huge rookie mistake in my opinion.
The rules aren’t the only thing that makes a great game. A well crafted world, interesting characters and villains, and a compelling story with meaningful choices and believable consequences are all vital. But these all rest on a foundation of well constructed rules. It sounds like you are unable to relax and immerse yourself in the game because you are being distracted by the mechanics and a sense of unfairness / imbalance. The DM has lost your trust.
We all have a keen sense for judging fairness. Just cut a cake into uneven sized slices at a kids party and see how quickly everyone notices. If that sense is triggered by player imbalance, the feeling that someone is cheating or suspicion that the DM is favouring a particular player or being inconsistent, then people start monitoring the game rather than getting lost in it.
Explain to your DM that their inconsistency is ruining your immersion.
From the 'The Dungeon Master' section of the Introduction in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you’re lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded."
I think it's important to play as close to the rules as possible, as they're the agreed upon baseline upon which players will set their expectations, but there is absolutely nothing from preventing a DM from making changes (minor or wholesale) to suit their style of play.
It sounds to me like you have a new DM who has new players, mixed in with a single player that knows his stuff, you, and he is trying to not browbeat his new player that did their stats wrong so that player doesn't feel picked on and devalued for having done it wrong. He requested and received an adjustment to the problem character, and your issue is that he didn't go far enough in having the new player completely reroll to satisfy your desire for complete accuracy to the rules as written. He maybe didn't go far enough in "nerfing" the problem character, and there are in-game ways of fixing that, but at the end of the day if you don't like the kind of game your DM runs you have the choice of either learning to like it, or leaving. If you take the third option of "staying but complaining" or the fourth option of "staying and undermining the DM", then you're the problem, not the DM.
Your DM probably hopes and expects that as the long time player that knows the rules, you will help them out by helping your fellow players and supporting the DM so that they learn the rules in a way that's fun and engaging to them, rather than by memorization and rules lawyering. If you feel that your character, and the characters of other players, are massively underpowered compared to this problem character, and that is trivializing encounters or the contributions of other players, then that is something to address with the DM and see if there is something they can do to boost power levels slightly to bring everyone to the same level, and then increase encounter difficulty to compensate so the game can have appropriate challenge.
I definitely would not suggest a heavy handed second nerf to this single character just to make everyone else feel better about their own characters. As a DM I have learned it is always better to buff others than nerf a single OP character. With buffs everyone is generally happy, with a single big nerf no one is really made happy, and one person is definitely made unhappy.
The bottom line is the game is supposed to be fun. For some that fun is war gaming with strict rules interpretations, and that's certainly where D&D has it's roots, but part of what makes D&D superior to a computer game is that human DMs can make or break rules any time doing so makes the game more fun. D&D has come far in 40+ years and one modern interpretation is that it is a group story telling platform where everyone gets to live out a fantasy adventure under a loose and mutually agreed framework, and after 25 years of running D&D that's is my most comfortable play style.
Goadfang leans forward in his seat, his ale gently sloshing in it's tankard, he says "Let me tell you a tale that will make the hairs on your head stand up and ask for the check..."