Hi, 

So context, the pc in question has a back story where a raiding clan raided his tribe as they heard of rumour of his massive strength. he managed to get away but is separated from his parents. In the campaign now they are at the raiding clans main base. 

I (the DM) am thinking of having negotiations for his parents to be released in return of them "extracting" some of his strength. Is it okay for me to reduce his strength score permanently and if so by how much? If is it okay how much do I reduce it by? I don't want them to effectively "cheese" it back to how it was with magic items/next time they level up.. 

The pc is level 7 and has 18 strength.

Many Thanks

Talk to the player and ask them if it would be alright. If not, then don't. If yes, have the decrease be permanent by saying that his Strength maximum, along with his Strength score, each decrease by 1 or 2.

Yes, there is a such thing as permanent ability damage. It usually is avoided because it feels frustrating to be the target of such. However, you are offering a choice, so this shouldn't be as bad. Note that they may just refuse to sacrifice this, or attempt to find another solution.

As long as Gauntlets of Ogre's Strength exist, nothing will stop them from cheesing it back up eventually, and I wouldn't suggest denying them this route either. Rather, I would suggest having this option available, or another recovery method. In fact you could turn it into its own mini-quest. As for the damage to strength, 1d4 or 2 should be fine for this level, 2d4 if it's supposed to be particularly hefty.

"Extracting some strength" could also mean giving the character a negative level, or a curse that they must lift, but I would still suggest offering a quest to undo this. Or that defeating the extractor would undo the effect/damage 

In terms of gaming group dynamics, it is generally not a good idea to give a PC a permanent penalty, which is why such things have gradually disappeared over the editions. A curse is an option, but be wary of making the PC unplayable.

Personally, I would say "Don't do it"  

Why? Because you are not offering a real choice. "Give up your strength or your parent's die" isn't a choice it's an Ultimatum. Unless the player is a total bastard, they are going to choose to save their parents. So in the end you are just taking their strength, just because this is the way you want to take the story, and you are definitely punishing the player for doing the right thing. 

What I would do, is exercise nuance. It's ok to talk to your players and ask them if this is something they would be ok with. Or really brainstorm and come up with meaningful choices for the player. Maybe the player needs to capture and bring an even stronger entity to be sacrificed, or maybe the player has to choose between the lives of strangers or his parents. 

Another way is to take the strength away but heavily hint at ways in which it could and most likely WILL be reversed. In this scenario, I would take even more strength away maybe leave them with 10 strength only. This could potentially spark a quest where the player feels vulnerable and has to rely on his team more but can emerge with even more strength than he started with. 

Another method is to take some of the strength away but provide an equal increase in another stat like DEX, or even INT or CHA. You can then describe how this new change feels to them.  The player could then be faced with a choice of whether they want to go back to how they used to be or keep their current selves. 

Another way is to take the strength away but provide a way for them to temporarily regain it for short periods of time at the cost of some meaningful sacrifice. Like they can regain their strength for 1 minute but the lose all memory for the past 24 hours. 

Ultimately, you don't want to punish your players for doing the right thing or take away their defining characteristics. If the player has to suffer or be in a weakened state, make it clear that there is a way out, and definitely don't drag it out. The hero has to be in the belly of the whale, but he eventually emerges even stronger. 

Quote from Stusano >>

Personally, I would say "Don't do it"  

Why? Because you are not offering a real choice. "Give up your strength or your parent's die" isn't a choice it's an Ultimatum. Unless the player is a total bastard, they are going to choose to save their parents. So in the end you are just taking their strength, just because this is the way you want to take the story, and you are definitely punishing the player for doing the right thing. 

What I would do, is exercise nuance. It's ok to talk to your players and ask them if this is something they would be ok with. Or really brainstorm and come up with meaningful choices for the player. Maybe the player needs to capture and bring an even stronger entity to be sacrificed, or maybe the player has to choose between the lives of strangers or his parents. 

Another way is to take the strength away but heavily hint at ways in which it could and most likely WILL be reversed. In this scenario, I would take even more strength away maybe leave them with 10 strength only. This could potentially spark a quest where the player feels vulnerable and has to rely on his team more but can emerge with even more strength than he started with. 

Another method is to take some of the strength away but provide an equal increase in another stat like DEX, or even INT or CHA. You can then describe how this new change feels to them.  The player could then be faced with a choice of whether they want to go back to how they used to be or keep their current selves. 

Another way is to take the strength away but provide a way for them to temporarily regain it for short periods of time at the cost of some meaningful sacrifice. Like they can regain their strength for 1 minute but the lose all memory for the past 24 hours. 

Ultimately, you don't want to punish your players for doing the right thing or take away their defining characteristics. If the player has to suffer or be in a weakened state, make it clear that there is a way out, and definitely don't drag it out. The hero has to be in the belly of the whale, but he eventually emerges even stronger. 

 My thoughts exactly.

When is the permanent loss of anything at all fun?

The only class I know of that needs Strength is the Barbarian.  Which is what it sounds like you are talking about.  With an 18 at level 7 If I were playing I'd take that to 20 at 8th level.  There it stops.  You can't have a higher score without magic.  The DM has total control over that and can provide what it takes or not as they please.  I've seen characters with a 20 at first level.

"Extracting" some of the character's strength could be anything.  They could have to give away a drop of sweat to be used in a potion.  They could have to eat hot peppers to show their strength of will.  They could have to fight with another Barbarian in a match during which they were not allowed to Rage.  Be careful with that last, I like it, but a Raging Barbarian is resistant to most non-magical damage.  The fight could take a long time.

Any contest of strength will do.  Have them run a Marathon.  That's a test of every type of strength I can think of off hand.

Have fun in your games.

Permanently? No. Irreversibly? Maybe.

What I mean by this is that instead of lowering their maximum strength, you can simply "undo" an ASI. They can gain more strength later on. However, I'd still avoid this concept if possible, it doesn't feel right.

Instead, I'd impose some extreme form of exhaustion, which would take many long rests in order to remove. 

How are they going to "extract" strength, exactly? This makes no sense to me either mechanically or, more significantly, in narrative terms.

By the terms of the narrative, the tribe has heard of the guy's massive strength. Why would it occur to them to "extract" the strength. Is that what would occur to you, in the real world, if you knew someone was incredibly strong and you wanted to use his strength in some way? 

My first thought would be -- threaten to kill them unless he uses his massive strength to do something you want. There should be something the clan needs that requires massive strength to pull off -- something unethical, something the PC wouldn't want to do. Then offer a choice -- do it, and compromise your ethics, or don't do it, and mummy and daddy swim with the fishes.

Make sure there is a "third way" -- this is a common superhero theme (appropriate in this context), in which the superhero finds a 3rd option that was not anticipated by the villain, who is trying to offer the choice. Classic example: the original Superman movie. Two missiles, one going to NJ, one going to CA. Superman can't stop both. His solution? Turn back time and save everyone. Whether you like that scene or not (some people love it, some hate it), this fulfills the conventions perfectly.

Your PC can do the same thing here -- find a "3rd way" to free the parents and not use his strength for evil, etc.

But in any case, when someone's power is their body strength, the obvious solution is NOT to take the strength away, but rather, to make them use the strength on your behalf.

+1 to everyone saying you should talk to the player first to see if they are okay with it. It might seem like a bad thing, spoiling the surprise in the story, but if I was the player, I would definitely appreciate having that conversation before the DM just decides to permanently weaken my character.

If you do this, the best that can happen is that you change the power balance in the party, making this (I presume) melee combatant much weaker, even a -1 to damage and attack rolls is a large difference. If you are rolling dice for the penalty, a bad roll could lead to a permanently crippled character, even if you allow the character to increase their strength eventually, they would still be stuck at a severe loss of damage for a while. 

If you are completely dedicated to this idea of lowering their strength, talk to the player, get their input, something many DMs should probably do more. This is a collaborative story created by the players and the DM together, and no one should have to do something they don't want to, especially something permanent like you are suggesting. That is an easy way to ruin someone's experience with the campaign.

Make this a sinister plot.

The leader offers the guy a deal - he wears an amulet which curses him to swap strength with the bandit (who's not scrawny, so 14?) and in exchange, their parents are freed. If the amulet is removed, the parents die. If the parents die, the amulet will fall off on its own. Only the PC can remove the amulet, it can't be accidentally removed. Removing the amulet also ends the deal, returning their strength. The bandit also has the ability to remove their amulet, which would cause the same effect.

IF the PC agrees, the bandit comes good on their offer - the ritual is done, and the PC saves their parents. Any Strength score increases they go for instead transfer to the bandit.

Then, assuming they agreed, leave it for a couple of quests, then have them sat around halfway to somewhere remote, and have the amulet fall off. Their strength returns, but they know that something just happened to their parents. If they seek out the bandit, the bandit is also of the opinion that the PC removed the amulet - they didn't do anything. Perhaps they're even dying because they were not as strong as they needed to be.

Then weave yourself a plot involving vengeance on whoever/whatever killed their parents. For extra anti-cliché, make it a fire and they are seeking the arsonist - what was thought to be a plain revenge turns into a mystery plot to find the culprit. Then rip them apart.

To address the feedback from you all. Of which I am very grateful. 

The character in question is a paladin. 

They where going to suck his strength in like a weird needle suck out the essence type thing and then apply it to the clan leader. The point about this comment actually has a good idea with this amulet so might even do that! 

I have messaged the player and i was just feeling the water for feedback on this idea. 

Alternatively im thinking that the clan leader sees him and puts his strength to test and then after various strength checks sees he is indeed weak (poor rolls from the player) to essentially embarrass them about it. 

It's a dramatic question that forces a PC to make a hard choice - I like that. Where it goes downhill is that the choice is uneven. If he lets his parents die, that's Penalty Through Story. Entirely in the realm of roleplay. If he gives up his strength instead, that's Penalty Through Mechanics.

You're setting up a dichotomy here that is basically saying "Are you willing to take a mechanical hit to your character for the sake of roleplay?" Taken in that subtext, a lot of the drama falls out and the tension transfers from the character (I must save my parents!) to the player (I must show the DM I am a True Roleplayer and not some heartless munchkin!).

I think you can preserve this choice without a strength penalty. The drawback is not that the paladin grows weaker, it's that this evil warlord is getting stronger. With enhanced strength, he will become a greater threat. Maybe the blood contains more than strength - maybe he gets paladin powers too. In short, make the drawbacks of both choices be narrative in nature rather than mechanical.

And yes, I really support the idea of a third way. Imposing a dilemma on a player will often send them into creative overdrive to find a new way to solve the problem on their own terms (such as breaking into the camp and taking the parents back). Let them do this. It makes this their story too.

Yeah I would still not make it perma. I can see it being that way for an adventure, then they kill the leader and he gets his STR back. That might be OK. But permanent, no.

I like the traded amulet idea.

However the ability is drained, make it possible for the PC to get it back by ritual or destroying the object.

You could have it linked to a creature instead of the parents. If the creature takes damage, so does the PC, but the creature must be somehow destroyed or drained to get the strength back.

Yes. I just hit 3 of my players with a curse which in a year will drop their stat by 2 and max of that stat to 18. But I am doing Adventure League. 

Just as a matter of mechanics, if he is a strength based character having a +3 strength at level 7 is pretty weak, and you wanting to make sure he stays that weak at level 8 rather than +2 str for his ASI is just confusing.

With point buy you get 16 in a stat with just a +1 to it from race so basically you want a level 8 character rolling around with a level 1 main stat?  Does that sound like it would be fun to play to you?

It's particularly brutal because everything a strength based character does is based on strength.  Unlike a caster who can have buff, control spells and utility spells or spells that still do half damage on a save if your str character without strength you are just bad.

The character in question is a Paladin.  The classic Paladin is Strength based, but they don't have to be.  Dexterity is just so much more useful all around.  You almost have to point a gun at people to get them to use Strength as anything other than a dump stat.  Even if they are based around Strength, as this one looks to be, they may not mind so much.  Their damage comes more from smites.  They need Charisma for spells.  Wisdom for Perception perhaps.  Intelligence doesn't do much of anything for a Paladin.  Everyone needs Constitution, in particular, warrior types.

I still maintain that taking away something from a character, useful to them or not, is cruel.  That's punishment for having something in their background that might have been an interesting roleplaying hook.  The message it sends is that you shouldn't try to have a backstory at all.  I wouldn't take away a zero gold piece trinket from a character permanently.  If their character values it enough to carry around, they will be happy to get it back, so I might take it, but to not be able to get it back?  That's being mean.