What do I do now? - A new but related situation

Ok, I now have a situation with the group in regards to this character (Cornealius/Vargus), and I can't say that I didn't see it coming. In fact I almost expected something like this would happen but thought that the character concept was cool enough to just go with it and deal with the situation if and when it did happen.

For those of you that haven't and don't want to read the other post, here is a quick rundown of the character in question:

One of the players in my campaign is running a different, but interesting, PC. His character is more like 2 characters and is kind of like the Hulk. He has a split personality PC. One personality is of the character is a cowardly sorcerer. The other is a magic-hating barbarian. The sorcerer is in control most of the time but the barbarian takes over in times of stress. The barbarian can see what is going on when the sorcerer is in control. The sorcerer, on the other hand, doesn't know anything that happens when the barbarian is in control. He just think that he has blacked out.

Click to expand...

Now for the problem. One of my other players has brought up the fact that, as he sees it, Vargus/Cornealius is effectively a multiclass character that is levelling up in both classes at the same. This means that Vargus/Cornealius' player is basically getting twice the XP as everyone else. He thinks that is unfair to everyone else (and I can see his point).

So the question now is how do I resolve the issue? This has just come up via an e-mail in between sessions. I plan to get the whole group to discuss the situation at the start of the next session (this Wednesday) and get it sorted out one way or the other.

The way I see things is that, while Vargus/Cornealius' player basically has 2 separate characters, he can still only play one of them at any point in time. They share the same hit points in that any that Cornealius has lost when he was in control is subtracted from Vargus' total and vice versa. He is also limited in when he can change between the 2 characters. Vargus can only come out when Cornealius becomes stressed. (Vargus makes a Will save to try and take over. Over time he will get bonuses to that Will save as he gets better at exerting his will.) The player also gave himself another disagvantage in that Vargus hates magic, especially arcane magic, and therefore will try and get rid of anything magical he has on himself once he takes over.

Of course the counter argument to that is that it is a restriction the player has put onto the character himself. If he wants to do that, that's his choice but it still doesn't change the fact that he's basically playing a full strength barbarian/rogue as well as a full strength caster. He is choosing to enforce those restrictions on himself and therefore shouldn't get the advantages of basically playing 2 characters when everyone else just has one.

In terms of power I see it as Vargus/Cornealius (in the one body) being weaker than if they were 2 characters in 2 separate bodies, but stronger than most normal single class characters. He is stronger in that he could cast spells as good as any other caster as Cornealius (a Sorcerer), then change into Vargus (a Barbarian/Rogue) and fight as good as any front-line fighter.

I have worked with the player to try and ensure that he doesn't overshadow the other players and so far it has worked really well in that regard. Cornealius, as befitting a cowardly-type sorcerer has mainly utility spells in the first 2 spell levels. In fact, Daze is the only spell he has that could really use against someone in combat.

He also has the disadvantage in that Cornealius doesn't wear armour. Vargus takes control when Cornealius get too stressed. Quite often the "stressful situation" is combat. This means that for the first combat, Vargus is basically unarmoured or, at best, benefitting from Mage Armour. As you can imagine this makes him rather easy to hit.

So what are your thoughts? How would you deal with the situation? Any suggestions for how to resolve this?

Olaf the Stout

So what are your thoughts? How would you deal with the situation? Any suggestions for how to resolve this?
Olaf the Stout

Click to expand...

Simplest solution seems to account each personalities experience seperately, based upon the actions taken while its in control. ie: the barbarian only gains experience while directly controlling the body's actions and vice-versa for the sorcerior.

granted, the barbarian personality will likely advance faster this way, but that would be expected since he typically rages forth when the body's under stress to handle the combat situations...at least until the sorcerior aspect develops the self-control (Will save) to keep his more violent half under control.

I tried running a split-personality character once, in an evil intrigue game. He had levels in Bard, Rogue, and Cleric, from memory, and I was aiming for the Chameleon PrC. Basically, a change in personality would be a switch of the Chameleon focus, and I think it was going to supercede the normal mechanic - instead of changing a certain number of times per day consciously, he would change whenever the personality changed.

Unfortunately, being an evil game, the other PCs thought he was trying to trick them for some reason, and cut his throat. So much for that idea!

Anyway - the point is that I wasn't keeping multiple sets of levels running; he only had one set of levels, but when his priest personality wasn't dominant, he couldn't use his cleric spells... when his priest personality was dominant, he didn't realise he had any ranks in Perform and wouldn't use any Bardic Music abilities, etc... except for one other personality who 'knew about' all the others, and could use any of his class abilities from any of them.

It meant that most of the time he'd be below average in power for a PC of his ECL... Chameleon would have helped, but it was definitely more a 'concept' PC that a 'power' PC!

-Hyp.

Both posts so far are possible solutions. However I can imagine the player of Cornealius/Vargus going, "Hey, now my PC sucks!"

At the moment he's not exactly dominating the game at the moment in combat terms. (He is dominating in personality terms but I think that says a lot more about the player rather than this particular character. I imagine he would be relatively dominating in personality terms no matter what character he played.)

How can I find a happy medium where everyone is happy with the final result? Does such a solution even exist?

Olaf the Stout

Olaf the Stout said:

How can I find a happy medium where everyone is happy with the final result? Does such a solution even exist?

Click to expand...

Probably not But you could try giving him an LA. If he had an LA of +1 or +2, do you think it would mollify the other player? Do you think that would provoke a "This sucks!" reaction from him?

-Hyp.

Once I decide that a PCs character is going to work a certain way...then that's the way it's going to work, unless it proves to be unplayable (as in ineffective). If it were ineffective, I would work with the player to resolve the issue.

However, I am not going to bow down to pressure from other players to nerf someone else's character because they don't like it.

The only time I would lend weight to the complaints of another player is if the goals or abilities of the players were in direct conflict. (Because he's doing X, I can't do Y, etc). There is no conflict here.

I would advise any of the other players that this was an experiment, something that "I" as the GM wanted to try. I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair, perhaps in the future when I try a different experiment you can be the beneficiary.

And that would be the end of it. As I tell my kids when they whine, "You'll get over it."

Cedric

Cedric said:

Once I decide that a PCs character is going to work a certain way...then that's the way it's going to work, unless it proves to be unplayable (as in ineffective). If it were ineffective, I would work with the player to resolve the issue.

However, I am not going to bow down to pressure from other players to nerf someone else's character because they don't like it.

The only time I would lend weight to the complaints of another player is if the goals or abilities of the players were in direct conflict. (Because he's doing X, I can't do Y, etc). There is no conflict here.

I would advise any of the other players that this was an experiment, something that "I" as the GM wanted to try. I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair, perhaps in the future when I try a different experiment you can be the beneficiary.

And that would be the end of it. As I tell my kids when they whine, "You'll get over it."

Cedric

Click to expand...

I didn't actually come up with the concept of playing the character like this. The player did and then came to me and asked if it would be ok to play. I said I had some reservations about it possibly being too powerful if used indescriminantly (i.e. a full casting sorcerer with a barbarian BAB). As a result we introduced some conditions and rules to the character as well as the player assuring me that he wouldn't be powergaming with it.

Even still I said that the other players may still think that he was getting treated unfavourably. I said at the time that if any of the other players had an issue with it then we would discuss it as a group and try to come up with a solution that kept everyone happy. He agreed so it was left at that.

Personally, if I was in one of the other player's position(s) and I said something to my GM, I would be very unhappy if he just brushed me off and said, "Too bad. Maybe things will go your way next time."

Olaf the Stout

Olaf the Stout said:

I didn't actually come up with the concept of playing the character like this. The player did and then came to me and asked if it would be ok to play. I said I had some reservations about it possibly being too powerful if used indescriminantly (i.e. a full casting sorcerer with a barbarian BAB). As a result we introduced some conditions and rules to the character as well as the player assuring me that he wouldn't be powergaming with it.

Even still I said that the other players may still think that he was getting treated unfavourably. I said at the time that if any of the other players had an issue with it then we would discuss it as a group and try to come up with a solution that kept everyone happy. He agreed so it was left at that.

Personally, if I was in one of the other player's position(s) and I said something to my GM, I would be very unhappy if he just brushed me off and said, "Too bad. Maybe things will go your way next time."

Olaf the Stout

Click to expand...

I understand your points...and perhaps I was unclear. It doesn't have to be your idea, to be something that you want to try...something your anxious to experiment with.

It sounds like a difficult concept for the Player and the GM. Now, if I'm wrong, and you were reluctant to do it all along and didn't really see it as an opportunity, but saw it as more of a pain, then that's a different story.

Also, while my wording was kind of terse and brusque, I wasn't really suggesting that you blow off the concerns of your other players.

However, the players also need to respect that you may have reasons for making a decision about your game, even if those decisions favor another play sometimes.

As a compromise, you may want to do something to up the abilities of the other players (intentionally seed in some magic items or rewards, etc.). I generally favor that as a solution over reducing the powers and capabilities of another character.

Especially if that means I would have to revise history so to speak.

Cedric said:

I understand your points...and perhaps I was unclear. It doesn't have to be your idea, to be something that you want to try...something your anxious to experiment with.

It sounds like a difficult concept for the Player and the GM. Now, if I'm wrong, and you were reluctant to do it all along and didn't really see it as an opportunity, but saw it as more of a pain, then that's a different story.

Also, while my wording was kind of terse and brusque, I wasn't really suggesting that you blow off the concerns of your other players.

However, the players also need to respect that you may have reasons for making a decision about your game, even if those decisions favor another play sometimes.

As a compromise, you may want to do something to up the abilities of the other players (intentionally seed in some magic items or rewards, etc.). I generally favor that as a solution over reducing the powers and capabilities of another character.

Especially if that means I would have to revise history so to speak.

Click to expand...

No problem whatsoever. Probably just a misunderstanding on both our parts or the fact that it is hard to guess the tone of someone's post on a messageboard.

I didn't necessarily see it as a pain. I thought that the concept was cool. I was just mindful that the other players may have seen it as one player getting preferable treatment.

As for increasing other people's powers in some ways, I am mindful of getting on that sort of slippery slope. Keep the opinions coming though.

Olaf the Stout

I really like my players to come up with new, weird, interesting concepts. If they come up with one that I want to run with...then I let them run with it.

I'm afraid of the precedent I might set by allowing one of those interesting concepts, then taking it away when someone complains.

Maybe the next time a player comes up with an idea they really like...they just discard it without even telling me, because they know if someone else doesn't like it, I'll just take it away after they've grown attached to it.

The concept also seems like one that could easily come back to bite the player in the butt depending on how events turn out. It seems to have it's own inherent checks and balances.