Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

Do you do it?

Assuming a player comes along and his character is 100% by the rules, no Unearthed Arcana or any other playtest material, will you still shoot down a character design because you feel it is broken?

I am not sure if I would straight out say no. My first thought is that if they player can created something broken by some unusual combination of abilities through multiclassing then to play that character I would require a plausable backstory that explains exactly how this very unusual exploitive combination makes sense.

Would you just say no? Or would you allow it and then ramp up or tailor encounters to balance against said character.

Never.
If something truly is broken, of which I've yet to find something, then I'll address the broken thing, and talk to them about how it'll effect them and if they want to change anything.

Because it might be broken? No

Because it doesn’t respect the themes of the campaign; yes

Because it plays at the expense of other players; yes

Because it’s disruptive to the game; yes

Because the player is using this concept to justify being a dick; yes

“Don’t be a dick” is the only hard rule I live by in RPGs. Everything else revolves around it. If you can do something without being a dick, I’m cool with it, regardless whether it is legit or not.

Laurefindel said:

Because it might be broken? No

Because it doesn’t respect the themes of the campaign; yes

Because it plays at the expense of other players; yes

Because it’s disruptive to the game; yes

Because the player is using this concept to justify being a dick; yes

“Don’t be a dick” is the only hard rule I live by in RPGs. Everything else revolves around it. If you can do something without being a dick, I’m cool with it, regardless whether it is legit or not.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that is an excellent way to look at it.

JacktheRabbit said:

Do you do it?

Assuming a player comes along and his character is 100% by the rules, no Unearthed Arcana or any other playtest material, will you still shoot down a character design because you feel it is broken?

I am not sure if I would straight out say no. My first thought is that if they player can created something broken by some unusual combination of abilities through multiclassing then to play that character I would require a plausable backstory that explains exactly how this very unusual exploitive combination makes sense.

Would you just say no? Or would you allow it and then ramp up or tailor encounters to balance against said character.

Click to expand...

I don't think a mechanical combo is at all the same as a character concept. So, there are two questions to answer here.

The first is- will I shoot down a mechanically broken pc?

I will absolutely shoot down a pc that is using rules I don't allow. From the PH, the only thing that qualifies is Drow. Drow aren't a pc option in my game. So there you go. As for multiclassing or weird combos, I don't worry about them; even less so, because I run an "Everyone Starts at First Level" (ES@1) campaign. There's no multiclass combo available at first level, nor do I really think that 5e combos are broken, with the possible exception of a few class options that aren't in the PH (e.g. the war wizard and the hexblade).

The second question you're asking- the one in the thread title- is will I shoot down a character with a legitimate concept?

Assuming "legit" means "in the context of the campaign setting," then no, I won't. However, a character can have a concept that is legit in most settings but not mine. In which case, yes, I will shoot it down. A good example of this is a pirate character: my campaign features one and only one city, with no other bastions of civilizations surviving; so a pirate that isn't old enough to be from Before has no real way to exist. There aren't pirate ships, there aren't merchant ships, there isn't even easy access to an ocean. I'm fine with a pc who is a river pirate, as long as the pc understands the limitations of available piracy (mostly timber being floated up or down the river than runs through the city, either from the area that is forested or to the small outlying community a few miles away) and the implications thereof.

Something can be legal by the rules and broken by logic (double hand-crossbow weirder) or silly (halfling mounted on a riding dog two-weapon fighting with a pair of lances), and as a DM I might choose to veto.

And there are combos I’ve had to tone down. But I prefer imposing a restriction (such as house rulling the Sharpshooter feat to only work once per turn) or simply telling the player not to abuse the combo. They can keep it in their back pocket for emergencies, but if they abuse it or steal the spotlight too often, I’ll have to take it away.

I banned the Circle of the Shepherd simply because I don't want to keep track of summons.

I go with the don't be a dick rule followed by the don't abuse it rule.

If need be I have an infinate supply of great wrym dragons.

I lay down ahead of time what options I feel are appropriate or inappropriate for a particular campaign. If a player has a concept or a build outside of that, I’ll listen to their ideas and try to work with them to find something that suits their interests and the campaign, be it an alternate option, a house rule to the option in question, or something else. If we can’t find a comporomise, is that “shooting down” the character? I don’t think it is. To be shot down, something needs to have first taken flight.

Shoot down? No. Modify? Yes.

One of the things I make clear to players when they join my game is that broken combinations can, and probably do, exist straight out of the PHB. If something pops up during play as broken, I will fix it. By that I mean that I'll describe to the player how and why the combination is broken and what I would be inclined to do to fix the problem; and then I'd ask for their input so we can collaborate on a solution with which we can both be happy.

I consider explaining to the player both the problem and how the chosen abilities create that problem, and then requesting input from the player to be a vital part of this process. If the player makes a compromise, I want the player to know what the compromise is for, and I want them to have some reasonable amount of say in what the compromise is. It's their character, after-all. I also want players to know that when I feel I need to change something, I'll have a valid reason for it, and that I won't keep them in the dark about my reasons; I feel like doing so would only give the appearance of changing things capriciously.