Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[MechaPilot]

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.

I agree with your sentiment, but I would still call that "shooting down" the character. I just wouldn't be using it in a pejorative sense. If you make a good faith effort to reach a compromise with the player and no compromise can be had, then there's no shame in shooting down that character.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with your sentiment, but I would still call that "shooting down" the character. I just wouldn't be using it in a pejorative sense. If you make a good faith effort to reach a compromise with the player and no compromise can be had, then there's no shame in shooting down that character.

Fair enough, as long as we’re on the same page with how we’re using the phrase

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not sure about the phrasing of the question, but there are a few things I've allowed in the past that I would no longer allow after seeing them

For example, Monk/Moon Druid with all of the monk abilities being allowed to work with the wildshape... no, that isn't happening again. It was too much. (Not that I couldn't handle that PC, but it was a combination of abilities that really made a lot of the fights seem pointless to me as a DM, as I don't think I bloodied that character more than once in a two year campaign, they were just too tough for the encounters the rest of the party was geared towards)

 

[Yunru]

made a lot of the fights seem pointless to me as a DM

Fights are pointless; they're just a way to overcome an obstacle to the objective.

 

[ccs]

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?

Define "100% by the rules".
Do you mean the RAW by Wizards?
Or do you mean the rules + whatever house rules we're actually using?

 

[Umbran]

I will shoot down a character if it doesn't fit my game's or my table's general theme or approach. I don't see why I'd not shoot down a character that would be similarly disruptive for its mechanical form.

 

[Prakriti]

Two words.

Chaotic Evil.

 

[Blue]

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.

In other editions and in other systems I'e said no to things because I felt they were broken. Sure thing.

But we also usually have a session 0, where we talk out our characters, make sure the party dynamics work, and make characters. I give guidance during that part so it's not like getting handed a character at the beginning of a session and then downchecking it.

I've also talked to players when character advancement choices have ended up being too powerful.

I also agree with @Laurefindel comments about not respecting campaign theme, stepping on another character's toes, and generally not being a dick. Also no evil characters unless the campaign is based around them.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've disallowed characters for a host of reasons, but "broken" hasn't been one of them (usually because I'll give anything a fair shake before calling it broken). This has caused several problems in other editions and RPGs (such as a character who would have the 5E equivalent of 30 AC and immune to automatic hits), but IME in 5E, "broken" characters really aren't that much more powerful than the average character, unless they try to abuse a vague area in the rules (where the DM can easily restrict such nonsense).

Of course, I am very careful to provide a campaign handout that gives the overall theme, concept, and expectations of the campaign, and thus characters. In a campaign based on the theme of Destiny, I informed a player that his character's background where the fates had determined she was "immune to destiny" was entirely unacceptable, causing the player to quit in a huff. In a 3E game, where the plan was classic, low magic adventure, one player built a character with the full intent of taking a prestige class that causes you to become a treant, and threw a hissy fit when told that prestige class was unavailable. I've had to explain (several times to some players) that various races, such as drow, 1/2 orcs, dragonborn, and teiflings are viewed as evil/monstrous by most people in my campaign, and are thus usually attacked on site, making them unplayable races.

 

[Oofta]

I used to allow anything. The a guy played seven foot tall albino elf who a pacifist who didn't have any weapons (not even sure he had a class). His character concept was that people were frightened of him, but gave no mechanical reason whatsoever. He lasted one game. Then when another guy wanted to play a half dragon half vampire I realized I had to start setting down some ground rules.

So before people join my campaign I send a link to some campaign ground rules and make sure everyone is on the same page. I have some racial and sub-class restrictions for thematic reasons.

In addition I have a a basic don't be evil or an antisocial emo loner who doesn't believe in working with anyone else because you want "room to grow" (but only if the other players read your mind and do exactly what you think they should). It's not that everybody has to be all rainbows and sunshine all the time, but some people think the entire campaign should revolve around their character. In other words, don't be a jerk and work with the group to come up with concepts that will work together.

So do I shoot down character concepts? I guess I do. I just let people know ahead of time.