Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[5ekyu]

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.

I have campaign rules and guidelines... some of them change rules... these help the rules match the campaign. These sometimes include rulings on things like mulyi-class and even changes to spells.

So, no, I would not ban a character for power but might have already made rules that prevent its abuse.

The fact that a character is RAW legal Carrie's no weight for me when it comes to "is it allowed".

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I've misread the title that way a couple times myself. I just assumed it was a subconscious thing because I fall under the LGBT umbrella.

It is subconscious, but in a different way, since humans tend to see key letters in a word and then the brain fills in the gaps. This is why it is so easy to misread something when just casually reading or scanning something. So all-capital LEGIT has the L and G and T in it and LGBT is always in all caps, making it is an easy one for our brains to mix up.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I consider the game to be the GM's game. It is up to GM to set rules that are used, balancing game, theme - all of that - so sure. I'd shoot down a character that was "legit"


I played HERO for decades - it's a point based system that can be very unbalanced - so generally all the balance came from the GM. I take that same attitude to any RPG I play.


I've also used this for mechanical hijinx "I am one of the worst power gamer you ever met - I tend to optimize NPCs and such about the level the players do - if you go overboard, expect the same in the enemies you face"

 

[CleverNickName]

Feats and multiclassing are optional rules, and so are the flanking rules in the DMG. If you use these optional rules in your game, you are practically giving your players permission to make "broken" character concepts.

I allow these optional rules in my games, and therefore I forfeit any right to complain about the combinations that my players might come up with.

 

[GothicEmperor]

Basically everything that's not in the PHB and not marked optional is subject to GM approval, though I'm not very strict at that. Mind, my players aren't very powergamey, so it hasn't really been an issue yet; they always put RPing first, so they don't go for incongruous choices for mechanical benefits.

Personally, I've yet to see a character build that actually breaks the game (across all levels, at least). 5e's power curve is flat enough that there's not really a huge difference between a suboptimal and heavily optimised character, though I guess some wacky combinations might break it in edge cases.

 

[S'mon]

If it's within my allowed options then I'm not going to ban it. I don't allow multiclassing anyway which removes a lot of worries.

 

[Mort]

Lots of great replies already, I'll try not to be too repetitive.

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?

One word answer really: no.

I'm much more concerned with social dynamics within the group, I want to make sure the players are having fun with the game and with each other.

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.

Plausible backstory is easy!

If the concept really is overpowered (to me overpowered usually equates to overshadowing and/or marginalizing another PC) I'm not going to let it happen just because the player is creative enough to justify it in-game.

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

I have yet to encounter such an individual build in 5e.

5e can really promote group synergy. Players working together can really build each other up and overcome much bigger challenges.

Rather that looking at this as something to be mitigated, I see this as a huge positive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Depends.

Such a clear and precise answer

 

[Immortal Sun]

I won't punish them for their build, only their in-game actions and player attitude. If a player can self-moderate, be a "team player" even with a supposedly broken character, then there really isn't a problem is there?

I only care about actual problems. Not perceived problems.

 

[Inchoroi]

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.

This is the correct answer. A corollary, however, is that I also will veto a character concept if it impugns upon another character's niche. For example, if there's a druid focused on nature, animals, and survival, I wouldn't allow another character to bring in a ranger focused on nature, animals, and survival. Most of my players would be annoyed, but would get over it eventually; one of my players, though, would be very upset by it, so I try to prevent that. I provide character hooks and lots of information before the group makes characters, and have a Session Zero (by god, you should always do a Session Zero) where everyone talks about what they're going to make and what they want to do so no one steps on another's toes.