Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[Chaosmancer]

Immediately shoot down, even if it follows my list of rules I supplied before session 0? No. If I think it might cause a problem for the player, though, like if the player thinks the class or an option works a different way than it actually does, or picks complicated options without understanding what they do, I might caution and warn them about it before it becomes frustrating for them.

I always have at least one player I'm always hesitant to allow to play spellcasters. Even five sessions in, they ask what a spell save DC is, other players helpfully lead them through calculating what it is, and told to write it down and remember it for the future. Only to forget and repeat the process every single time they cast a spell. And also rarely look up what spells do, just pick them based on their name, and always asks *me* in the middle of combat when I might have 2-3 books open and flipping through various stat blocks, instead of opening their own PHB sitting right in front of them. It's this type of player I would encourage to play a class more on their comfort level of being able to understand on their own.

Heh, I'm actually dealing with exactly that type of player right now.

Add in the fact that her and her boyfriend prefer to use DnD Beyond for character sheets, and therefore are constantly on their laptops during the game... IT isn't great.

I've been debating how to gently break the subject before school is back in session and we sit back down for our next session, see if I can't get them a little more attentive during the game since it is annoying the other players.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

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.

I don't believe that such a thing exists in 5e; forum angst over combos involves being them being able to score high numbers in white room example fights that won't work out in reality or only rarely occur. I have yet to see an actual example where a player put together a 5e character using the real rules (not UA or weird 'someone on the internet posted this' classes) and the combination of abilities was actually broken. So I simply wouldn't see that someone decided to multiclass two or three classes together and decide 'oh my god, that's broken'. I'd give a warning like 'you do realize you can't use monk abilities while wild shaped as natural weapons and unarmed strikes aren't the same thing' if they seem to have a rules error, but otherwise I really don't see why I'd lose sleep over someone combining hexblade with valor bard and mastermind rogue (or whatever the actual combo is), they're probably going to end up weaker than a straight character anyway.

Looking through this thread, people's examples don't seem to have anything to do with a by-the-rules character that combines abilities in a way that mechanically breaks the games. They seem to be examples of characters that don't fit the world's background, characters that are made with bad personalities, characters made specifically to annoy someone else, and so on, but nothing that involves 'combining these classes is mechanically broken'. If a player is making a character to screw with another player, then I have a player problem, not a character mechanics problem, and I'll deal with the player directly. If a particular character doesn't fit the game world, then I'll explain how my world works to the player and let him make it into something that fits the campaign.

Using 'make a backstory' as a response is just weird and nonsensical to me; if there's something mechanically wrong with the class then having a good backstory won't fix the mechanics, and having a crappy backstory won't suddenly break a good character into a bad one. I don't see what purpose this requirement is expected to serve. Also it's not some monumental task to come up with a backstory for any particular combination of abilities in a 'general D&D' world; if nothing else, you can just watch the youtube video about Abserd (character for a one-shot with one level in every class) and take out whichever classes you aren't using.

 

[Parmandur]

Just leave oit multiclassing and feats from the game, and nothing is broken: choose one Class, one Subclass, one Race, one Background, and spells as needed. You can't game RP, so everything is gravy once the silly variants are out of the picture.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't believe that such a thing exists in 5e; forum angst over combos involves being them being able to score high numbers in white room example fights that won't work out in reality or only rarely occur. I have yet to see an actual example where a player put together a 5e character using the real rules (not UA or weird 'someone on the internet posted this' classes) and the combination of abilities was actually broken. So I simply wouldn't see that someone decided to multiclass two or three classes together and decide 'oh my god, that's broken'. I'd give a warning like 'you do realize you can't use monk abilities while wild shaped as natural weapons and unarmed strikes aren't the same thing' if they seem to have a rules error, but otherwise I really don't see why I'd lose sleep over someone combining hexblade with valor bard and mastermind rogue (or whatever the actual combo is), they're probably going to end up weaker than a straight character anyway.

Looking through this thread, people's examples don't seem to have anything to do with a by-the-rules character that combines abilities in a way that mechanically breaks the games. They seem to be examples of characters that don't fit the world's background, characters that are made with bad personalities, characters made specifically to annoy someone else, and so on, but nothing that involves 'combining these classes is mechanically broken'. If a player is making a character to screw with another player, then I have a player problem, not a character mechanics problem, and I'll deal with the player directly. If a particular character doesn't fit the game world, then I'll explain how my world works to the player and let him make it into something that fits the campaign.

Using 'make a backstory' as a response is just weird and nonsensical to me; if there's something mechanically wrong with the class then having a good backstory won't fix the mechanics, and having a crappy backstory won't suddenly break a good character into a bad one. I don't see what purpose this requirement is expected to serve. Also it's not some monumental task to come up with a backstory for any particular combination of abilities in a 'general D&D' world; if nothing else, you can just watch the youtube video about Abserd (character for a one-shot with one level in every class) and take out whichever classes you aren't using.

Tend to agree - about the only oddball I would have specifically refused was the vofferlock by saying "pact slots cannot be used for class festures of other classes unless list (ie casting spells)."

Most of the others I found were used to very permissive readings and often would not even come to "power" for the vast majority of the campaign.

Value and power if really governed more by *need* in play than the white room spreadsheets.

I got one player now basically "building to guide" specs and amazingly his character has the least "who am i?" info of any of them and 90% of that is right out of the race generic type fluff.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I was in a game with new 1st level characters, and one player new to the group. The new player had been told what other players in the group were bringing, including a warlock. The new player, for his first 5e game, decided to play a bard, but with Magic Initiate as his human bonus feat, taking Eldritch Blast and Hex. (I suspect the influence of the internet.)

Had I been the DM, I would have pointed out to him before game how that stepped on the toes of another player rather heavily, and suggested he take something else.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I was in a game with new 1st level characters, and one player new to the group. The new player had been told what other players in the group were bringing, including a warlock. The new player, for his first 5e game, decided to play a bard, but with Magic Initiate as his human bonus feat, taking Eldritch Blast and Hex. (I suspect the influence of the internet.)

Had I been the DM, I would have pointed out to him before game how that stepped on the toes of another player rather heavily, and suggested he take something else.

I don't what the problem is. If a fighter carries a bow in addition to his melee weapons like most sensible fighters do, is he now "stepping on the ranger's toes" because he's got the same type of attack, but doesn't do it as well? Is the bard doing something sort of like what the warlock does, but significantly worse (once per day use of hex that only lasts 1 hour, no agonizing blast to add charisma damage to the blasts, no option for other invocations). If a ranger shows up and wants swing a rapier while using his hunter's mark, should the dex-based vengeance paladin start complaining that the ranger is stepping on his toes now?

The idea that players should have no abilities that overlap, and especially that a new player can't have a character who's got a similar but inferior option to an existing character is really foreign to me.

Also this is the kind of thing that I think of when people online talk about something being 'broken'. Mechanically it's not a very good option for the bard to blow an entire feat to get a cantrip that does +1d6/tier damage over the standard firebolt for an hour each day while consuming concentration. But since EB is the strongest damage cantrip, and the EB+Hex combo is the reason why, people see it and assume that it's some kind of POWER MOVE. If I saw someone taking that combo, I'd think they wanted a character with a minor warlock-style pact as part of their backstory, the idea that they're making a power move or stepping on someone's toes wouldn't even register.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Yeah, I will limit people depending on the campaign. If it's Greyhawk, for example, there are no Dragonborn, Tieflings, or Drow available for PCs, and Half-Orcs are somewhat discouraged. Technically you could play a Drow, but you'd be kill-on-sight to all surface dwelling races.

A couple of my friends have a story about this. A guy wanted to play a half-orc/half-elf druid. The character was cursed (!) with wings... which worked, of course. Also, everywhere he stepped plants within 3 feet of his footsteps would grow and then wither and die (yes, like that forest spirit from Princess Mononoke, though this may have been before that was released). He then proceeded to be the most non-functional character ever and constantly asked to revise his character (as in change stuff at the start of every session), which became so legendary that I don't even remember any of those stories. All we say anymore is, "I wanna play a half-elf/half-orc that's cursed with wings that work..." and that's the joke. Interesting character for a story. Terrible character for a collaborative game. He lasted about two sessions before he was asked not to come back.

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.

I think any game that's lasted long enough to have new players cycle in and out will have this rule. I usually just direct the players to have a reason to be adventuring together at arriving at the starting location (often with a reason or hook for them to be there, like a letter from a Wizard or something). It's obnoxious to think of a reason for 4-7 paranoid antisocial introverts to be adventuring together that's not horrifically contrived, so I just don't do it anymore. It shouldn't be too much to ask for players to make characters that want to work together in your adventuring party in a game about working together in your adventuring party.

 

[5ekyu]

Why is this stepping? A party can have two foghters, two healers nobody blinks and its not like there are gazillions of spells that are effective.

At 2nd level that walock will get invocations and if the bard tries to keep up the EB schtick ot will show as weak sauce.

But spell slinger bard tapping other class spells is actually a sub-class thing by 6th. So, you wanna stop that too?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't what the problem is. If a fighter carries a bow in addition to his melee weapons like most sensible fighters do, is he now "stepping on the ranger's toes" because he's got the same type of attack, but doesn't do it as well? Is the bard doing something sort of like what the warlock does, but significantly worse (once per day use of hex that only lasts 1 hour, no agonizing blast to add charisma damage to the blasts, no option for other invocations). If a ranger shows up and wants swing a rapier while using his hunter's mark, should the dex-based vengeance paladin start complaining that the ranger is stepping on his toes now?

The idea that players should have no abilities that overlap, and especially that a new player can't have a character who's got a similar but inferior option to an existing character is really foreign to me.

Also this is the kind of thing that I think of when people online talk about something being 'broken'. Mechanically it's not a very good option for the bard to blow an entire feat to get a cantrip that does +1d6/tier damage over the standard firebolt for an hour each day while consuming concentration. But since EB is the strongest damage cantrip, and the EB+Hex combo is the reason why, people see it and assume that it's some kind of POWER MOVE. If I saw someone taking that combo, I'd think they wanted a character with a minor warlock-style pact as part of their backstory, the idea that they're making a power move or stepping on someone's toes wouldn't even register.

I think a key part of that story is that they were level 1 characters.

Warlock has a single spell slot and no invocations, so in terms of damage Hex+EB is their best.

Sure, the bard is going to get left behind if the warlock invests in that combo, but for the first few levels of play it could feel to the warlock like someone else stole their best move, and has an entire class worth of abilities in addition to that.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think a key part of that story is that they were level 1 characters.

Warlock has a single spell slot and no invocations, so in terms of damage Hex+EB is their best.

I would say that if a player is going to whine because another player does something like one of their abilities, then they're not someone I want at the table. The Bard's setup is still inferior (bard can only do hex once per day, while warlock can do it once per short rest, which means hex is up basically all the time), and the warlock has multiple other things that he can do (another feat or racial abilities, another spell, another cantrip) if he wants to. I would feel the same way if a ranger complained that the bard also carried a bow, a rogue complained that the same bard also uses a rapier with hex to 'steal' his sneak attack damage, or a wizard complained that someone else dared to get a familiar.

Sure, the bard is going to get left behind if the warlock invests in that combo, but for the first few levels of play it could feel to the warlock like someone else stole their best move, and has an entire class worth of abilities in addition to that.

This makes it even worse. If a player is not only whiny but also demands that no one can be better than their character at something they're not even trying to be good at, then I really don't want them around. If a Warlock doesn't take agonizing blast, then he's not going to do the damage he would if he did. This is like a ranger choosing to take dual-weapon style instead of archery, then complaining that a rogue is 'stealing' his best move by using a bow. If you want to be the best at a move, then actually be the best at it, don't suck at it, then complain if someone who's not putting in much effort does it better than you.

This isn't a devil's advocate thing, a player who claims ownership of a basic spell combo or other simple game mechanic sounds to me like a player who is trying to stir up trouble, isn't very good at coming up with story for his character, and isn't very good at playing the game. I'm perfectly happy to see a game with multiple warlocks or archers or fighters or healers or whatever, and I think a player who's so insecure and/or controlling that he gets angry at the idea of anyone having similar abilities is a detriment to the table, especially if he's not even good at the ability he wants to claim ownership of.