I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking. Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking. Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
They can still use their full movement, it just cost them a bonus action to exit (manifest) the host body first. AND manifesting actually gives you an extra five feet movement as you step out into a square next to the host body. SO...
player A uses bonus action to manifest and then moves their movement. Player B moves host body 40' to melee. Player C manifests and moves their full movement away because they are ranged or caster. Player D stays in host body because they are are also melee. Player E uses bonus action to submerge because they are low on hitpoints from the last fight. Player F manifest and moves to flank.
When manifested they would play just like any other combat, with their own full movement, for a number of rounds equal to their proficiency bonus. I am considering making this twice their proficiency bonus.
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Good question. No. Only the current player in control of the host body (based on initiative order) can. HOWEVER a player can use their reaction to Interpose themselves and take the hit for the person that is currently in control of the body. (side note sentinel feat is practically useless in 5e unlike in 3e when players had multiple opportunity attacks. The number of times that a character actually gets to use over the course of a game is small. I'd rather go for a disarm, grapple, or knock down. None of those require a feat.)
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Another good question! Agreeing would be the best option, and I will keep a running initiative to make sure everyone is being heard. But... in the case of a contested situation each player would roll their prime stat. In game this would represent the Wizard using their intelligence to present a sound rational, while the barbarian holds their breath until everyone else capitulates.
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
Another great question. This will be the primary purpose of the running initiative. Yes they can all use the mouth. No (barring spells) they can't silence the others.
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
So this already happens in games. And most tables use a group average for initiative. what I have done is add another ability to the custom lineage. I'm hoping that creative use of tool proficiencies will help some of that.
Fragments Of The Past: Fragments of your past lives inundate your dreams. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can gain two proficiencies that you don't have, each one with a weapon or a tool of your choice selected from the Player's Handbook. You retain them until you finish your next long rest.
Also, I am currently playing a high dexterity emerald gem dragonborn barbarian and while I don't make as many skill checks outside of combat I do provide a lot of help actions and suggestion that the player with the skill might not think of.
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking.
No.
Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Ooh. This is what I have been waiting for. Most people have just been don't like it without actually discussing mechanics. I hadn't thought of this that way. So... I think... this is going to come down to initiative order. So yeah... sometimes the caster classes are going to get a bit of a boost in regards to concentration checks. Hmm...
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
Great question. Only the character targeted by the effect while they are in control of the host body is affected. All players in the host body would however be subject to grappled, restrained, and prone condition. They could however just manifest their way out of that.
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I answered this particular question previously...
Good question.
1. They know that their bodies and power (class levels) were sacrificed (destroyed) so that their souls could power the cage (the ring)
2. They know that in order to keep the demons caged they will once again have to use their souls to power the cage.
3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage.
4. Their souls are bound to the ring. By rules, bound souls can't be unbound by anything other than a wish or destroying the object they are bound to. Destroying the ring would be an artifact level quest. Destroying the ring would destroy the cage which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. Using wish to unbind their souls would render the ring useless which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. AND... you can't cast wish until 17th level at which point they will have already defeated most of the demons.
THANK YOU! You actually gave me actionable feedback.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
They can still use their full movement, it just cost them a bonus action to exit (manifest) the host body first. AND manifesting actually gives you an extra five feet movement as you step out into a square next to the host body. SO...
player A uses bonus action to manifest and then moves their movement. Player B moves host body 40' to melee. Player C manifests and moves their full movement away because they are ranged or caster. Player D stays in host body because they are are also melee. Player E uses bonus action to submerge because they are low on hitpoints from the last fight. Player F manifest and moves to flank.
When manifested they would play just like any other combat, with their own full movement, for a number of rounds equal to their proficiency bonus. I am considering making this twice their proficiency bonus.
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Good question. No. Only the current player in control of the host body (based on initiative order) can. HOWEVER a player can use their reaction to Interpose themselves and take the hit for the person that is currently in control of the body. (side note sentinel feat is practically useless in 5e unlike in 3e when players had multiple opportunity attacks. The number of times that a character actually gets to use over the course of a game is small. I'd rather go for a disarm, grapple, or knock down. None of those require a feat.)
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Another good question! Agreeing would be the best option, and I will keep a running initiative to make sure everyone is being heard. But... in the case of a contested situation each player would roll their prime stat. In game this would represent the Wizard using their intelligence to present a sound rational, while the barbarian holds their breath until everyone else capitulates.
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
Another great question. This will be the primary purpose of the running initiative. Yes they can all use the mouth. No (barring spells) they can't silence the others.
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
So this already happens in games. And most tables use a group average for initiative. what I have done is add another ability to the custom lineage. I'm hoping that creative use of tool proficiencies will help some of that.
Fragments Of The Past: Fragments of your past lives inundate your dreams. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can gain two proficiencies that you don't have, each one with a weapon or a tool of your choice selected from the Player's Handbook. You retain them until you finish your next long rest.
Also, I am currently playing a high dexterity emerald gem dragonborn barbarian and while I don't make as many skill checks outside of combat I do provide a lot of help actions and suggestion that the player with the skill might not think of.
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking.
No.
Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Ooh. This is what I have been waiting for. Most people have just been don't like it without actually discussing mechanics. I hadn't thought of this that way. So... I think... this is going to come down to initiative order. So yeah... sometimes the caster classes are going to get a bit of a boost in regards to concentration checks. Hmm...
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
Great question. Only the character targeted by the effect while they are in control of the host body is affected. All players in the host body would however be subject to grappled, restrained, and prone condition. They could however just manifest their way out of that.
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I answered this particular question previously...
Good question.
1. They know that their bodies and power (class levels) were sacrificed (destroyed) so that their souls could power the cage (the ring)
2. They know that in order to keep the demons caged they will once again have to use their souls to power the cage.
3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage.
4. Their souls are bound to the ring. By rules, bound souls can't be unbound by anything other than a wish or destroying the object they are bound to. Destroying the ring would be an artifact level quest. Destroying the ring would destroy the cage which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. Using wish to unbind their souls would render the ring useless which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. AND... you can't cast wish until 17th level at which point they will have already defeated most of the demons.
THANK YOU! You actually gave me actionable feedback.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
They can still use their full movement, it just cost them a bonus action to exit (manifest) the host body first. AND manifesting actually gives you an extra five feet movement as you step out into a square next to the host body. SO...
player A uses bonus action to manifest and then moves their movement. Player B moves host body 40' to melee. Player C manifests and moves their full movement away because they are ranged or caster. Player D stays in host body because they are are also melee. Player E uses bonus action to submerge because they are low on hitpoints from the last fight. Player F manifest and moves to flank.
When manifested they would play just like any other combat, with their own full movement, for a number of rounds equal to their proficiency bonus. I am considering making this twice their proficiency bonus.
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Good question. No. Only the current player in control of the host body (based on initiative order) can. HOWEVER a player can use their reaction to Interpose themselves and take the hit for the person that is currently in control of the body. (side note sentinel feat is practically useless in 5e unlike in 3e when players had multiple opportunity attacks. The number of times that a character actually gets to use over the course of a game is small. I'd rather go for a disarm, grapple, or knock down. None of those require a feat.)
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Another good question! Agreeing would be the best option, and I will keep a running initiative to make sure everyone is being heard. But... in the case of a contested situation each player would roll their prime stat. In game this would represent the Wizard using their intelligence to present a sound rational, while the barbarian holds their breath until everyone else capitulates.
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
Another great question. This will be the primary purpose of the running initiative. Yes they can all use the mouth. No (barring spells) they can't silence the others.
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
So this already happens in games. And most tables use a group average for initiative. what I have done is add another ability to the custom lineage. I'm hoping that creative use of tool proficiencies will help some of that.
Fragments Of The Past: Fragments of your past lives inundate your dreams. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can gain two proficiencies that you don't have, each one with a weapon or a tool of your choice selected from the Player's Handbook. You retain them until you finish your next long rest.
Also, I am currently playing a high dexterity emerald gem dragonborn barbarian and while I don't make as many skill checks outside of combat I do provide a lot of help actions and suggestion that the player with the skill might not think of.
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking.
No.
Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Ooh. This is what I have been waiting for. Most people have just been don't like it without actually discussing mechanics. I hadn't thought of this that way. So... I think... this is going to come down to initiative order. So yeah... sometimes the caster classes are going to get a bit of a boost in regards to concentration checks. Hmm...
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
Great question. Only the character targeted by the effect while they are in control of the host body is affected. All players in the host body would however be subject to grappled, restrained, and prone condition. They could however just manifest their way out of that.
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I answered this particular question previously...
Good question.
1. They know that their bodies and power (class levels) were sacrificed (destroyed) so that their souls could power the cage (the ring)
2. They know that in order to keep the demons caged they will once again have to use their souls to power the cage.
3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage.
4. Their souls are bound to the ring. By rules, bound souls can't be unbound by anything other than a wish or destroying the object they are bound to. Destroying the ring would be an artifact level quest. Destroying the ring would destroy the cage which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. Using wish to unbind their souls would render the ring useless which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. AND... you can't cast wish until 17th level at which point they will have already defeated most of the demons.
THANK YOU! You actually gave me actionable feedback.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
Response - Yes, it does affect some classes more than others but this is already the case in base rules. Some classes have a crap ton of bonus actions while others do not. While I understand the concern I think players will learn how to roll this into their normal action economy. This same thing happens when you acquire magic items that require a bonus action to activate such as Flame Tongue and Sun Blade. If I activate flame togue I can't also do...
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
Response - In your previous post I don't think I answered this clearly or as intended. Yes manifested players can use their reaction normally AS LONG AS ALL OTHER CRITERIA IS MET. So yes you can still use things like Counterspell or Protection while you are not in control of the host body, but you can't opportunity attack unless you are in control of the host body. Manifested characters are played completely normally.
So what I meant by my original response is that you can't use six opportunity attacks against one goblin who moves five feet away.
Thank you for this question. I'm adding a clarified version of this to my rules list.
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
Response - I think I misunderstood the question. For some reason I thought you meant can two people concentrate on the same spell. So... to be clear... while inside or outside of the host body an individual character can concentrate on spells as normal.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
Response - I think it's already pretty explicit when the only in game ways would be an artifact level quest or wish spell. Both those things would be outside of anything below level 17. And considering that they are THE GOOD GUYS tasked with hunting and trapping these specific demons destroying the only thing that can trap these demons would be an extreme deviation.
Oh... and destroying the cage to free their souls wouldn't restore their body. By rules a freed soul moves on to its afterlife. So... bye bye. So if you destroy the ring all players go bye bye. If you use Wish to free a soul from the ring then by the rules you are subject to the using wish for other stuff rules, which really suck and may result in you not be able to ever cast wish again.
So... If the players really really wanted to do it. It would take six wishes without rolling a 33 or lower and enough diamonds to cast true resurrection six time.
And again... that's not railroading. These are the same rules that would apply to trying to free a bound soul from nearly anything else.
Great vid on railroading if you haven't already watched it.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking. Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I still think you might want to revisit the movement restriction during combat. If each character has their full use of their action, bonus action, reaction, etc, then it makes sense they would have their full movement. Otherwise the characters last in initiative will usually feel like they can't move at all, and there are some abilities that require movement to use, so you'll be limiting those characters in a way that might make the players antagonistic towards each other ("You moved 30 feet?? I needed movement for x,y,z!!")
They can still use their full movement, it just cost them a bonus action to exit (manifest) the host body first. AND manifesting actually gives you an extra five feet movement as you step out into a square next to the host body. SO...
player A uses bonus action to manifest and then moves their movement. Player B moves host body 40' to melee. Player C manifests and moves their full movement away because they are ranged or caster. Player D stays in host body because they are are also melee. Player E uses bonus action to submerge because they are low on hitpoints from the last fight. Player F manifest and moves to flank.
When manifested they would play just like any other combat, with their own full movement, for a number of rounds equal to their proficiency bonus. I am considering making this twice their proficiency bonus.
Random mechanical questions:
Can different characters both use their reaction on the same trigger? Say one has the War Caster feat and one has the Sentinel feat, could they both use their reaction as an enemy movies out of range?
Good question. No. Only the current player in control of the host body (based on initiative order) can. HOWEVER a player can use their reaction to Interpose themselves and take the hit for the person that is currently in control of the body. (side note sentinel feat is practically useless in 5e unlike in 3e when players had multiple opportunity attacks. The number of times that a character actually gets to use over the course of a game is small. I'd rather go for a disarm, grapple, or knock down. None of those require a feat.)
Outside of combat, how do you determine who is in control (or rather, how do the players determine who is in control)? Do they just have to agree? If one character wants their Body to do one thing and another character wants it to do another, who wins? Are there any mechanics to wrest control of the body from another character outside of combat?
Another good question! Agreeing would be the best option, and I will keep a running initiative to make sure everyone is being heard. But... in the case of a contested situation each player would roll their prime stat. In game this would represent the Wizard using their intelligence to present a sound rational, while the barbarian holds their breath until everyone else capitulates.
Similarly, in conversations with NPC's, do they all get to use the mouth, or can any of them silence the other characters, or stop them from talking? Who gets to talk first?
Another great question. This will be the primary purpose of the running initiative. Yes they can all use the mouth. No (barring spells) they can't silence the others.
You said they have a benefit in sneaking, as they are only sneaking as one body instead of six. In this case, does just one character take control and then you use those stats for the stealth check (like the rogue takes control so their stealth check is high). One issue that might arise with this is characters with more out-of-combat utility (like a rogue) might end up getting more "screen time" than a more combat-oriented character (like a barbarian).
So this already happens in games. And most tables use a group average for initiative. what I have done is add another ability to the custom lineage. I'm hoping that creative use of tool proficiencies will help some of that.
Fragments Of The Past: Fragments of your past lives inundate your dreams. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can gain two proficiencies that you don't have, each one with a weapon or a tool of your choice selected from the Player's Handbook. You retain them until you finish your next long rest.
Also, I am currently playing a high dexterity emerald gem dragonborn barbarian and while I don't make as many skill checks outside of combat I do provide a lot of help actions and suggestion that the player with the skill might not think of.
Can multiple characters concentrate on spells at the same time? This would seem likely, but just checking.
No.
Along with that, you may be giving casters a pretty large buff if they can cast a concentration spell and then basically not make any concentration checks because they are no longer in control of the body, and thus the new character's stats (like HP) are what are affected. This will make concentrating on spells a lot easier if only the emergent character is subject to damage.
Ooh. This is what I have been waiting for. Most people have just been don't like it without actually discussing mechanics. I hadn't thought of this that way. So... I think... this is going to come down to initiative order. So yeah... sometimes the caster classes are going to get a bit of a boost in regards to concentration checks. Hmm...
Along that same vein, if one of the characters is under control from a spell like "Dominate Person" or something, does that only occur when that character is the emergent one? If one character loses a saving throw to Hold Person, are all characters affected, or is it only the one the spell was cast one? If a character is poisoned, are only they poisoned or is the whole body poisoned?
Great question. Only the character targeted by the effect while they are in control of the host body is affected. All players in the host body would however be subject to grappled, restrained, and prone condition. They could however just manifest their way out of that.
As for some of the other concerns, I appreciate that you know your players more than any of us do. You know what they like, how they work together, etc, in a way that none of us can. So absolutely some of this could work with the right players and a group that is fully on-board. I do think there is a lot of wisdom in the people who have said that given the "mystery" of them all being aspects of the same body, there's a good chance at least some of them might feel like they need to solve the "puzzle" of that, seeing how to separate themselves. This is especially true with some of the limits they will have (such as the movement during combat one), giving them an incentive to look for a solution. You can say they are "goal oriented", which is great, but if you are basically saying that they cannot pursue researching how to split themselves at all, THAT is taking away player agency. You don't have to have a way for them to create separate bodies for themselves, but your responses seemed to be saying you would basically just not entertain the thought of them trying to do that anyway.
I answered this particular question previously...
Good question.
1. They know that their bodies and power (class levels) were sacrificed (destroyed) so that their souls could power the cage (the ring)
2. They know that in order to keep the demons caged they will once again have to use their souls to power the cage.
3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage.
4. Their souls are bound to the ring. By rules, bound souls can't be unbound by anything other than a wish or destroying the object they are bound to. Destroying the ring would be an artifact level quest. Destroying the ring would destroy the cage which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. Using wish to unbind their souls would render the ring useless which would make it impossible to defeat and cage the demons. AND... you can't cast wish until 17th level at which point they will have already defeated most of the demons.
THANK YOU! You actually gave me actionable feedback.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
For the movement discussion (giving each character their full movement, even when not manifested): If the goal is to have the players feel restrictions because they are all in one body, then that is fine. If the goal is that they can really fully control their characters and have autonomy, then forcing them to manifest to have all of their own independence could be problematic for certain classes and abilities, as you are forcing them to use their Bonus Action on their first turn (basically) to have autonomy. Feeling like they have to use their Bonus Action always on their first turn hurts certain classes more than others. For instance, Barbarians Rage on a Bonus Action, Blood Hunters do their Crimson Rite on a Bonus Action, and Druids Wild Shape on a Bonus Action (all druids in 2024, I believe, and only Moon Druids in 2014). Normally a Barbarian will want to Rage right away, a Blood Hunter will want to do their Rite right away, and a Druid might want to Wild Shape right away. There are probably some things from other classes as well. Now, the players of course have the choice to stay in the main body instead of manifesting, which preserves their Bonus Action, but also then limits them in their movement (and also Concentrating on spells, as from your earlier response it appears that two characters who are still in the main body cannot concentrate on spells at the same time).
Now none of that is bad if the aim is for the players to feel certain restrictions to sell the whole "You're all in the same body" thing. However it does impact certain classes more than others, and could lead to increased frustration for certain players. I'm not offering advice on what to do in this situation, just offering a point of view. It totally depends on the feeling you want to have for the game.
Response - Yes, it does affect some classes more than others but this is already the case in base rules. Some classes have a crap ton of bonus actions while others do not. While I understand the concern I think players will learn how to roll this into their normal action economy. This same thing happens when you acquire magic items that require a bonus action to activate such as Flame Tongue and Sun Blade. If I activate flame togue I can't also do...
For the Reaction question: I guess we didn't discuss if manifested characters could use their reaction as normal (I would assume so, as they appear to be completely independent when they are manifested). You may want to revisit the "Only the character in charge of the main body can use their reaction" thing. This will negatively impact characters with things like "Counterspell". The Wizard saving their Reaction and Counterspell for when the BBEG casts Meteor Swarm, only to find they cannot use it because they are not in control of the main body. Yes, they can be manifested and use it normally (I assume), but then we are back to basically forcing characters to manifest to get full use of their abilities.
Some of this might be avoided by allowing 1 free manifestation per short rest, or a number of free manifestations equal to their proficiency bonus, or something like that. Free meaning it would not cost a bonus action. This would allow for more player autonomy (assuming you want that for the players) while still potentially having them feel the restrictions of being in one body (they can't simply manifest all the time, for example).
Response - In your previous post I don't think I answered this clearly or as intended. Yes manifested players can use their reaction normally AS LONG AS ALL OTHER CRITERIA IS MET. So yes you can still use things like Counterspell or Protection while you are not in control of the host body, but you can't opportunity attack unless you are in control of the host body. Manifested characters are played completely normally.
So what I meant by my original response is that you can't use six opportunity attacks against one goblin who moves five feet away.
Thank you for this question. I'm adding a clarified version of this to my rules list.
For the Concentration Question: I should have been more thorough in my question. It seems you are saying that characters who have not manifested (who are in the main body) cannot have multiple instances of Concentration happening (two characters in the main body Concentrating on separate spells). If a character has manifested, would they be able to Concentrate on a spell while a character in the main body is also Concentrating on a spell? This would make sense to me (a benefit of manifesting), although it does go back to the "you basically have to manifest to get full use out of your character" issue I discussed earlier. Again, not a bad thing if it is the intent for the players to feel restricted like that, just an observation.
Response - I think I misunderstood the question. For some reason I thought you meant can two people concentrate on the same spell. So... to be clear... while inside or outside of the host body an individual character can concentrate on spells as normal.
For the "Railroading/Player Agency" Question: You stated players won't attempt to look for solutions to their "one body" 'problem' by saying "3. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's the only way that they can operate outside of the cage." I totally get that this is the intent. It is a rule of the world you've created. They cannot separate permanently from the main body without a Wish spell or destroying the ring, which is nigh impossible. This may be something that you just want to be really explicit with them about. Because if the restrictions from above persist (can't concentrate on spells effectively unless manifested, can't use full movement unless manifested, can't use reactions effectively unless manifested, manifesting taking critical resources in the first round from some classes, etc) without being explicit that they basically cannot solve the 'problem', they probably will want to look for a solution, a way to eliminate those limitations. If instead you tell them basically this is the deal, this is the rule for the campaign, the limitations are permanent and cannot be removed, then players might feel more likely to lean into it and to not attempt to find solutions. Several of the players in my game have certain limitations on their character based on their backstory (I worked on them with the limits, the mechanics of them, etc before we started playing), but in each of those cases the players are attempting to find ways to overcome those limits (as part of their character growth). Obviously they don't represent all players, but just as an example of how some players view limitations on their character.
Response - I think it's already pretty explicit when the only in game ways would be an artifact level quest or wish spell. Both those things would be outside of anything below level 17. And considering that they are THE GOOD GUYS tasked with hunting and trapping these specific demons destroying the only thing that can trap these demons would be an extreme deviation.
Oh... and destroying the cage to free their souls wouldn't restore their body. By rules a freed soul moves on to its afterlife. So... bye bye. So if you destroy the ring all players go bye bye. If you use Wish to free a soul from the ring then by the rules you are subject to the using wish for other stuff rules, which really suck and may result in you not be able to ever cast wish again.
So... If the players really really wanted to do it. It would take six wishes without rolling a 33 or lower and enough diamonds to cast true resurrection six time.
And again... that's not railroading. These are the same rules that would apply to trying to free a bound soul from nearly anything else.
Great vid on railroading if you haven't already watched it.
https://youtu.be/y6FamF2S5ZM?si=3PcscFZ6o-I-8wOM
Sidenote - The ring itself will provide stat bonuses for 30 out of 31 of the demons captured to offset the low magic nature of the modern setting.