I would, but I'd stipulate a debilitating genetic illness be the reason for it, leading to a constant disadvantage in Constitution and Strength rolls, plus disadvantage on saving rolls for situations with sickening and poison.
Honestly, at that point you should just tell them “no” rather than essentially threatening punitive punishment for playing the character.
And deny them the chance of finding ways to overcome it?! Perish the thought!
There are very few if any ways to “overcome” permanent debuffs like this short of Wish or custom magic items.
Barring the kind of high power overt intervention I mentioned about, that's six of one and a half dozen of the other. The basic structure of the game does not provide player-facing options to alleviate conditions like this; as the DM you'd need to insert them one way or another. This is not entirely or objectively unworkable, but it's a very niche option that I don't think many players would ultimately enjoy dealing with. You either allow their character design or you don't; saying "yes, but I'm gonna drop several heavy penalties on you" easily reads like you're singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line.
Barring the kind of high power overt intervention I mentioned about, that's six of one and a half dozen of the other. The basic structure of the game does not provide player-facing options to alleviate conditions like this; as the DM you'd need to insert them one way or another. This is not entirely or objectively unworkable, but it's a very niche option that I don't think many players would ultimately enjoy dealing with. You either allow their character design or you don't; saying "yes, but I'm gonna drop several heavy penalties on you" easily reads like you're singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line.
Out of line of what? It's a realistic condition. Let's say he wanted to be a freakishly tall human instead. Barring making him half or quarter giantkin, human gigantism comes with a variety of debilitating medical conditions. It's just how that would go. Preferring softplay is one thing, but calling people bullies for giving extraordinary physical features a realistic downside is borderline toxic. Don't be like that. Just say "I disagree" and keep this professional.
Barring the kind of high power overt intervention I mentioned about, that's six of one and a half dozen of the other. The basic structure of the game does not provide player-facing options to alleviate conditions like this; as the DM you'd need to insert them one way or another. This is not entirely or objectively unworkable, but it's a very niche option that I don't think many players would ultimately enjoy dealing with. You either allow their character design or you don't; saying "yes, but I'm gonna drop several heavy penalties on you" easily reads like you're singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line.
Out of line of what? It's a realistic condition. Let's say he wanted to be a freakishly tall human instead. Barring making him half or quarter giantkin, human gigantism comes with a variety of debilitating medical conditions. It's just how that would go. Preferring softplay is one thing, but calling people bullies for giving extraordinary physical features a realistic downside is borderline toxic. Don't be like that. Just say "I disagree" and keep this professional.
I did not call you anything, I pointed out the perception that assigning a character a major penalty over what is essentially a cosmetic preference could create.
Your exact words were "singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line." We can play vocabulary semantics all you want, but you know what you meant and there was no call for it. Now unless you have something constructive to add, let's not bog down this guy's advice thread with feckless discourse.
To redirect in the direction of the OP's original message - I've thought a little more on this and there's another viewpoint that I know people might disagree with, but probably should be said.
I grew up and started with AD&D, I think it was 2nd edition, but could be wrong. Over the years I've played most versions but the original D&D edition. Back then we had very few choices for our characters and their creation. You had a tiny fraction of what we have now with 5e...and it wasn't as creativity stifling as many might think. I remember those stories being amazing and developing well from the campaign setting. Much like necessitity being the mother of invention, I truly believe that limitations can engender great creativity. Some of the most creative sets for the stage that I ever came up with came about because they were on a budget of precisely £0.
With that in mind, I think it's worth adding to the conversation that it's okay to say 'no' and that players must choose from the basic available options.
Players don't always understand the ways in which their requests can impact a DM. The player for example who gives out a laundry list of magic items that they would like their character to get access to. There's nothing wrong with this and at some tables it could be useful, however for some DMs they'll have mapped out what magic items are in the world and adventure ahead...changing that might alter the theme, tone, or balance of encounters. Likewise the player who desperately wants their player to play a Goliath in a setting that does not contain any giantkind, that creates extra workload for the DM.
In such situations, explaining that you're not sure how this would mechanically work and therefore would prefer that players stick to core options is not a bad thing. It means that you as DM don't have to homebrew and (even accidentally) impose an unfair disadvantage upon the player. Having a discussion with the player about size and it's mechanical implications might help them to understand that while what their asking for seems straightforward - not every DM wants to wander into those kinds of areas.
Sidenote - Please do not misinterpret this as judgement on any DM or table, that's not the intention here. Rather an attempt to add something perhaps not represented in the discussion thus far.I
I have allowed things like this in the past with the caveat that it would make you an abnormality and there has to be a reason that explains away that abnormality but in my experience it's not worth the hassle as a GM and the player will tend to overlook, forget or ignore whatever caveat they accepted for that kind of change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are very few if any ways to “overcome” permanent debuffs like this short of Wish or custom magic items.
I said constant, not permanent.
Barring the kind of high power overt intervention I mentioned about, that's six of one and a half dozen of the other. The basic structure of the game does not provide player-facing options to alleviate conditions like this; as the DM you'd need to insert them one way or another. This is not entirely or objectively unworkable, but it's a very niche option that I don't think many players would ultimately enjoy dealing with. You either allow their character design or you don't; saying "yes, but I'm gonna drop several heavy penalties on you" easily reads like you're singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line.
Out of line of what? It's a realistic condition. Let's say he wanted to be a freakishly tall human instead. Barring making him half or quarter giantkin, human gigantism comes with a variety of debilitating medical conditions. It's just how that would go. Preferring softplay is one thing, but calling people bullies for giving extraordinary physical features a realistic downside is borderline toxic. Don't be like that. Just say "I disagree" and keep this professional.
I did not call you anything, I pointed out the perception that assigning a character a major penalty over what is essentially a cosmetic preference could create.
Your exact words were "singling them out for punishment for stepping out of line." We can play vocabulary semantics all you want, but you know what you meant and there was no call for it. Now unless you have something constructive to add, let's not bog down this guy's advice thread with feckless discourse.
To redirect in the direction of the OP's original message - I've thought a little more on this and there's another viewpoint that I know people might disagree with, but probably should be said.
I grew up and started with AD&D, I think it was 2nd edition, but could be wrong. Over the years I've played most versions but the original D&D edition. Back then we had very few choices for our characters and their creation. You had a tiny fraction of what we have now with 5e...and it wasn't as creativity stifling as many might think. I remember those stories being amazing and developing well from the campaign setting. Much like necessitity being the mother of invention, I truly believe that limitations can engender great creativity. Some of the most creative sets for the stage that I ever came up with came about because they were on a budget of precisely £0.
With that in mind, I think it's worth adding to the conversation that it's okay to say 'no' and that players must choose from the basic available options.
Players don't always understand the ways in which their requests can impact a DM. The player for example who gives out a laundry list of magic items that they would like their character to get access to. There's nothing wrong with this and at some tables it could be useful, however for some DMs they'll have mapped out what magic items are in the world and adventure ahead...changing that might alter the theme, tone, or balance of encounters. Likewise the player who desperately wants their player to play a Goliath in a setting that does not contain any giantkind, that creates extra workload for the DM.
In such situations, explaining that you're not sure how this would mechanically work and therefore would prefer that players stick to core options is not a bad thing. It means that you as DM don't have to homebrew and (even accidentally) impose an unfair disadvantage upon the player. Having a discussion with the player about size and it's mechanical implications might help them to understand that while what their asking for seems straightforward - not every DM wants to wander into those kinds of areas.
Sidenote - Please do not misinterpret this as judgement on any DM or table, that's not the intention here. Rather an attempt to add something perhaps not represented in the discussion thus far.I
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
No.
I have allowed things like this in the past with the caveat that it would make you an abnormality and there has to be a reason that explains away that abnormality but in my experience it's not worth the hassle as a GM and the player will tend to overlook, forget or ignore whatever caveat they accepted for that kind of change.