So my player is trying to get away with having two characters that are dwarf/halfling and standing on top of each others shoulders. Should I let him. He's trying to do a Barbarian/Wizard
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
Long answer: If he expects to be able to run both characters as a single, gestalt PC, absolutely do not let him do that. That character will be so much more powerful than anything else at the table that it will completely unhinge your campaign. If he's actually trying to run two complete, separate PCs with their own individual attributes, AC, HP, etc... that's actually doable, but proceed with extreme caution.
Per the mounting rules, a Halfling can use a Dwarf as a mount (it's one size larger and has "appropriate anatomy"; Halflings weigh "about 40 lbs" so even using encumbrance rules a Barbarian should have no trouble carrying one), so the problem here isn't the concept, the problem is one player controlling two PCs simultaneously. Do you think he can handle that cognitive load and still keep up with the other players at your table? (Remember that each PC will roll initiative independently, make saving throws and skill checks independently, take damage independently, etc; he should also expect to roleplay them separately) Are the other players enthusiastically on board with this idea?
Basically, this could be done and might even be a fun time for an experienced player looking for a challenge. It offers very little that I can see in the way of tactical advantage beyond having an extra PC in the party (which you can balance for). However, the amount of work required for the player running the characters would be substantial, and I would not allow just any player to bring this idea to my table flippantly.
If they want to do crazy things for the fun of doing crazy things, I would work with them to make it work in the rules with re-flavor and re-skin.
Custom linage : two dwarfs/halflings staked on top of each other. They can flavor everything anyway the want as long as their abilities and class are the same as if they made one PC. And custom linage from tasha's well totally let them make it.
Then make some minor homebrew rules to sell it a bit, like maybe give him adv on charm/sleep/ect type things since there are two minds. But if he gets crit he has to pass a con/dex save or get knocked prone (top guy fell off).
(to be clear, they are still a single PC. They have the same one action, one bonus, one reaction as everyone else).
Then I would not let them split up, they must be committed to this pairing, and if they are split up the co-dependant relationship breaks one of them (the more submissive for a lack of the better word one can't function and is near comatose. And they can only operate the dominant of the pair). Just to simplify life and having them not control two sep characters.
Then we la, have fun and crazy go nuts time and everyone can RP and enjoy the exp.
But Mdhe is right if they are trying to min max some super power house char I would not let them do that.
I would also not allow them to play two characters at once (unless everyone is playing two char at once to make up for a lack of players?)
But, if the other players are alright with it, you can let him run one or both characters as Sidekicks. Sidekicks are simplified PCs, who are intentionally weaker than normal PCs to prevent them from stealing the spotlight. Either turn the dwarf into a Warrior or the halfling into a Spellcaster, and have the player run them together. I actually had a player, my brother in fact, who almost did this exact scenario after his half-orc Paladin adopted a goblin Expert.
So my player is trying to get away with having two characters that are dwarf/halfling and standing on top of each others shoulders. Should I let him. He's trying to do a Barbarian/Wizard
Sounds to me like he's trying to get round the fact Barbarians can't cast spells while raging by claiming the dwarf is raging and the halfling is casting. That's a definite no, he's just trying to power game his way through rules that are there for a reason
Repeat after me: "that's not fair to everyone else who only gets to play one character."
I actually don't strictly agree with this. Playing two characters isn't linearly stronger than playing one; you'll have to keep track of damage, conditions, resources like food, water, and money all separately for two characters. The major thing is that you're taking two turns in combat rather than one, which can feel as though it centers one player more than others; that's why I would only allow an experienced player who can be decisive in combat to play this way. I definitely know veteran players who can take two turns in the time it takes less confident players to take one, and in that case I really don't think this has to be a problem.
Sounds to me like he's trying to get round the fact Barbarians can't cast spells while raging by claiming the dwarf is raging and the halfling is casting. That's a definite no, he's just trying to power game his way through rules that are there for a reason
See, that's why I don't think this is actually all that good: if you play this as two separate characters, one of them has to be either a ranged Barbarian or a melee Wizard; even Spellsingers don't like hanging out stationary in melee range all the time the way Barbarians do. Either way one of these characters is having a hard time most of the time.
Sounds to me like he's trying to get round the fact Barbarians can't cast spells while raging by claiming the dwarf is raging and the halfling is casting. That's a definite no, he's just trying to power game his way through rules that are there for a reason
See, that's why I don't think this is actually all that good: if you play this as two separate characters, one of them has to be either a ranged Barbarian or a melee Wizard; even Spellsingers don't like hanging out stationary in melee range all the time the way Barbarians do. Either way one of these characters is having a hard time most of the time.
I’d agree with you if they were trying to play two characters but the fact they’re specified as one standing on top of the other and as being a barbarian/wizard makes me think this is an attempt at multiclassing without any of the downsides of possibly the two most incompatible classes to multi class. I could be wrong though.
I would say go for it. It sounds hilarious and provides a lot of opportunity for dm mayhem, particularly on critical fails. If it becomes crazy one of them can meet an ugly demise. Likely the wizard when the barbarian is in close combat. Maybe have casting dome with a penalty if the barbarian is engaged as the movement would make casting more difficult. Would be akin to mounted combat.
Repeat after me: "that's not fair to everyone else who only gets to play one character."
I actually don't strictly agree with this. Playing two characters isn't linearly stronger than playing one; you'll have to keep track of damage, conditions, resources like food, water, and money all separately for two characters. The major thing is that you're taking two turns in combat rather than one, which can feel as though it centers one player more than others; that's why I would only allow an experienced player who can be decisive in combat to play this way. I definitely know veteran players who can take two turns in the time it takes less confident players to take one, and in that case I really don't think this has to be a problem.
It's not unfair just because it's stronger, it's unfair because one player gets twice the focus, twice the spotlight, and takes up twice the amount of time in combat. It's only fair if you let every player have two characters, and that would be a mess from a balance and flow perspective. It'd be far simpler just to say no.
ok thanks for the feedback. I was skeptical of the idea, but wanted others opinions before I made my decision. All of this was much appreciated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
I have another question. This is the same player asking if his druid can wild shape into a creature that can asexually reproduce. Then he does his thing, develops the creatures and then, not long before giving birth, changing into a different creature, probably a horse or other mount. Should I allow this or... what?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
Sounds like it would be fair to ask this player what the ultimate goal is. If they balk at an answer, they are likely just trying to game the system. Instead of saying, "I would like X to happen. Could I possibly make that happen by doing Y?" They are simply saying, "Can I do Y?" and hoping you don't dig too deeply into the repercussions, so that they can then say, "Well, you said I could..." Those are my two coppers, anyway.
Some people are saying the issue is of one player playing two characters. I don't necessarily have an issue with this as long as the other players are Ok with it and that you, as the DM, count this as two characters for the purposes of encounter balancing (and as long as the player is capable of tracking two characters).
I actually have a bigger issue with the whole "two characters stacked on top of each other" concept!
I mean, its a funny trope that's been used in comedy before. But not, in my mind, very practical when it comes to combat!
Honestly, even if they have some kind of harness rigged up, when the dwarf barbarian rages into combat the poor wizard is going to be bounced around all over the place (personally I would require concentration checks each time the barbarian moves in combat). And presumably they will be charging straight into melee, so any opponent is almost certainly going to end up hitting the squishy wizard either by accident or design (unless any enemy specifically targets, I would go with a 50/50 chance of any attack hitting the wizard).
Sounds like it would be fair to ask this player what the ultimate goal is. If they balk at an answer, they are likely just trying to game the system. Instead of saying, "I would like X to happen. Could I possibly make that happen by doing Y?" They are simply saying, "Can I do Y?" and hoping you don't dig too deeply into the repercussions, so that they can then say, "Well, you said I could..." Those are my two coppers, anyway.
This is a really important insight. Don't tolerate players trying to trick you. There's a certain mindset that leads players to try to "break the game", which always ends up being disruptive. Your players need to realize that you are not a hall monitor; you're there to collaborate with them to create the best game for everyone, and the rules--and the implications of the rules--are there to facilitate that.
I would say go for it. It sounds hilarious and provides a lot of opportunity for dm mayhem, particularly on critical fails. If it becomes crazy one of them can meet an ugly demise. Likely the wizard when the barbarian is in close combat. Maybe have casting dome with a penalty if the barbarian is engaged as the movement would make casting more difficult. Would be akin to mounted combat.
I agree let him do it. Just make sure you account for the extra character with the appropriate XP calculations when creating encounters. Lol
Sounds like it would be fair to ask this player what the ultimate goal is.
I know what the end goal is. They want to make it so that they have a whole bunch of genetic clones/mounts for allies. It's a little ingenious.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
Sounds like it would be fair to ask this player what the ultimate goal is.
I know what the end goal is. They want to make it so that they have a whole bunch of genetic clones/mounts for allies. It's a little ingenious.
How ingenious is it really? How many aesexually reproductive animals has the character (emphasis on character, not player) seen to wild shape into? I can't think of any that exist in nature aside from single celled organisms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So my player is trying to get away with having two characters that are dwarf/halfling and standing on top of each others shoulders. Should I let him. He's trying to do a Barbarian/Wizard
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
Short answer: no.
Long answer: If he expects to be able to run both characters as a single, gestalt PC, absolutely do not let him do that. That character will be so much more powerful than anything else at the table that it will completely unhinge your campaign. If he's actually trying to run two complete, separate PCs with their own individual attributes, AC, HP, etc... that's actually doable, but proceed with extreme caution.
Per the mounting rules, a Halfling can use a Dwarf as a mount (it's one size larger and has "appropriate anatomy"; Halflings weigh "about 40 lbs" so even using encumbrance rules a Barbarian should have no trouble carrying one), so the problem here isn't the concept, the problem is one player controlling two PCs simultaneously. Do you think he can handle that cognitive load and still keep up with the other players at your table? (Remember that each PC will roll initiative independently, make saving throws and skill checks independently, take damage independently, etc; he should also expect to roleplay them separately) Are the other players enthusiastically on board with this idea?
Basically, this could be done and might even be a fun time for an experienced player looking for a challenge. It offers very little that I can see in the way of tactical advantage beyond having an extra PC in the party (which you can balance for). However, the amount of work required for the player running the characters would be substantial, and I would not allow just any player to bring this idea to my table flippantly.
If they want to do crazy things for the fun of doing crazy things, I would work with them to make it work in the rules with re-flavor and re-skin.
Custom linage : two dwarfs/halflings staked on top of each other. They can flavor everything anyway the want as long as their abilities and class are the same as if they made one PC. And custom linage from tasha's well totally let them make it.
Then make some minor homebrew rules to sell it a bit, like maybe give him adv on charm/sleep/ect type things since there are two minds. But if he gets crit he has to pass a con/dex save or get knocked prone (top guy fell off).
(to be clear, they are still a single PC. They have the same one action, one bonus, one reaction as everyone else).
Then I would not let them split up, they must be committed to this pairing, and if they are split up the co-dependant relationship breaks one of them (the more submissive for a lack of the better word one can't function and is near comatose. And they can only operate the dominant of the pair). Just to simplify life and having them not control two sep characters.
Then we la, have fun and crazy go nuts time and everyone can RP and enjoy the exp.
But Mdhe is right if they are trying to min max some super power house char I would not let them do that.
I would also not allow them to play two characters at once (unless everyone is playing two char at once to make up for a lack of players?)
But, if the other players are alright with it, you can let him run one or both characters as Sidekicks. Sidekicks are simplified PCs, who are intentionally weaker than normal PCs to prevent them from stealing the spotlight. Either turn the dwarf into a Warrior or the halfling into a Spellcaster, and have the player run them together. I actually had a player, my brother in fact, who almost did this exact scenario after his half-orc Paladin adopted a goblin Expert.
Sounds to me like he's trying to get round the fact Barbarians can't cast spells while raging by claiming the dwarf is raging and the halfling is casting. That's a definite no, he's just trying to power game his way through rules that are there for a reason
Repeat after me: "that's not fair to everyone else who only gets to play one character."
I actually don't strictly agree with this. Playing two characters isn't linearly stronger than playing one; you'll have to keep track of damage, conditions, resources like food, water, and money all separately for two characters. The major thing is that you're taking two turns in combat rather than one, which can feel as though it centers one player more than others; that's why I would only allow an experienced player who can be decisive in combat to play this way. I definitely know veteran players who can take two turns in the time it takes less confident players to take one, and in that case I really don't think this has to be a problem.
See, that's why I don't think this is actually all that good: if you play this as two separate characters, one of them has to be either a ranged Barbarian or a melee Wizard; even Spellsingers don't like hanging out stationary in melee range all the time the way Barbarians do. Either way one of these characters is having a hard time most of the time.
Unless the rest of the table is doing the same thing, there is going to be a certain amount of negativity towards this whole idea.
Few people are going to be 100% tolerant of one player taking two turns.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I’d agree with you if they were trying to play two characters but the fact they’re specified as one standing on top of the other and as being a barbarian/wizard makes me think this is an attempt at multiclassing without any of the downsides of possibly the two most incompatible classes to multi class. I could be wrong though.
I would say go for it. It sounds hilarious and provides a lot of opportunity for dm mayhem, particularly on critical fails. If it becomes crazy one of them can meet an ugly demise. Likely the wizard when the barbarian is in close combat. Maybe have casting dome with a penalty if the barbarian is engaged as the movement would make casting more difficult. Would be akin to mounted combat.
Another option would be to have the character be siamese twin, the wizard could just and upper body fused to the shoulders, lol
It's not unfair just because it's stronger, it's unfair because one player gets twice the focus, twice the spotlight, and takes up twice the amount of time in combat. It's only fair if you let every player have two characters, and that would be a mess from a balance and flow perspective. It'd be far simpler just to say no.
ok thanks for the feedback. I was skeptical of the idea, but wanted others opinions before I made my decision. All of this was much appreciated.
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
I have another question. This is the same player asking if his druid can wild shape into a creature that can asexually reproduce. Then he does his thing, develops the creatures and then, not long before giving birth, changing into a different creature, probably a horse or other mount. Should I allow this or... what?
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
Sounds like it would be fair to ask this player what the ultimate goal is. If they balk at an answer, they are likely just trying to game the system. Instead of saying, "I would like X to happen. Could I possibly make that happen by doing Y?" They are simply saying, "Can I do Y?" and hoping you don't dig too deeply into the repercussions, so that they can then say, "Well, you said I could..." Those are my two coppers, anyway.
Some people are saying the issue is of one player playing two characters. I don't necessarily have an issue with this as long as the other players are Ok with it and that you, as the DM, count this as two characters for the purposes of encounter balancing (and as long as the player is capable of tracking two characters).
I actually have a bigger issue with the whole "two characters stacked on top of each other" concept!
I mean, its a funny trope that's been used in comedy before. But not, in my mind, very practical when it comes to combat!
Honestly, even if they have some kind of harness rigged up, when the dwarf barbarian rages into combat the poor wizard is going to be bounced around all over the place (personally I would require concentration checks each time the barbarian moves in combat). And presumably they will be charging straight into melee, so any opponent is almost certainly going to end up hitting the squishy wizard either by accident or design (unless any enemy specifically targets, I would go with a 50/50 chance of any attack hitting the wizard).
This hardly seems ideal!
This is a really important insight. Don't tolerate players trying to trick you. There's a certain mindset that leads players to try to "break the game", which always ends up being disruptive. Your players need to realize that you are not a hall monitor; you're there to collaborate with them to create the best game for everyone, and the rules--and the implications of the rules--are there to facilitate that.
I agree let him do it. Just make sure you account for the extra character with the appropriate XP calculations when creating encounters. Lol
I know what the end goal is. They want to make it so that they have a whole bunch of genetic clones/mounts for allies. It's a little ingenious.
In the words of the great philosopher, Unicorse, "Aaaannnnd why should I care??"
Best quote from a book ever: "If you love with your eyes, death is forever. If you love with your heart, there is no such thing as parting."- Jonah Cook, Ascendant, Songs of Chaos by Michael R. Miller. Highly recommend
How ingenious is it really? How many aesexually reproductive animals has the character (emphasis on character, not player) seen to wild shape into? I can't think of any that exist in nature aside from single celled organisms.