Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I was thinking of a character (or more likely an NPC) with a personality disorder where each aspect of the character is a different class, mainly Bard, Fighter, Warlock. Obviously I would follow the multi-class rules with the necessary stats, and weapons/armor/equipment that could be used by all 3.
Apart from the sensitivities that need to be shown playing this type of character, I wonder what you all think. Have you done this before and if so, how did it go? What were the difficulties? What were the cool things?
I was thinking of having a table of things that could trigger a change in the dominant personality, such as:
• High Stress and Pressure: Overwhelming stress, panic attacks, or high-pressure situations (such as public speaking or conflict) are primary catalysts for shifting between identities.
• Sensory Inputs: Sights, smells, sounds, tastes, and textures that subconsciously or consciously remind the person of past experiences can prompt a switch.
• Memories and Reminders: Both positive and negative memories—such as looking through old photographs, visiting specific places, or encountering anniversaries, holidays, or seasonal changes—can bring forth a particular alter.
• Interpersonal Situations: Meeting someone who shares a specific history or dynamic with a distinct alter can cause that identity to emerge.
• Substances and Fatigue: Consuming alcohol, using recreational drugs, or experiencing severe sleep deprivation can lower coping thresholds and trigger switches.
• Intense Emotions: Sudden surges of strong emotions (fear, anger, grief, or even excitement) can cause rapid cycling or shifting between parts.
Well, first of all I think that referring to having multiple personalities as a disorder is now considered derogatory but I'm not certain on that. But I must ask: what's the purpose of this character supposed to be?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Fwiw, I don't think there is a sensitive way to play this type of character.
If you're looking for a way to put a personality/class-switching role into the story for narrative purposes, I would recommend magic or a haunting. For example, you could easily make something like this work with possession. A powerful spirit that can emerge periodically, taking over a character entirely until it loses its grip on the victim. Or, the character is really the physical manifestation of two interplanar entities, either one of which might be in control at any given time. Etc. Having two souls fighting for control of one body is easy enough, and also easy enough to have one of those souls be the victim of the spell/haunting/attack/etc. Same with having the one body or construct be the host for multiple spirits that periodically emerge.
But having this be about mental illness? I would strongly recommend against that. I don't think there's a good way to do it.
Understood, and I may not do it at all. I am reading Brandon Sanderson's Legion series and it got me to thinking about how one would do something similar in D&D. Looking more for advice on mechanics than anything else.
I agree with the above, do not make this character about an IRL mental illness. Clearly the intention is that the personality switching be "fun" which is by definition making light of a very serious and life-altering mental illness. Make up some other magic reason for the personality switching.
I haven't played a character exactly like this, but I DMed for an Eladrin character who would change what season they were attuned to each morning and that seasonsal attunement would influence their attitude for the day. That wasn't too bad since we used different tokens so all the other players always knew which one they were currently attuned to. Without that I think it would be quite annoying for other players to have to try to figure out which personality your character currently is, so I'd strongly recommend doing something similar with different tokens and/or signs on the game table informing the rest of the players of your character's current name & personality. To be honest, while it sounded cool at the outset the other players just kind of shrugged and accepted it so it ended up as just a minor flavour thing, there weren't any "cool" moments that came out of it.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it is highly likely the other characters will think this personality switching phenomenon is a bad thing, and thus will try to find ways to cure your character of that phenomenon. So ensure you plan for what your character will be like after they get cured. I did this with a werewolf character I made who started out afraid to transform because they lost control but with the party's support accepted their transformation and gained control over it. It worked decently well, and led to a some good RP moments between the characters.
I want to agree about not doing it and making light of a serious condition. But also, if we want to think about the mechanics, it’s got other problems.
Mostly, it seems like a lot of work for the DM. If you have this list of triggers, now I as DM need to make sure to place them in game fairly regularly. It’s going to take a lot of my bandwidth. It’s also going to make planning encounters annoying, as I won’t know which version of your character will be present for any given challenge. I’d think it could also be a hassle for the other players to have to constantly role play around your shifts. In short, it seems like a road to main character syndrome.
Just say no for all of the above posters reasons. This may sound like a keen idea when sitting around and ones own facilities are impaired when ingesting substances, but in the light of day this is not a good idea.
That said, for the mechanics of this it would appear that you will be behind the power curve of Bard, Fighter, Warlock. Say the party is all 9th level and you have an even distribution of levels. You would be playing a bard 3 (not a 9th level PC ) and be limited to only what the Bard 3 has. Basically have three separate character sheets. (but with all common inventory items repeated).
You would be limited by multiclass rules, but not have the advantages of being a higher level. Even your HPs would be what that class would have at the level. So yes, three different HP levels and Proficiency levels as well. Your skills would be variable but not interchangeable. If the Bard has a +7 for skill X due to expertise, the warlock may just have your base ability bonus for that same score as the warlock would not have the skill. So no proficiency or expertise bonus.
The current term is dissociative identity disorder, and it's fairly controversial to what degree it even exists; multiple fully developed and distinct personalities probably isn't a thing. Of course, that doesn't prevent having a character like that in a game, though in a D&D-like setting it's likely to be interpreted as possession.
I am going to disagree with many of the above posters. As long as you're playing it from a place of empathy, it is not disrespectful to play such a character. Treating such concepts as 'untouchable' is far more disrespectful. The cardinal rule should be: don't make it a caricateur.
It doesn't really matter if you call it multiple personality disorder or dissociative identity disorder. A D+D world is pre-psychology... by a lot. They won't have either term for it.
I recommend looking at some of the real historical examples. The earliest known are, strangely enough, both nuns.
As possession became less acceptable of an explanation, it would be called 'hysteria' as it starts to be medicalized.
Of course, in D&D possession may well be a correct explanation.
To be very clear, while the word hysteria has entered general parlance and has taken on its own meaning, the medical diagnosis of “hysteria” is and remains sexist. There is a reason it could only be diagnosed in women and the etymology comes from the Greek word for uterus - and that is before one gets into the horrific way this catch-all term was applied and utilized as a manner of clinical oppression and forced medical treatment.
By absolutely no means should anyone in 2026 play a character who claims a diagnosis of “hysteria.”
——
Moving on to the thread’s topic, I wanted to raise another point not yet brought up in this thread: The Party Dynamic.
A good D&D party begins to develop a bit of a flow with one another as players settle into their roles. This kind of character can greatly disrupt the flow. First, it means that a player’s actions are not predictable. Predicting what others are going to do is an important part of both planning and roleplay, and this tramples on that. Second, if the personality types overlap with the vibes of another character, you might end up stepping on their toes and lessening their experience. Lastly, this kind of thing tends to suck the oxygen out of the room for everyone else, since so much of the game then becomes dealing with the multiple personalities and trying to get them on the same page as the party. That very much can veer into main character syndrome energy.
I have seen this kind of thing done well, but it was extremely conservatively applied, and the second personality only once in an entire game actually controlled the character (most of the time, the player was having debates with themselves where only their main personality was actually verbalized at table). But the approach was very small, very limited, and the player knew very much the pratfalls that could come from this kind of character.
If there is any doubt that you could pull this off without making the game less fun for everyone, then try to avoid it.
Hysteria absolutely was diagnosed in men, as even a cursory glance at the history of Dissociative Identity Disorder would confirm:
"The first person to be officially diagnosed with multiple personality disorder (instead of double personality disorder as had eventually come into use in France) was Louis Auguste Vivet in 1882. Louis was physically abused and neglected as a child and had frequent “attacks of hysteria.” One such attack occurred when he was 17 and bitten by a snake. He lost use of his legs for almost one year, and when the use returned after a 50 hour attack, he didn’t remember any of the physicians who had been treating him in an asylum for the last month or any of his fellow patients. His manner, morals, and appetite were different as well. Following additional attacks, the next year, his character would change from impulsive and dangerous to calm and gentle. In 1884, he had another attack that left him gentle of manner but unable to walk, and yet another attack returned the use of his legs but left him quarrelsome and inclined to steal as he had done as a child in order to survive. Amnesia for intervals spanning episodes was noted. By 1888, he had been recorded as having 10 personality states, each of which were different in character, memory, and somatic symptoms." https://did-research.org/did/history/
(Diagnoses of hysteria in men go back to the 17th century, most of which are not DID-related, so it wasn't even limited to this particular kind of diagnosis. The etymology of the word isn't terribly relevant compared to its actual use. Words come from lots of weird places, and end up with meanings frequently disassociated from their origins. It was the context of certain common diagnoses of hysteria in women which was particularly sexist, and the consequences of those diagnoses, independent of the word used to make the diagnosis)
Yes, history is pretty horrible all around. That doesn't make it undiscussable or even unsuitable. And trying to look up the pre-psychological understanding of DID without being aware that Hysteria was a common catch-all diagnosis for a number of conditions that included possible DID individuals would be incredibly difficult. Further, a D+D world is typically a pre-scientific world. It likely includes a number of ignorant, pre-scientific ideas, some of which may well be sexist. D+D characters are not modern humans, they're products of pre-enlightenment societies, and they aren't all even human.
That said, at no point in time was I suggesting anyone claim their character had hysteria. It was provided as a note for if the OP wanted to do some further research. But if someone does want to play a character who was 'diagnosed' with 'hysteria', and has run away to be an adventurer to escape his or her treatment, that sounds like a good way to put a spotlight on the problematic nature of the diagnosis without agreeing it has validity.
It does make it inappropriate to casually include in a silly game that will almost certainly involve many poop jokes. D&D is not an academic rigourous context where people inovlved are citing primary sources or taking care to consider multiple perspectives in an attempt to reach an unbiased understanding of something. Nor are anyone professional actors or writers attempting to make accurate portrayals of anything. It is a dumb game full of hacky stereotypes, dumb jokes, where often people involved get intoxicated. The game itself has a long history of casual sexism and racism which kept it limited in popularity to white men of a certain age until recently.
PS hyseria is absolutely a sexist term used to medicalize women who disobeyed their husbands or expressed unhappiness in their lot as subordinates in society. It is not at all surprising that nuns are the earliest documented cases of mental disorders as it was common place for families to send their daughters who were unfit for marriage or child rearing to the nunnery as those women were otherwise a burden to the family as they were legally forbidden from owning property or working for wages to support themselves. D&D is not set in any historical time period, it is a fantasy game set in a fantasy realm that fantasy realm draws some inspiration from medieval periods but is not remotely close to be historical - the most obvious discrepancy is most player characters & npcs can read and write when in the medieval period were unlikely to be higher than 10%, not to mention all the non-humans and magic everywhere, or even the incongruent prevalence of inns in settlements for travellers to stay in with solo bedrooms available - inns were relatively rare in the period and only found along major trade routes or large towns most villages had too few travellers to support an inn and travellers would stay with a local family in exchange for news of the world beyond the village. Those that did have inns those inns rarely had any private single rooms, instead travellers slept in shared dorm rooms packed full of beds/sleeping pallets - or the lack of outhouses which were the main system of sanitation outside of big cities.
I'll add my voice to the chorus warning against treating mental health struggles lightly as a D&D character gimmick.
That said, for an interesting "two characters forced to alternately control one body" example that doesn't depend on mental illness, I recommend the second Oxventure campaign, Wyrdwood. It's a folk horror homebrew setting created by Johnny Chiodinni that they DM for the folks at Outside Xbox and Outside Xtra. Andy Farrant plays Robin, a regular human man, whose body is taken over by the spirit of the sorcerer Morven anytime he falls asleep. It's a neat concept, and the juxtaposition of the two characters and how they interact with each other via the other party members because they can't engage one-on-one is interesting.