So, long story short. One of my players wants to play two character who are good friends, explaining this as his main(blood hunter) would need some downtime to do stuff. And while his main is training/brewing botions/running business/etc. his other character would just take his place in a group.
Should i allow it, or is it too much? It feels so, 'cause he will have a chance to get some loot with one, and a fortune with another, and just share them between them, because of their partnership.

No!

So, maybe there is a compromise? Like, saying he can do it, but if his SUB character gets a level on an adventure, his MAIN stays the same, no sharing gold and items, or something like this? Or is it too much of a penalty?

So, I'm still fairly inexperienced, but my inclination would be, if you as a DM are comfortable with the swapping of characters, it's fine, if it seems like too much work for YOU, then say no. There is so much that you have to do as a DM already, and if this would pile on a bunch, I think that's an acceptable reason. If your concern is that they will be getting too rich/OP, but you still want them to be able to share what they have due to their friendship, you could maybe say that the character not being played in session can't earn any loot/money when not in use? That might negate the whole point, but if it does, then it sort of feels like cheating to me anyways... Just having a character who is off to the side, raking in gold and just giving it to the same player's character feels very much like a cheat. However, if they just want, for the sake of story, for that character to be working on his business, and not necessarily have it tied to item gain or income, it seems a lot more reasonable to me?

I really don't understand mechanically how this would work, since everyone gets down time. Is his blood hunter a time traveler?

Here's what I mean. Adventure 1 ends, and you tell the party there is 2 weeks of down time between that and adventure 2, what do they want to do with their characters? Blood hunter runs his shop. Wizard researches spells. Fighter joins a gladiator tournament. Rogue runs some "errands" for the local mob boss. Assuming you don't RP the down time in detail, you make some rolls, summarize what happens, and move on to Adventure 2, with the calendar advancing 2 weeks. Now the party gets together. His Blood Hunter had the down time, no? So why would he need to swap characters?

Have you dug into it with the player on why they want to do this? The offered reason doesn't make a ton of sense ( in that you could just say, sure, your Bloodhunter has plenty of time to go carousing, practice calligraphy, visit his mother or whatever before the next adventure).

My guess is the player either can't decide on a class/character and so wants to play them both, or else wants to use this to swap skillsets so that if it's a guns-blazing mission or a sneaky-social mission they have the right tools for the job. I think if it's the former, just encourage them to save one character for next time or their own campaign, and if it's the latter, explain how part of the fun of a DnD party is that everyone has time to shine (and do your part as the DM to make sure that's the case!) and that they need to be ok if their character isn't always the one getting to run ahead and do the most critical part of the mission. If this character is experienced and trying to game it a bit (oh I realized that our party has no healer but I don't want to be one, so my backup guy is Mr.Medpack in case we need him), then hopefully you can assure your player that you're aware of that and taking it into account, or make an NPC that covers enough of whatever is missing that they don't feel like they need to invent the additional PC.

Or you can go the passive-aggressive route, allow the player to have two player characters, and decapitate one of them in the first couple sessions. Probably not the best idea, though.

;

In theory, I don't see an issue with this, although I don't see a need for it. As BioWizard points out, Characters already have downtime.

If a Player of mine wanted to do this, I'd probably let them, but after I explained the restrictions under which I think such an arrangement would be fair,  they might not want to.

• They are completely separate people. Unless they're married, or something, they would maintain their own money, and equipement. The Player doesn't get to pool two Characters' worth of items and gold into one joint fund.
• The Characters can only swap places if/when the Party goes back to where the "downtime" Character is based. If the Party is halfway around the world, or out at sea, or on another plane - then no Character swapping.
• Characters have their own experience. Characters pursuing downtime activities might - at the GM's discretion - get small amounts of experience for the work they are doing - but it would be nowhere near the experience one would get adventuring. Eventually, one Character, or the other, or both, will fall behind in level compared to Characters who are not "time sharing" with other Characters.

I think that few Players would want to pursue this idea, under those restrictions.

We are doing this in a campaign my brother is running and in a campaign that I am running.

The reason behind this decision was the PCs are part of a large adventuring company but do a lot of smaller jobs. We just got back from a year long (game time) expedition through the Underdark and have returned to Waterdeep. So, it's sort of like a special ops team thing. One session, I might play my Paladin, my wife will play her Warlock, and our friends will be a Barbarian and a Fighter respectively. Then, as we finish the job (session), a clue leads us to Skullport.

Now, my paladin, paragon of virtue and known do-gooder in the area, will stick out like a sore thumb in Skullport. Enter my rogue, who was chilling at the group's stronghold. My paladin remains behind. The barbarian is a bit of a bull in a china shop so my friend swaps out for a Rogue as well. His wife swaps to her cleric and my wife keeps her warlock in play. We go to Skullport.

How we make it work.

1 - No gear or gold sharing. These are individual characters.
2 - Excess gear or loot goes into a Guild Bank to be distributed as the Company Leader (GM NPC) sees fit.
3 - In regards to #1, we do sometimes share / trade things between active characters, in game. And with reason. For example, I had Boots of Striding and Springing. My friend's wife was playing a Dwarf. During a fight, her character was struggling with the distances, what with a lower movement speed. So, in character, my Paladin felt it would be more beneficial for the Dwarf to have the boots. I offered. She accepted. The #1 rule is in place to keep players from using their PCs as loot/gear banks between their different characters.
4 - The characters have to be in the same location to make the swap. You have to go back to the stronghold or to camp in order to make the switch.

This may not be for everyone but we make it work.

Back in the days of 2e, it was common practice for players to have multiple characters and swap them out while some were on downtime. But that mostly stemmed from the fact that PCs only healed 1HP/LR back then, so Adventures were typically shorted and downtime more prevalent. Not to mention the fact that PCs dropped like flies back then, so we would make as many as 5 characters at the start of a campaign because 3 of them would probably be dead by the end of the 1st dungeon/adventure. So players would get attached the 2 that survived and then those would be the ones that rotated... until they inevitably died too and eventually got replaced. Enough with the history lesson, onto the number crunching.

I understand your concern about all of the excess loot but also consider other factors. That player may have 2 characters, but they already stated their intention to rotate them, and the other players will each only have 1 character. If you have 5 Players, then there will always only be 5 PCs at a time on any given adventure. All of the treasure will still always only ever get split 5 ways. That player will always be splitting their 1/5 share of the loot between 2 characters while the other players will each be able to pour all of their PC’s treasure into 1 character. And the same will go for XP as well. Okay, now that the likely reality of the situation is laid out, what can be made of it?

Frankly, I expect that your player will quickly recognize the growing disparity between their characters and those of the rest of the party. Pretty soon, they will most likely come to you to help them solve their dilemma. So the real question is, what would you do then? If you have (or could have by then) a plan for that conversation that doesn’t involve an “I told you so” then I would say go for it, let them have 2 characters and figure it out. If you don’t (or won’t) have a plan for that conversation, then might I suggest simply explaining that their characters will likely get quickly outpaced by the rest of the party and that your concern is that they will be unhappy about the situation and you don’t want them to be unhappy with the game in general, you don’t want them to feel resentful towards the other players, and you don’t want them upset at you for allowing the situation to happen. At least that way, it won’t be a case of “the DM telling a player that their fun is wrong” or some other such nonsense, it will be a case of the DM looking out for the player’s best interests. That conversation will either help them change their own mind, or at the very least prepare them for the inevitable. That way, if (when) the do come to you because their characters are still broke and 3rd-level and the other PCs are 5th-level with coin in their purses, you will be able to ask them if they have a plan for moving forward. Those are my thoughts anyway, I hope this perspective is helpful.

Keep in mind that if one player plays two characters and the others don't then that player's characters will quickly fall behind in levels. This is less important in 5e but having two characters at level 4 will be a bit lackluster when everyone else is level 7 (depending on whether you are using milestone or XP leveling). XP is less linear so the characters will be somewhat closer in levels but there will still be a gap.

The_Black_Fox described a great way to make multiple characters/player work in an ongoing campaign. It can be fun and offer variety depending on what the player in this case is looking for. On the other hand, if they just want one character to earn money for the pair while the other adventures AND thus acquire monetary resources not available to the other players ... I would just say no.

If I were going to allow it, I'd use all of Vedexent's restrictions.

But I would probably try to see if I could help the player make something work so that he or she can just play one character like everyone else. I mean, I would need a justification as to why you get to play 2x as many characters as everyone else does.

I have all my players make two characters. Each adventure arc they choose which one they play. This way if a character dies, the player already has another character that already knows the group. Also, if a player can't make a session, I run a one shot involving the secondary characters.

After each arc I ask my players what their secondary characters were doing. If it's significant we role-play by text, otherwise we talk it out and roll virtual dice. I make gold and equipment that they could have reasonably acquired available, and they level with their primary character. 

My players enjoy this, gives them a chance to play different ways as different personalities. Also gives you a chance to flex on your world building and foreshadow.

Tldr: Not only should you allow this, encourage your other players to do the same.

Good God! Just say yes that it's ok and see how it goes. It's a fantasy world. Where we can be whatever. So let that player so whatever and go from there. It's not a big deal. 

As a GM I've allowed the same thing to happen. It can be fun. So go with it. Have fun.

A game where everyone did that would be possible, but I wouldn't let a single player do it.

Depending on the player’s motivation, it might be fun to allow a single character with a split personality. He keeps the same physical characteristics.separately rolled/determined for the rest. Different class and such is allowed, but gear can’t change. DM or perhaps some randomness determines which personality is in play. I’d even allow them to level up together just to keep party balanced (implicit or instinctive experience?)

Gosh you’re good BigLizard.

I probably wouldn't allow it in my game, but that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad thing. The issue is the rest of the group, both out-of-game (why don't we all get to switch characters at will?) and in-game (half the fun is the relationship between characters in the party, which is diluted when players swap characters for reasons other than death). Honestly the idea of a "main" is a bit video-gamey to me, and the player might expect extra story for his "downtime activities" that could isolate the rest of the group. It's a judgement call, though, so do whatever you think will work! Just remember that you're not being a jerk if you don't allow it; your friend should understand that you're doing what you think is best for the group.

Quote from The_Black_Fox >>

 

This may not be for everyone but we make it work.

I like games like that. They remind me of the opening to Mission Impossible (the good one, in the 60s) where Dan Briggs or Jim Phelps would sit down with a series of files, then pick their team for this mission.

I know this could be too late Bute in case there are other people with similar problems.

I had the same problem with a player so I made a deal with him. His Character has multiple persona's. Similar in the movie split his persona's can have different traits and abilities. The deal is that I can decide when his persona's change via a trigger sheet. Makes hell a fun. Espacially if the others players don't know about this and the persona's have different anxietys :D

If they can have two characters, why not three? Or four? Or five? etc. Why should they be allowed to have two characters if their justification is, "The rules of the game are annoying, I want unlimited downtime." If they really need the downtime for brewing potions or other important things, just make a house rule or homebrew a feat that lets them do it as part of a long rest.

As a side note, since elves only need to "sleep" for four hours, they would have more of an opportunity to do these things (ex: in a campaign I'm in after I boss fight I long rested, and after four hours, it was only the beginning of the night, which let me brew a potion of healing as the party slept)