It sounds like the real thing they want here is to have a campaign with downtime. Potential offers here include:
1: Let them do this. Having one player swap between two characters, especially if they are thematically linked, is not game breaking and is not an exclusively bad thing. Ok, so the party gets some more gold because they have 1 extra character who stays at home making money. Not a major issue, really. I've never found "the party has money" to be a problem. "The party has divine intervention" or "The party has a powerful magic item" tend to be the sorts of things that make a DM suffer. It also allows for cool plothooks - one of their 2 characters gets kidnapped, allowing a rescue mission without one player sitting out. They get back and the mob has come down on the business owner character. That sort of thing.
2: Let them plan and "run" the business, but keep the two characters separate. Basically, they get to make an in-depth NPC for the world. Occasionally you and they can prepare sub-quests like "try out this new item" or "find me some gorgon horns".
3: Change the dynamic of your planned game to include more downtime, allowing them to run their business. Get everyone else on-board with having downtime and planning their own endeavours.
It sounds like the real thing they want here is to have a campaign with downtime.
This brings up something that's always a good idea, in both this case and often during play: Ask what a player actually wants with the thing they're asking for. Does the player asking detailed questions about chandeliers want to know what the light situation is or do they want to swing dramatically from the chandelier like Errol Flynn? You can cut out a lot of random follow up questions by asking what the end goal is rather than both of you wandering around the point without ever reaching it. In this case what do they hope to accomplish by having two characters? Maybe they get bored just playing the same one all the time in which case you can cater to their desire for variety. Maybe they want to enrich a backstory by having a family and loved ones in which case you can do that without the hassle of switching characters. Or maybe like Thoruk says they want downtime in which case you can just do that
I think it's worth pointing out that this is an established mode of play, called "Troupe Play", with a long history in TTRPGs. It's not necessarily a given that each player will control only one character throughout the course of any given game. Personally, I think D&D 5e is really well suited for troupe play; it keeps the game from getting stale, encourages deep system knowledge, and creates a bit of a buffer between players and their characters that I think is healthy. I usually wouldn't let only one player have a troupe while all the others play a single character, but if the other players aren't interested in troupe play and the one troupe player understands the game won't be built around opportunities to switch characters, it could be fine.
Personally, I say a flatout NO! I say this because I had a player who wanted to do this, except it was more "two kids in a trenchcoat" type deal. He wanted to do an overpowered combo. But, that is my opinion
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
No! Having 2 or more characters makes them so OP, because when they encounter a lycanthrope, they can just say "well, I'm using my spell caster". Also, if you let them, what stops them and others from having 2, 3, or more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It sounds like the real thing they want here is to have a campaign with downtime. Potential offers here include:
1: Let them do this. Having one player swap between two characters, especially if they are thematically linked, is not game breaking and is not an exclusively bad thing. Ok, so the party gets some more gold because they have 1 extra character who stays at home making money. Not a major issue, really. I've never found "the party has money" to be a problem. "The party has divine intervention" or "The party has a powerful magic item" tend to be the sorts of things that make a DM suffer. It also allows for cool plothooks - one of their 2 characters gets kidnapped, allowing a rescue mission without one player sitting out. They get back and the mob has come down on the business owner character. That sort of thing.
2: Let them plan and "run" the business, but keep the two characters separate. Basically, they get to make an in-depth NPC for the world. Occasionally you and they can prepare sub-quests like "try out this new item" or "find me some gorgon horns".
3: Change the dynamic of your planned game to include more downtime, allowing them to run their business. Get everyone else on-board with having downtime and planning their own endeavours.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
This brings up something that's always a good idea, in both this case and often during play: Ask what a player actually wants with the thing they're asking for. Does the player asking detailed questions about chandeliers want to know what the light situation is or do they want to swing dramatically from the chandelier like Errol Flynn? You can cut out a lot of random follow up questions by asking what the end goal is rather than both of you wandering around the point without ever reaching it. In this case what do they hope to accomplish by having two characters? Maybe they get bored just playing the same one all the time in which case you can cater to their desire for variety. Maybe they want to enrich a backstory by having a family and loved ones in which case you can do that without the hassle of switching characters. Or maybe like Thoruk says they want downtime in which case you can just do that
I think it's worth pointing out that this is an established mode of play, called "Troupe Play", with a long history in TTRPGs. It's not necessarily a given that each player will control only one character throughout the course of any given game. Personally, I think D&D 5e is really well suited for troupe play; it keeps the game from getting stale, encourages deep system knowledge, and creates a bit of a buffer between players and their characters that I think is healthy. I usually wouldn't let only one player have a troupe while all the others play a single character, but if the other players aren't interested in troupe play and the one troupe player understands the game won't be built around opportunities to switch characters, it could be fine.
Personally, I say a flatout NO! I say this because I had a player who wanted to do this, except it was more "two kids in a trenchcoat" type deal. He wanted to do an overpowered combo. But, that is my opinion
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
No! Having 2 or more characters makes them so OP, because when they encounter a lycanthrope, they can just say "well, I'm using my spell caster". Also, if you let them, what stops them and others from having 2, 3, or more.
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!