I was playing around with the idea of creating a character with multiple personalities. Each personality would be of a different class. They would all be the same level with the same basic stats but would be different classes.

Prior to an encounter, maybe when initiative is rolled I would make a secondary roll to determine which personality would be dominant for that encounter. 

I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions on how best to make this work, and which 4 classes would mesh well together.

Quote from Mr_Muppet >>

I was playing around with the idea of creating a character with multiple personalities. Each personality would be of a different class. They would all be the same level with the same basic stats but would be different classes.

Prior to an encounter, maybe when initiative is rolled I would make a secondary roll to determine which personality would be dominant for that encounter. 

I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions on how best to make this work, and which 4 classes would mesh well together.

 First:

love the idea

second:

I wouldn’t have them mesh well together as that’s not realistic with most multiple personality disorders

3rd:

it would depend on your stats. If you have high CHA this is a super easy caveat to pull off, if not it’s less easy to pull off (for that ever popular optimization people like)

4th:

Would Esch personality have the same background? Therefore same personality traits and flaws and etc? If so that seems counterproductive too.

5th:

what race? Do all the personalities identify as that race? Or does 1 think he’s a dwarf even though he’s wood elf, and only move 25 ft at a time.

etc etc

Definitely work with your DM on this idea if you haven't been already. As a warning, it'll be a lot to try and learn how to play functionally four characters at once.

Now that is out of the way, focus on classes that share a main stat so you do not lose too much in the way of combat effectiveness. Paladin, sorcerer, warlock, bard all use CHA, and thus wouldn't suffer too much. Fighter, barbarian, bard (valor or swords), and warlock (hexblade)/paladin would also work with strength as the main. Rogue and monk both focus on DEX usually, and adding cleric to that would work with a monks WIS. Perhaps a DEX based fighter as well.

Also it's Dissociative Identity Disorder as per the current version of the DSM, not multiple personality disorder (I'm a pedantic graduate psychology student, sorry).

Ive done this, although differently. The way you described seems fair unless you build them, because really it could be a ranger specializing in dragons up against an ancient red one moment, then a wizard up against a were creature or ghost the next. Just seems cruel to the dms encounters.

The way I had it was a wizard, where one personality had actually learned the spells, and the other had gotten to the few weapons a wizard knows. The one who knew the weapons though was a coward, and switched after taking some damage.

I had player who did that. The switched between lawful good and chaotic evil. That player wasn't around for very long.

Biggest advice: Talk to someone who *has* Dissociative Identity Disorder and learn how this affects people. If you want to play a character who has a real-life condition then do your best to not portray said condition in an offensive or caricaturing way.

Quote from Mr_Muppet >>

I was playing around with the idea of creating a character with multiple personalities.

 This seems to be popping up a lot lately... 

Pro-tip: It is never a good idea to attempt portraying a character suffering from a mental illness. It only ever ends up reinforcing negative stereotypes.

From a purely mechanical/playability standpoint, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd effectively have four different character sheets to manage - that's four times the busywork.

From an ethics/social contract standpoint, that sounds like a supremely bad idea. People with Disassociative Identity Disorder are constantly having to deal with awful, inaccurate portrayals of their mental illness (lookin at you, M Night Shyamalan); we don't need another one added to the mountain of offensive characters. 

I'm with Sigred and Nat_30 on this one. 

It can also be a bit overpowered to have one character that has the options of 4 different classes. If I was the DM and somehow willing to let this happen - I'd say at best you can Multiclass and only use the class features associated with the "personality" that is in control. This way you have only 1 sheet, not 4, you are not being OP compared to everyone else and it more closely reflects 4 personalities having only parts of a life instead of somehow having 4 entire lives in one. Remember, just getting to Level 1 in a class represents several years of training, study etc. A "personality" isn't dominant for years and years at a time.

Would I allow it if I was a DM? Probably not. People with this disorder struggle a lot - it can interfere with their ability to lead a life, make decisions, and relate to other people. EVen today people are very unkind to those with it - calling them "fakers" or "insane" and may refuse to acknowledge them or bully and harass them. Even those who are kinder will struggle to understand or relate and may end up frustrated. So in older times this was even worse - people with it were thought to be possessed or cursed so you can imagine how that went. 

There are movies that glorify the condition as interesting plot twists or as a funny gimmick. But, this is often insulting to people who actually have it and can easily be seen as disrespectful. 

The idea invites a lot of negativity, can frustrate the other players/DM, could be a mechanic nightmare since you're only going to be sub-par or OP in a situation, never inbetween. It's a whole lot of unfun for what is basically - for somebody without the disorder wanting to play it - a gimmick. 

Perhaps instead just have an Eladrin with mood-shifts represented by the seasonal changes or a Changeling that is leading different lives or has personas for different situations - all the gimmick of that changing character and none of the negativity/misrepresentation of portraying a very severe mental illness or the hassle of mechanical balance.

So, my mom has this, and...

it’s quite sad to see. If I was sitting at a table, and someone did this. I would probably just up and leave. With how this hits home to me personally, I feel like it would be akin to making an overly racist stereotype character, and how someone of that nationality/religon felt seeing you try and portray them.

It seems that we now live in a world where it is automatically assumed that whenever you attempt to portray someone with an illness, a mental disorder, or any other form of physical, personal, social or cognitive disorder your doing it to insult, demean or make fun of that group. I thought that D&D was a fantasy realm full of creatures and people that do not exist except in the minds of those that create them. And heaven forbid that in my fantasy world I want to play a character who is flawed. A character that has problems, A character that may have mental issues, a character that has a drinking or drug abuse problem. Have we become so thin skinned that instead of facing these issues in a constructive light, we hide them away and not even talk about them even in a fantasy world for fear of offending someone. I was brought up to look at WHO a person is, and not WHAT they are. And just because we live in a cruel world full of hate towards those that are different, that doesn't mean that everyone is like that.

By portraying it like a gimmicky game mechanic you would be propagating some very negative stereotypes whether you intend to or not and that is simply not okay. By all means think we're being easily offended - but just ask yourself honestly what somebody who had this would feel like if they were at the table with you? Would they be happy with it? If you can't say yes - don't do it.

My advice is to find a way of playing the character however you want - but completely remove any association with disabilities or mental illnesses. Portraying them does nobody any favours because stereotypes WILL seep in one way or another - and when it comes to disabilities or mental illnesses - stereotypes are nearly always negative.

If the effect is to cause pain by mimicking a debilitating condition, does motive matter?

You can do something like this without linking it to an illness or "personalities" and sidestep this whole issue. A malfunctioning Warforged that was tested as an all-purpose bot, but the controls to change its purpose never quite worked right, and it was discarded, for example.

There are ways to get this fantasy gameplay effect without referencing a particular real-life condition that people at your table might be dealing with.

Edit: Now that I've better absorbed the comment above mine, please consider this comment a companion to that one.

Quote from Mr_Muppet >>

It seems that we now live in a world where it is automatically assumed that whenever you attempt to portray someone with an illness, a mental disorder, or any other form of physical, personal, social or cognitive disorder your doing it to insult, demean or make fun of that group. I thought that D&D was a fantasy realm full of creatures and people that do not exist except in the minds of those that create them. And heaven forbid that in my fantasy world I want to play a character who is flawed. A character that has problems, A character that may have mental issues, a character that has a drinking or drug abuse problem. Have we become so thin skinned that instead of facing these issues in a constructive light, we hide them away and not even talk about them even in a fantasy world for fear of offending someone. I was brought up to look at WHO a person is, and not WHAT they are. And just because we live in a cruel world full of hate towards those that are different, that doesn't mean that everyone is like that.

 We also live in a world where racism and genocide are societally acceptable. Those happen in D&D too.

Most people don’t complain about mass goblin killings in D&D being racist or genocide. Because that’s an issue of a much different level for most people than DID.

If you had ever either lived with, grown up with, worked with, or seen daily, someone who struggles through DID. Seeing them without their meds, seeing them on their meds, seeing them struggle to do “simple” daily activities that YOU take for granted: (such as playing D&D, driving, going to the grocery store without the cops needing to be called on you)

You would think a little harder about this. But, I think it’s pretty safe to infer, from you asking on the forums HERE how to do this. That you have not had such experiences with people with these conditions. I recommend you pose your same question of how to portray it in Dungeons and Dragons on some medical forums, where people have it, or work with those people, or have loved ones that have it. And see what constructive criticism you can get from there to do it tastefully.

Now, to your “thin skinned” comment. I said it hits too close to home for me and I would leave.

Explain how being a rational adult makes me thin skinned? Would I be thin skinned if the game was too **** and torture heavy and I wasn’t feeling it and left? Would I be too thin skinned if the DM was abusively loud yelling at players, and punches us in the arm or slaps our back depending on if he likes or dislikes choices we make and I left?

To my perspective, the one thin skinned here is you: that you don’t like that not everyone likes your idea.

I've been a player in a group where another player did this.

It sucked.

Our group encountered an NPC who appeared to have a second personality, turned out he was just a barbarian who named his rage.

One side is that people continue to portray alcoholics in a humorous way in many, many D&D campaigns. My stepfather was an alcoholic. He was no laughing matter. He struggled with it and lost against it for the overwhelming majority of his life. Yet, portrayals of boozers for funsies - a gimmick - is prevalent in D&D, and most seem to find it okay. I pondered why.

One possibility is that D&D is commonly set during a period of time where people addicted to alcohol are mostly considered silly, harmless people. The Earth reality of the emotional pain upon the addict and others is not a common thought in the setting, and it is possible that people portray this illness in the same spirit as the setting.

I cannot state how this could translate for DID in D&D, though. I know I would never portray DID nor an alcoholic, but why is it acceptable for characters to have an alcoholic flaw after what I've personally experienced?

The variable standards are difficult to understand.

Yet for one thing, I am not partial to the idea of using DID or other illnesses for a benefit of having multiple characters as one party member. Yet, what about a player character that is cursed with such an illness? There are situations outlined in the DMG where a player's alignment or personality may shift against the player's will. What are the lines to never cross?

(EDIT: One of the official 5e PHB suggestions for a Sailor background's flaw is, "Once I start drinking, it's hard for me to stop." Another for Folk Hero is, "I have a weakness for the vices of the city, especially hard drink.")

Quote from EricHVela >>

One side is that people continue to portray alcoholics in a humorous way in many, many D&D campaigns. My stepfather was an alcoholic. He was no laughing matter. He struggled with it and lost against it for the overwhelming majority of his life. Yet, portrayals of boozers for funsies - a gimmick - is prevalent in D&D, and most seem to find it okay. I pondered why.

One possibility is that D&D is commonly set during a period of time where people addicted to alcohol are mostly considered silly, harmless people. The Earth reality of the emotional pain upon the addict and others is not a common thought in the setting, and it is possible that people portray this illness in the same spirit as the setting.

I cannot state how this could translate for DID in D&D, though. I know I would never portray DID nor an alcoholic, but why is it acceptable for characters to have an alcoholic flaw after what I've personally experienced?

The variable standards are difficult to understand.

Yet for one thing, I am not partial to the idea of using DID or other illnesses for a benefit of having multiple characters as one party member. Yet, what about a player character that is cursed with such an illness? There are situations outlined in the DMG where a player's alignment or personality may shift against the player's will. What are the lines to never cross?

(EDIT: One of the official 5e PHB suggestions for a Sailor background's flaw is, "Once I start drinking, it's hard for me to stop." Another for Folk Hero is, "I have a weakness for the vices of the city, especially hard drink.")

 Regarding “historically in those settings”

people who suffered DID in olden times, were likely burned at the stake as witches, or heretics of the church for being “possessed” or some other form, of they had a very short lifespan compared to someone identical to them in everything except for having DID.

i agree with your point about folk heroes and sailors. And it brings up an interesting point of what is fair game and not from the creators end, in terms of where there’s a line to cross.

When a creator/writer wants to put a certain theme into their story/character which they haven't personal experience with, my first response is "Don't. You don't know what you're talking about." That, of course, won't keep them from actually putting it in anyway so I think the most important thing for creators is to be mindful of their own short-comings in terms of knowledge and experience and seek out people who *have* those experiences, in an effort to make the portrayal they're aiming for as accurate and respectful as possible.

That goes for pretty much everything, be it Racism, Ableism, Transphobia, Living with certain disabilities, addictions, cultures, etc. Educate yourself, Listen to those who live it and know when it's best to just *not* do something because it's not your place.

The Wife and I created a shared character with a Multiple Personality Disorder, we would each take turns between playing and watching the kids. We didn't tell the other players that we had specifically built the character around this trait but made it very obvious. My wife played a barbarian that would go into a rage at the drop of a hat and had a drinking problem, I played as a preachy cleric that was a passivist and would run around healing and buffing allies, used the "Help" action quite a lot.

We managed to get through a few weeks before the other players realised that it wasn't just a different play style and we were actively playing different roles. 

It was a fun character for a time but felt very limited as we were only playing half a character each, so when he was killed in combat we opted to not let him come back and instead went back to individual characters.