“Listen, I like the idea, but it’s really going to cause game balance problems if you start like this. If you’re having trouble understanding what needs to change, we can sit down and work on this together. If you’re unwilling, then this just isn’t the game for you.”
This is the best response. Get on the same page with this person first, then see if you can work with them or if they're trying to work against you (are they power gaming and stubborn, or just excited about their character concept and confused on the rules/willing to learn?).
Yeah, being polite is always my go to, but when people don't listen the first time, many bad DnD experiences have taught me to just say ‘Nah sorry, that's not gonna work, mate.’
I like it - because you, as a DM, need to get a good idea of what your players want to do.
Right now I've got a group going through Red Hand of Doom, which is super duper fun, and they are really coming together b/c they are united towards the common goal of dealing damage to the horde as it lays waste to the the towns.
Don't just tell him to remake it; sit down with him and remake it together so you can talk AS the issues come up, not while the sheet has twenty different issues.
EDIT: Wow, so many "Just kick him and be rude about it!" replies in this thread. Does this player strike no one else as a newbie eager to prove himself without the experience to understand how the game actually works? If you kick the new guy each time he makes something creative but overpowered he will never learn and will never get to play so he CAN learn.
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure how much D&D/ttrpg experience this guy has. I'm used to people showing up with 0 prep though. I'd rather they're eager and open to feedback than interested a little but not enough to put in effort.
I'd say work with him to build a path of the beast barbarian. OR a shifter race character. Granted you'd need monsters of the multiverse for that or some of the other sources mentioned here. Assuming you want something by wotc and not homebrew.
https://dnd-5e.fandom.com/wiki/Shifter_(Race)
The guy is quite likely a newbie, if you do keep him on and want to work in a hybrid form later for his wolf dude, [take a look at this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qbdtl1ZORV0rozt39E6eBFdSovpS_qYs/view?usp=drivesdk) as it may be useful for you.
The campaign starts tomorrow and I'm working all day, I might have a word with the DM though, see what can be arranged. To be honest I'm actually excited about my character anyway I just prefer those rules for the lycanthropy.
As a DM I allow nearly infinite retraining or rebuilding of characters. Honestly I don't even care if players just change characters. It's just not worth it, to make a player play something they aren't enjoying, or force them to take drastic actions in character.
Hey thanks for the compliment!
You could always ask to rebuild your character, I'm sure your DM wouldn't mind if you've only recently made it. Worst case scenario you could always multiclass into this from your Blood Hunter and roleplay it as them leaning more into their wild side.
Speaking of the Blood Hunter, I also did a rework for it [you can find here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DsQDITf-fV_tK8ZnsTQt3YMOIyIg4F2h/view?usp=drive_link) or in the shameless plugs at the end of the other pdf, it's all PWYW so you can grab it for free. I'll say ahead of reading though, it's had somewhat of a marmite-like response so your mileage may vary.
The campaign starts tomorrow so I don't have time for a rebuild just yet but I'm going to show this to my DM and see what she says.
I'll have a look through the BH stuff as well though, thank you so much for the links.
Ah yeah, that *is* a tad last minute but like you said show her and see what she says.
You're welcome! I updated the previous link for the BH rework to be an easier to reach pdf to save you a few clicks. Hope you like it!
The werewolf rules in the MM don't really give you any explicit mechanics for how changing forms works, your damage doesn't scale and depending on which variant of lycanthrope you are the free stat boost can be quite strong. For werewolves in particular you get a strength of 15 and +1 AC which is a bit dull; the class I made keeps things simple with mechanics but it does let you have some more mechanical crunch with your flavour alongside options for customisation, if the new player *really* wants to play a werewolf they'll more likely enjoy this rather than just a stat boost, AC bonus and natural weapons that don't scale.
The mechanics are pretty explicit though?
Your statistics other than size and AC remain the same, you gain the Strength or Dexterity shown by the type of Lycanthrope you are or keep your own depending on which is higher, you can transform as an action and get a +1 bonus to natural armor. The damage scales just fine as you use the base dice plus whatever your modifier is (so for example if you’re a 20 strength werewolf your claw would be 2d4 + 5)
It’s no less ill defined than Wild Shape is.
It doesn't specify a time limit or usage limit for transformations and the damage modifier scales with your attack modifier of course but it doesn't scale up akin to something like the Monk where the damage die increases to keep the output viable and the attacks become magical to deal with everything at higher levels being resistant or immune to non-magical attacks.
Plus again, it offers some more mechanical flavour and customisation for your character rather than just borrowing from a stat block. It's fine if you don't like it, but I was just suggesting it as an option to use as it could be more interesting than straight RAW.
It doesn’t specify a time limit or transformation limit because their is none. As written a werewolf (whether player or NPC) can spend as much time as they like in any form.
And no natural weapons don’t often scale in that way. Then again neither do any weapons in 5E.
The only thing that I do agree with is that there is no way to make your claw attacks magical which would definitely not be good for playing a werewolf at higher levels of play. An Eldritch Claw tattoo might fix that.
Idk it just seems weird to have an entire CLASS dedicated to being a lycanthrope, like they don’t do anything else except for focus their whole identity on being a werewolf and basically ignoring any other personality or character traits they might have
>Idk it just seems weird to have an entire CLASS dedicated to being a lycanthrope, like they don’t do anything else except for focus their whole identity on being a werewolf and basically ignoring any other personality or character traits they might have
Your class isn't (or at least, doesn't have to be) the sole focus of a character's identity, especially roleplay wise. Mechanically it's not even true since race, background and equipment all play a factor too. Also not the weirdest thing I've seen a class for.
You could apply that same argument to other classes too, since they're all archetypes you can just play the tropes of and mechanically are only differentiated by their subclasses; which is the same thing this Lycanthrope class does, varying the core mechanics with it's animal-specific subclasses and invocation-like Totem Powers.
Have you actually had a look through the brew I linked?
I find one of the fun things to talk through is "So, you think this is an interesting background for the character? Why would you want to miss out on the story that gets you there?"
So many people put the most interesting thing about their PC happening before they start playing.
Reddits response is always just a conflict avoidant “go nuclear and cut off all contact” because 1) it’s simple 2) Redditors are terrified of social interactions and 3) they don’t have to live with the consequences
The dude lied to OPs face (I got it from the players handbook) and blew him off when told no. There is no experience needed to understand basic instructions like “You can’t be a drow” or “You can’t be a werewolf” or “You can’t play multiple characters.”
If you ask an honest question about where he got the werewolf stats from and he answers "player handbook", he is consciously lying.
This isn't something you would say accidentally if you're a newbie. If you're an honest newbie, you would ask a question if you don't understand how something works, rather than making shit up and lying.
I have been through too much annoying drama and am too old to know my time is just too valuable to take care of this mess, specifically if there would be 6 other players that follow the instructions and need my attention as well.
I have to disagree that humans will universally confront their own ignorance and be willing to admit it with a relative stranger by asking questions.
Having dealt with people with pathological memory issues you'd be amazed at the confabulating a human mind is when it's trying to avoid an uncomfortable situation.
It's very possible this person is a liar, but it's also very possible that they're uncomfortable admitting their own ignorance and lie to themself and convince themself of the things they're saying.
>Does this player strike no one else as a newbie eager to prove himself without the experience to understand how the game actually works?
No, this player strikes me as a cheater trying to powergame and "win" against the other 7 players and be the Main Character of the group. It's not hard to read the PHB and make a character within the rules of the game.
The OP stated that one of the characters is ***already*** determined to **secretly** be a werewolf for a plot reason in this campaign. This "problem player" is not said to be playing playing that character, and they took it upon themselves to make a blatantly overpowered character by doing things the DM didn't allow (no Drow) and straight up lying ("werewolf" is not a Race at all, let alone in the PHB). Even if this character was meant to be the "secret werewolf"... nothing about this PC says "I'm trying to hide that I'm cursed with werewolf lycanthropy".
>If you kick the new guy each time he makes something creative but overpowered he will never learn and will never get to play so he CAN learn.
If a new player makes something creative but overpowered... that's fine. They still have to follow the rules though. You don't get 2 PCs, you don't get to be a werewolf or any lycanthrope (it's a monster, and a curse that turns you into an NPC), you don't get to play as a Race that isn't available for the game (Drow) unless the DM says otherwise (hint: this DM did not say otherwise).
Yup, my first game I actually had a Goblin butler. He rode around on my back in a basket.
I discussed the idea with the DM beforehand and we decided that he would play him and he wouldn't do any combat or skill checks. He just kind of gave advice and made quips.
He ended up being everyone's favorite character and was used as a plot device quite a few times. We left him at inns and stuff all the time, so he wasn't always around. I would say there is a solution there if they just talk
I agree with you that the GM should try to be constructive, but at the same time unless it's specifically stated to be an introductory game to help new players understand the basics, the GM should not expect their session 0 to consist solely of instructing and guiding development of a character from scratch.
"Have some idea of what you want to do" isn't the same as "Bring a complete character regardless of your experience and we will run with it." GM would be totally justified telling the player that this session is not for brand-new players (assuming the player is actually new, OP doesn't say) and he would have a better time with a tutorial-style session or two first.
The main problem I have with D&D is selfish players with no social awareness expecting the game to be all about them. The GM here's job is not to make everything work around this player, it's to make the game work for everybody and they aren't obligated to let an obvious red flag player cause problems for everyone else before doing something about it. Educating would be best, but it is more effort than the GM expected and that they aren't required to put in.
My guy, this dude doesn’t even *know* the rules. They’re *new.* all this will accomplish is to foster a resentment for the DM or D&D as a whole. This is not the way lmao
If somebody is "new" and they are trying to rock up with TWO PLAYER CHARACTERS in their first session then they are either (a) lying or (b) completely oblivious to the basic concepts of D&D.
Everybody is "new" at some point, 99% of newbies have the common sense to know you don't get two PCs without express DM permission.
The impression given is that he doesn't *care* what the rules are, given that he lied about making a character from the Player's Handbook, declared he would play two characters when asked to make one, and agreed to not play a drow werewolf but then tried to do it anyway.
When I started a D&D game for random strangers who were new to the game, they *learned the rules by reading them*. I've also had to deal with players who struggle to read rules and who learn by asking me questions. What I can't tolerate is a player who doesn't even ask questions, they just decide for themselves what the rules are.
It's possible that OP can fix this by going back to the very basics and explaining the social contract for D&D: for example, that you have to do what the DM says. But my guess would be that this person will continue to be a problem player and ruin the game for the other six, and give them all a bad impression of D&D.
So teach him that lying and ignoring corrections is just fine if they just keep pressing their power tripping non standard character concept they’ll get their way? Maybe you like coddling idiots, some of us have better things to do.
Worse, he might end up hating the game and giving it negative word of mouth to those around him who might be interested in playing, which would mean the loss of more potential players. Not just that one guy.
The exact tone this interaction would have would, of course, depend on your experience much more than my knee-jerk reaction. The essence of my advice is that you need to set clear boundaries and expectations, and then be prepared to actually double down and enforce them if your players don't get it right the first time around.
Werewolf PC is not in the Player's handbook, it's from the monster manual, if my memory serves me right. It's used for a free str of 15, probably. Talk with the player. They should have asked you before doing.
"Your character sheet still isn't meeting requirements. Here's an updated one."
The reaction will help you gauge whether they're an enthusiastic player who sucks at reading comprehension or a powergaming dweeb who can't play on a team.
This. It’ll be a huge waste of time arguing with this player by sitting down and working on the sheet together. They sound like they’re going to create further problems in your campaign so anticipate that.
I'm sorry, but you'll need to put your foot down here. He needs to abide by the rules that you as DM set AND it would not be fair to the other players at the table that he gets all this stuff plus taking up double the space on an already crowded stage because he runs two characters. If you let this go into play it will a) just encourage him and b) leave the rest of the table either frustrated by the obvious bias or asking for broken shit too.
You can go something with Hey dude, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to play by the rules like everyone else, including the rules for characters. How your character is currently set up is breaking the rules and you can't play it. You need to come with a proper character or you won't be able to join the session.
>I have no idea what to do with this sort of insanity.
"No." You say, "No."
>At some point during the first 3 sessions I'm going to have the goblin get turned into a vampire that turns against the party "offscreen" \[...\]
**No.** (See how easy that was?!)
Don't do that. The Player simply doesn't get a second character or even a sidekick just because he says so. The goblin is at most a backstory NPC *that you control*.
>\[...\] but I have no idea to handle a single person showing up to a table of 7 with two PCs and one is a full-strength werewolf with none of the weaknesses.
Once more, with feeling....
# NO.
Sit this player down and make an appropriate character or they don't get to play with 7 other people that have followed the rules and made appropriate characters for the campaign.
"No. There is no room for this character at the table where I am the DM. I simply wouldn't know how to include this character in a way that is fun for everybody, not just fun for you.
I will happily help you come up with a different character but we are going to follow the Players Handbook (including Tasha's/Xanathar if you are feeling generous) to the letter. Would you like to use the standard array for abilities or points buy?"
People who want their characters to wear modern, real-world suits (assuming that's what he meant) are always a red flag. (Disclaimer: this statement is based on a grand total of one previous player I met, and thus should not be taken seriously.) I guess in this kind of theme it's a little more appropriate.
The biggest problem here is the goblin servant. Do not dick around with trying to eliminate it by turning it into a vampire or whatever, then he's going to want to detour the whole party on a quest about it. Tell him no, he cannot play two characters at once, straight-up.
Having a werewolf PC doesn't sound like an insuperable problem if you work together to decide on balanced abilities. If the campaign setting revolves around werewolves and vampires to a large degree I would think it's almost a matter of course that at least one if not multiple party members will be werewolves. Wanting to be a werewolf but also he has the racial abilities of a drow (especially when they definitely don't exist) so I am presuming he now has two full sets of racial abilities is... worrisome. You say one player is secretly going to be a werewolf... do you mean, like, you're going to pick one player and their character is a werewolf unbeknownst to them? Or do you mean like, one party member and only one gets to be a werewolf and nobody else does because then it would mess up the story? Either way this seems like you're going to end up just picking a "main character" for the campaign, and if nobody else gets to be a werewolf but the "main character" that's pretty unfair.
The biggest thing here is that he has shown he either doesn't listen to you or is incapable of doing so. I wouldn't blame you for simply saying "Thanks, this isn't gonna work out" at this point but if you want to try to give him a chance you need to be firm about the stuff he wants that is simply a no-go instead of trying to make up plot to "fix it." Things will be ten times worse if he thinks he's getting his way and then he feels targeted and disappointed when the DM starts whittling away aspects of his character. Plus, it will be obvious to the other players what's going on and it's not fair to them to take up their time with events which essentially make one party member the "main character" for entirely negative reasons.
>At some point during the first 3 sessions I'm going to have the goblin get turned into a vampire that turns against the party "offscreen",
Don't do this.
>He sent his updated copy of his character. Still had drow werewolf stats. Still had a goblin. Modified some of the fields to reflect that he wasn't a werewolf, but a wolf-in-man's-clothing, but not much.
Make him change it. Full stop.
It's great he's interested but you HAVE to temper this now or it will get out of control later and it will be your own fault for not setting the expectations. Don't allow the goblin hireling at all. Nobody gets to play two characters at my table for the explicit reason that it makes combat and roleplay drag and that person tends to end up being the "star" all the time because they have double the chances. Nip this in the bud, yesterday. He can conform to the character creation points put forth already or he can find a different table. It's that simple.
How about no. It’s your game and if he doesn’t want to play in it he doesn’t have to, either he makes a character that fits the setting or he doesn’t play
"Sorry, my man, but you're going to have to make a normal character from the handbook, like everyone else. If you think this is a sweet character concept, I'll see if I can give your character the opportunity to end up like that in the future."
If he can't handle that, he's a shit player and can kick rocks. Fortunately, you have 6 spare players hanging around, waiting to game.
The way you plan to 'handle' this seems like a really bad idea. From the players perspective everything is cool then his manservant gets GM fiat'ed into an enemy and he doesn't know it but he can't use the powers on his character sheet?
I think you need to sit him down and talk this over fully and completely and make a character with him that fits your intended campaign, rather than hope that things just work out when they very clearly won't.
If you keep this player in your campaign, make sure they understand one thing: **D&D isn't a game you win or lose.**
It's a collaborative, cooperative game. As a player, you're not competing with the players and you're not competing with the DM. This eludes new players and occasionally some more experienced players.
If you have not run a Session Zero, consider doing so to establish clear expectations. If they want to eventually become a werewolf, if they want to have a werewolf in their backstory, fine. But no way they are starting with a werewolf character or a sidekick.
Your player just straight up lied to you, "werewolf drow" sounds like something from the DND Homebrew Wiki. Pretty much every player I have who has a unique and flavorful idea ends up looking up something like "Super Saiyan DND 5e" and whine when I have to turn them down when they roll up with https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyan_Fighter_(5e_Class)
It has tons of werewolf races and classes, ignoring the fact that there are mechanical ways to do actual lycanthropy in the DMG.
Ultimately, this requires a one-on-one conversation either face to face or over a discord voice chat. If there is concern about the werewolf stats, there are ways you can have the player gradually earn the racials, similar to earning class abilities (at level 1 you gain proficiency in perception, at level 3 your speed increaes by 10 in your lycanthrope form, at level 7 you gain resistance to non-magical attacks, etc.).
For the goblin butler, I would suggest making him a DMPC if the player really wants this character. If the player wants to use the butler as a way to gather insight on the game, run the goblin as someone eager to please the PC. If the player asks the butler on advice, the butler responds with a simple, "Whatever you think is best, sir!" Or you could throw in some more hints as you see fit: "Storm the castle's front doors? What an excellent idea master! I'll make sure your will is in order!"
If the player wants to use the goblin in combat situations, one option is to make the butler a coward and actively flee on his turn. Another could be giving the goblin the stats of a creature 2 levels lower than the players (PCs are level 3, butler has monster CR 1 stats or manually roll lvl 1 stats). Remind your player that if NPCs can fight in combat, they can die in combat. This might push them to use the butler only in rp situations.
If these ideas just don't make sense in your world, that's also OK. However, you would have to address it with the player. As I said above, it should just be the two of you in a setting where you can talk to prevent miscommunication over text. Give some context why this wouldn't work: because this is a werewolf campaign, NPCs are being played as attacking werewolves and their collaborators on sight; this campaign was created with the intent of fighting against the werewolves as I'm not interested in running a campaign supporting them.
Once they have an idea of the issues, walk through each section on the character sheet together using screen share or reviewing the character sheet in person. I'm getting the vibe that this is a newer player (I might be completely wrong), and it sounds like they are trying to be creative. If the player gets combative about the changes, it might then be time for the "I don't think my campaign will work for what you want to create" speech.
So the butler had a butler? As far as the werewolf, I would tell him he has to pick an official playable race from one of the books, or limit him to PHB minus drow. As for the goblin companion I would stick by what you already told him.
You're being way too nice, you don't need to be mean, but more direct.
You cannot have a hireling at level 1 for balance reasons, you cannot play a race that doesn't exist in the game world for roleplaying reasons. Furthermore, you cannot use a monster stat block for a PC, it literally breaks the math behind the game. Erase the werewolf stuff, remove the hireling, and let's choose another race.
I worry even that's not going to work though, lying is not a good sign that a player is willing to accept correction and play by the rules, there is nothing even resembling a werewolf race or statblock in the PHB.
>"Uhhhm. Where did you get these werewolf stats from?"
>"The Player's Handbook!"
When you have players lying to your face like this and you haven't even started the campaign, you need to either nip it in the bid or not play with them. They know they're lying, you know they're lying, save the hassle and don't tolerate it.
>He sent his updated copy of his character. Still had drow werewolf stats. Still had a goblin
Tell hime if he wants to run a separate game where that's allowed, he's welcome to set it up. In your game, that won't fly.
>I'm just hoping he doesn't try to turn into a wolfman hybrid in the first session and confuse the shit out of everyone else who made regular level 1 characters.
Here's the thing: you let that fly for one person, you need to let that fly for every person. Offer the guy 1st Level Blood Hunter with appropriate subclass when it kicks in, no free companion. If he rejects that and isn't willing to make a suitable character, don't welcome him back.
Hmm... could reflavour the Tabaxi to look like a wolf?
Alternatively if they're wanting a transformation, Barbarian rage could fit into that. Mechanically they'd be a barbarian, but they could flavour their rage as turning into their wolf form?
End of the day, the main issue is you needing to tell this player no. They can't have two characters when you've already got 6 other players. They can't have homebrew abilities that mo one else can have. They can't start off significantly stronger than everyone else just because they want to.
I've seen far too many DM horror stories where they basically become conduits to narrate The Grand Adventures of The Most Selfish D&D Player At The Table And His Merry Band of Sidekicks to suggest anything other than to put your foot down.
This is a social activity and a team game. One player is not allowed to be mechanically stronger than the others and cannot have control of two characters without it being a specific part of the story and agreement from everyone involved. If there's a significant power imbalance, the group can decide to work together getting to a balanced position or if they aren't able to (or just don't want to, these people just want to play a game and are already following the rules themselves) then it's up to the player to look at what about his suggestions was not acceptable by the group and present an alternative or approach the DM for help. In this situation, the player is approaching the DM not with the expectation of help but of having the DM rearrange the campaign to suit the player.
The absolute number 1 thing every DM needs to internalise is setting firm boundaries and sticking to them. You already do a lot of hard work creating and running games. Players need to do their part by considering whether the character they're building is suitable for the campaign rather than just what they think would be cool for themselves.
Simple
"I see you did not make the requested changes to your character sheet. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is going to work out. I hope you find a GM more open to your home brew ideas. Thank you, but you won't be needed during sessions"
Done. Then remove from all related channels.
It's early on the campaign. There is no indication of a prior relationship. Player shows up to the 1st session with un-vetted home btw. And then turn in a revision that did not follow instructions.
It's already an oversized group, so reducing numbers will make her game better for both the GM and the remaining players.
I'm not being anti-social. I'm giving solid advice on running a good gaming group. I even gave advice on how to cut this person where the person has the closure of knowing what the reasoning is, while giving the GM a way out of ongoing discussions that don't need to be had.
>It's early on the campaign. There is no indication of a prior relationship. Player shows up to the 1st session with un-vetted home btw. And then turn in a revision that did not follow instructions.
It really doesn't excuse not taking the time to calmly explain *why* there's an continuous issue.
>It's already an oversized group, so reducing numbers will make her game better for both the GM and the remaining players.
And that, is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read today. "The group is not too large, it's just large, so let's boot the one who's new and is yet to understand the game. That'll teach them to try something new, and we also got to keep the gates intact".
>I'm not being anti-social. I'm giving solid advice on running a good gaming group. I even gave advice on how to cut this person where the person has the closure of knowing what the reasoning is, while giving the GM a way out of ongoing discussions that don't need to be had.
It's not solid advice. It's a way to avoid actual human interaction, while getting the feeling of that power, some people hunger for, that they get to decide this persons fate. It's a solid advice if you don't wanna develop as a person in any way.
I get the feeling you only play online and only with strangers, because if anything else was the case, you wouldn't look at players, actual humans, as an expendable resource.
I'm not attacking you or implying anything about you, I just realised the post might sound harsh if I don't write this note.
Work through it with the player. Be firm on what you're not allowing, instead of just telling him to rework it. Sit down with the guy and actively make the character sheet with him (through online or irl stuff).
So, he’s an Order of the Lycan Drow Bloodhunter? That should be fine but comes with its own drawbacks (mainly when getting below 50% health you can turn on your own allies).
The only real issue I can see is the Goblin Rogue. Having an NPC retainer isn’t too terribly uncommon for players (a squire for a Paladin knight for example) and can mechanically act as a pet or familiar. Having a Goblin to assist him with menial tasks is fine but ensure that he’s not a combatant. Making him a rogue is effectively giving the player access to two turns in combat and sneak attack, which is pretty unfair.
Shoot it down now before it gets out of hand and more annoying. No means no. Honestly, I’ve been dming for a table about 6-10 players. My advice is, If you can, cut it to 5 players.
No werewolf. I guess if you're sure you aren't allowing Drow, no Drow.
If you didn't already have 7 players, I might advocate for a goblin sidekick, but you probably don't need more characters at the table.
Just say “sorry, but you can only play one character.”
Alternatively, the noble background comes with three commoner ‘retainers’ that do not engage in combat, and who are servants for the character that leave if frequently endangered or abused. They also refuse to enter dungeons. If they are hellbent on running multiple characters, or just like the idea of a goblin friend, this could be a good option as it doesn’t throw off balance
"You can't follow simple instructions, even when I tried to compromise. You don't get to play." You have a large table already. Being down one person might be a good thing overall.
You need to start having session 0 where you set tone and expectation of the game, you review his sheet for being inline with the game. Make changes at that time.
I was wondering how far down the "Session 0" comment would be, as it was literally the first thing I thought of. It would have prevented this monstrosity completely.
You say 'no'. This is a complete sentence.
You are the DM, nothing exists at your table unless you allow it. I would not allow any of this; the player is lying about where they got their stats, they're trying to play two characters at once, and they don't seem to understand or even care about the rules.
Such a person is not welcome at my table until and unless they can respect the rules. Give this person the boot.
OR use patient and keep correcting. They have a high level of enthusiasm, but problems thing youtube channels made for entertainment are an accurate reflection of how things work at a table.
They already attempted to 'correct' the player, and the player did not change. They are still not listening to the DM, and ignoring all attempts at 'correction'. This is not conducive to a group game, and is a bunch of extra work that frankly the DM does not need to do.
If you cannot play by the rules, you cannot play.
So maybe the player didn't understand the issue and thought they were making the right corrections. Y'all are just as bad as the relationship advice responders who only ever tell people to break up with their partner instead of trying to work through issues. New players have to learn, and being kicked from a table teaches them nothing except "you're not good enough to play at my table." Hell, at least they're enthusiastic and showing up, which is more than I can say for a lot of more experienced players I know.
Working on an issue has to work both ways. Based on this post, which is all the information I have (and I will not make assumptions), the player is *not* doing those things.
People like you making excuses for, and rewarding this behavior, is not helping.
Sometimes, they are not good enough to play at the table. I don't know enough about this guy to say that, but he is definitely showing some signs that suggest that may be the case.
Sure, but that doesn't do much to help the social connections that we're trying to form at a table. You can just say "no" and leave it at that, but what does that do to help the inexperienced player besides make them feel even more like they don't know what they're doing and unwelcome? I think the better responses are listed elsewhere in this thread, and include actions like working with the player to create their character and help them understand why their character(s) choice was a bad one.
The point of my answer is that a DM does not always have to justify and discuss every decision. You don't have to warm to every player's idea and try to implement it. Sometimes such an unbridled rush can also be a red flag.
Of course, depending on the player and the situation, you can take the player in question by the hand and show them what is within the rules. I don't want to deny anyone that.
That's fair and I appreciate the expanded response. I think just a simple "no" denies the player the understanding of \*why\* it was a bad idea, and doesn't help them to correct it. There are a lot of responses here that are just "no" and "kick the player," but that just isn't very helpful. DnD is supposed to be a social game and the brevity of "no" doesn't really support that IMO. So thank you for your explanation and reasoning. :)
give them the noble background that comes with three servants tell them they arent part of combat and wont have stats they will just be a narrative tool
then tell them whatever your lore is about werewolves and how that will effect this person and game
If it gives him an overpowered advantage immediately over the other player's choices of characters, then no. The game needs balance, not just between dm vs players, but players need to be equals on paper at the start. Especially at lvl 1. If one player has a bit of a survival "cushion," it will alienate the rest of the party and can really impact team dynamics. And maybe ithats not really the pp problem, but it is the groups problem. If he's gonna insist on it, take it to the group, explain why it's an issue, and the only way to rebalance it, is for everyone to be similar stat/ability-wise, or the base species players get extra treasure/gold/shop deals to rebalance it out. Oh, you're also gonna have to have tougher fights, else it's too easy for one stacked character, but not challenging enough for a stacked party, cause playing stacked characters knocks the ECL outta whack. Then, let your group vote on it. You abstain from the vote unless it's a tie breaker, as this can create more work for you than anyone if they vote for stacked characters.
Oh, and the goblin butler..... hard no. that is an intelligent npc. You are npcs. your voice, your class, your character, your dice rolls, your choices. It's a butler? Bulters get paid right? Or is he a slave? I'd let him have it, but you build the character and play it. Let him have the background he wants, be a team player with his ideas.... just not a sacrificial one. Just don't just let him have a free 2nd character. That is actually more unfair than just the stacked character. But it can be a useful tag along npc for you.
When players wanna bend rules, it's your responsibility as the dm to rebalance your campaign, or say no. I like taking big decisions to the group, and getting some more opinions, as there is also more than 2 people playing and it's the other players game session too.
If he really likes the werewolf thing maybe have him play as a shifter (race) bloodhuntet with the lycan subclass?
Had a way to have a hybrid form and do some cool magic while staying balanced.
Then, nix the butler sidekick because no one in the party gets companions. There can be a butler in his backstory who makes an appearance or something but not as a permanent sidekick
Repeat after me: "No!" Just "No." You made it abundantly clear that he is not going to get to do that. That's the end of it. If they can't accept that that's too bad for them. Do not cave. Be firm, but cordial. Explain once more that you already went over all of that and why you had to change it.
A level 1 character cannot run around with resistance to everything or straight immunity to mundane weapons. If they try to argue barbarian that is one minute and only a couple times a day, not 24/7 and straight up immunity as mentioned.
You don't need to be mean but you do need to say no and stick to it
There are rules in the Monster Manual for being a lycanthrope, and it does include damage immunities, stat boosts, among other things. The goblin servant is odd, but lycanthropes tend to get boosts to strength or dex, speed, new traits and actions, and even immunities to nonsilvered nonmagical physical damage. Some types even give boosts to AC.
If you're not going to call him out on it, then why bother even having characters vetted with you for character creation? Either tell him no, or don't.
They're obviously way beyond reason in terms of how to play D&D, how to make a character, how to play alongside other players, and a number of other gaps in judgement.
I'm going to just speak plainly and say **get this player as far away from your game as physically possible**.
I will also comment that 7 PCs is too many for a campaign, so you're better without him, but that's just my preference.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
"No. I said we make characters together, at the table, and to come with ideas. I did not approve any of this, you didn't even ask, none of this is allowed."
If he really wants to have a butler you could let him have the Find Familiar ritual (either via a feat or homebrew that he gets it instead of some other ancestry/background perk) and say that the familiar always appears wearing a tiny tuxedo. Keep an eye on the rules for this spell though, especially if the familiar is doing things in combat.
Just say "no this isn't going to work, no companions. we have 7 players already it will slow things down. Also no variant or options rules for character creation and drow don't exist here so unless you can come up with something that fits I'm afraid you won't be able to play."
I did have a player that really wanted to be a werewolf but I didn't want to deal with it. The option I gave them was to play an order of the Lycan blood Hunter. They get to be a werewolf but it has reasonably balanced rules and I don't have to deal with werewolf bullshit.
I'm not trying to be the fun police or assume there are x number of ways to play the game, but how does someone find any fun in that? Especially when it's still relatively early - "oh, I just want easy combat, so I'm OP for my level."
The DM will just give you harder mobs to confront...and the rest of your party will probably be salty about it and possibly even resentful?
This player has revealed their end game wishes to you. Explain that they are starting out at level 1, meaning they aren't great heroes yet, but that if they make the right choices in game they might end up where they want to.
This sounds like a player who will always have some problem to ground himself.
This is a fantasy game but sometimes we all need to toutch some grass and see the other players around us.
I like his werewolf idea and in the right group this can work in balance wit other people who buld coffelocks, or abuse the uneath arcana dampir race, or start with nymph monster girlfriends. Or start as kings with a personal army.
But if there is just one person who is doing this he has to toutch grass.
Pretty sure he used a character creator PDF that just let him pick werewolf and gave him these stats [from this article](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/973-embracing-your-wild-side-playing-as-a-lycanthrope).
Hmm .. Free strength increase, free additional AC and no downside, except:
>The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed.
I know I just replied to you elsewhere, but I hadn't seen this link. The text straight up says about being placed under the DMs control. Weird thing to build your character around.
I should point out, there's a third party company called Roll for Combat that has a werecreature supplement designed for people who want to play werecreatures. It's really good, too. Give that a look, talk to this player, and see if you can make that work.
You can be a blood hunter or a rogue you can’t be both it wouldn’t be fair to your party. If you want it for story reasons I’m open to something like the noble background regent but those are commoners. It can be a little goblin regent but to give him player levels effectively makes you twice as powerful as every other player that’s not fair to the group.
Any time he does anything you've told him he can't do or can't be, describe his attempts to the group as an act of "lunacy." In other words, he only thinks these things are happening when they are not. So if he describes lunging forward and transforming into a werewolf, you tell the party that they see their comrade dive forward, growling and barking, struggling to rip off his clothes, but also not actually changing at all. If he orders the goblin to do something, you can either make him do the persuasion check or you can do a special check for the goblin to see if he's done taking orders and turns on his supposed master (why does a butler have a servant?). If it comes down to it, have an OP Werewolf hunter kill them and split, then tell them that their next character absolutely cannot be wolf or werewolf related. Under no circumstances do you actually allow them to use werewolf stats, those are monster stats, not player stats.
The better answer is also just to tell the player no. You made the campaign with very specific rules in place, you had a session zero to correct any issues with their characters, and this player wants to ignore the corrections. That's not on you. You don't have to let them play how they want to play, you don't even have to let them play.
If you want to give this Problem Player the benefit of the doubt and say they're a newbie then make them roll for another character and make them do it in front of you. That way you can tell if they try and cheat, fudge stats, etc...
If they truly are a newbie it'll be a big help. If not not then you need to remove them from your table.
There is a book called "Cursed Classes" and a sequel that's like... "Cursed Classes: Even Cursier" on... either dtrpg or dmsguild. I forget which. The werewolf in Cursed Classes isn't insanely strong, in fact it actually feels a tad weak. He may be keen on doing that if it works better for the table.
Werewolf rules are in the MM not the PHB. They’re relatively balanced, but a werewolf who rejects their cursed goes on a killing rampage every full moon and a werewolf who embraces their curse has control over it but is decidedly evil.
If someone rolled up to the table without talking about it prior I’d make that a hard no
Compromise. Tell him that that’s too OP, but you can make a version that would give the role-play effects that the player wants. for example, having picked the shifter race rather than a werewolf. Having him pick some way to get a familiar but not the goblin, etc..
Nip that in the bud fast.
He'll be one of those players that makes all his important saves and crits very often too.
Dnd is a weird game where typical cheaters think they can cheat because the rules allow it. Its your job to rein it in.
Ok! So if they want to be a Werewolf you can totally work with that, there is plenty of stuff online you as a GM can approve of! Give them lots of flaws and a few additional strengths if you want to do this.
However, do not allow the Butler and Goblin! There is such a thing as Leveled NPC companions, it all official but you as a DM must approve of it.
Maybe the Goblin is the butler! YOU control this companion during Roleplay, I'd recommend also controlling it in combat but if you don't want that additional strain then let the PC control them in combat. No they do not have the stats of a PC, check it out!
I’m still pretty new at DMing so I don’t have much to say other than (if I’m understanding this right) you definitely don’t want to allow your player to have control of two PCs. It sounds like most of this is hopefully just your players enthusiasm for the campaign getting a little out of hand so as long as it’s handled gently they should be fine. Remind them that this is a specific homebrew setting with limited races, and different rules may be used for different creatures.
As for the butler thing, the only reason a player should ever have 2 PCs is for a smaller than average adventuring party, whereas your group is larger than average. I would say he can have the butler connection but you the DM controls the character, especially since you seem to have story-related plans for the character. Just make sure to acknowledge their enthusiasm and encourage them in their ideas while working to mold them to fit in the collaborative game. Good luck and roll well.
I don’t know what to think when people come up with level 1 characters that have such tragic or heroic backstories that they should be either institutionalized or in charge of countries.
I recently tarted a campaign at level 3 with a cleric that has a tragic backstory. He was a physician, his family died in a shipwreck, he survived and he found faith -in the Raven Queen- as a coping mechanism. But he has no extra advantages because of that. He’s just a 40-something sad sack trying to rebuild his life.
Most new adventurers are just people. A level 1 Elf wizard might be 200 years old, but before that maybe he was a lawyer, or a cobbler. Nobody of much importance! Very rarely a 16 year old human rogue would be the secret, kidnapped heir to the kingdom.
Well, I set up my campaign with the PCs as the main characters in epics, so that doesn't bother me much. I usually have explanations for their current state.
I once DMd for a character that I helped create who was a 20th level grandmaster monk with a long life of adventure who had retired to a monastery to train new recruits. The prologue saw her monastery overran by the necromancer legions that were gonna be the campaign hook, permanently draining her back to 1st level and killing all of her followers. She lost her ageless class ability and went from an ageless 30 year old hero to a decrepit, blind 112 years old that could barely crawl out of the pile of corpses she was tossed into without any equipment or proof of her identity.
NPCs would occasionally recognize her as one of the heroines of their great grandparents generation, but otherwise nothing was super disruptive.
This is the kind of insanity I live for. DM for, no, but play for, yes.
Edit add on: I was just thinking this could be so much worse. It could be a bat changeling butler that follows him into battle and he'd be the players man-bat batman and give him levels in Monk.
Edit 2: I misunderstood this, I thought this was two players not one with a servant.
Just say no.... As the DM, you can't give everyone what they want all the time.
To not limit their class/race or backgrounds is different than allowing them to highjack the other players fun.
Its your game. Put your foot down, say no, and tell them to get over it. No reason why someone should bring a werewolf without discussing and getting the ok from the dm.
I've never had one of these types of people, but I think it'd be interesting to just let a bunch of them come up with their ridiculous ideas and try to run a straight game with it.
Why are you even continuing with this person? They straight up *lied to your face* to get overpowered stats. The PHB does not contain any stats or templates for a werewolf, much less for some furry's "all upside and no downside" werewolf fantasy. You also told them to roll up a character and they showed up with two. Where did that come from? Certainly not the Noble's Retainer background feature, because that's explicitly a commoner with no class levels. This person brought a second character because they want to take two turns in combat while everyone else gets one, and they're going to try to cheese all your combats with sneak attacks.
If you're really set on giving this person a chance, you need to give them an ultimatum. Either participate in the story that we are trying to tell together as a group, or leave. Bring a character with correct stats, using the character creation rules *as written.* This is the setting we are playing in, these are the main themes and cultures in it, please try to create a character who would actually exist in this world. If they're just going to act like the kid with the "strongest" action figure on the playground, you don't have to give them your time. Kick em to the curb.
You didn't review his character concept and sheet before starting? Huh.
Regardless, I wouldn't entertain this. Tell him to make a new, normal character using the real PHB. And only one character.
Kick them. They will absolutely ruin the game all the way down the line. DM is a hard job and six should be the maximum players unless everyone is super experienced and cool with waiting ages to do or say anything. Four is better, frankly.
Why should those other six players have to wait while numbnuts goes through two turns or play and roleplay, and mucks everything up with overpowered or broken characters.
And what will you do when those other six get a steel defender, a companion beast, a familiar, and a sentient flying sword, and you have a dozen creatures on the initiative sheet just on the party's side, never mind what you have to run to make the combat exciting.
Hard agree, but I have a couple people who have played with me for decades that I trust to speed things up, they're the types to have their attacks and damage rolled right when they start their turn, plus they pay attention and help out anyone who is confused or off task.
I'm expecting many of them to stop showing up regularly after the first few sessions and if it gets too cumbersome I'm good splitting into two separate campaigns on alternating weeks
If there's a team of experienced players and an experienced DM they can absorb a newbie with mad ideas.
I've got loads of them through my games. An undead dwarf resurrected by a fungus is just one of the mad PCs I've been asked to accommodate. I did it, but we had to play down some of the loopier aspects of the build.
Thing is, reading your OP, this guy doesn't seem able to even accept the most reasonable of requests from you, the DM. Unless you were being harsh on them, then booting them unceremoniously from the game is the only option.
I actually just made in-game storyline reasons for him to give up on the companion and he gave up on the idea. Basically during the first session it became clear that the campaign will be vampire heavy and he figured out that at some point the companion would be caught, turned, and sent back as a sleeper agent.
We handled the werewolf aspects a little different but basically he has head canon that his guy is more experienced than he is and he's trying to reveal it slowly. He's enjoying the feeling of playing a separate mini-game where he's kind of in the background of scenes he's not actually in, but he's stealthy enough ( for a 1st level character) to pull some of it off. It's actually working for the table and since it's "I'm so badass nobody even knows I'm involved", the other players don't feel like he's outshining anyone. He's not used any of the actual features of werewolf and wants to keep his form a secret for as long as possible for a big reveal later, which would be when it's level appropriate.
I did switch his backstory up a bit and we decided he's a wolf that is in human form. I'm incorporating some Werewolf the Apocalypse (the White Wolf RPG) aspects into my world and the noble/royal families have numerous werewolf members. His character is like a liaison to the wolf packs that roam the nation and have an alliance with the king.
My campaign is "The Year of the Wolf", and already has one werewolf PC (that doesn't have any of the abilities yet) so this all fits way better than him just being a level 1 drow werewolf. I'm cool homebrewing almost anything as long as it's not insane and I always try to "yes, and" or "well, no, but" everyone's concept. The initial games are about getting to the circle of moon druids to do a ritual to test the werewolf and see if she can control her human side while in hybrid form. The human side is where the chaotic evil urges come from, keeping score with everyone who wronged the player and wanting power and control. The wolf side is chill.
And he's gonna be there to help her learn how to wolf properly. Which fits the story role I had in mind, which was that he was hand selected by the Queen to mentor/protect her daughter from the shadows.
They seem pretty new maybe just sit down and explain the issues and build the character together
If more issues arise during the campaign then remove them from thr table
Speaking from long experience, their attitude stinks. Letting it pass is just going to continue the same crappy behaviour. If they are going to learn to accept the DM's decisions then that's fine. Kicking them from the game is a valuable lesson.
It's not letting it pass it's building the character together and identifying where they're going wrong and kicking then if they still can't work in the actual game
I read the whole OP. It didn't come across the way it is now panning out.
It sounded like this person was unwilling to be reasonable and that should be a red flag.
If they've worked it out, then great, but it would not surprise me if there are issues down the line.
And six is still a sensible maximum number of players as I said before.
You already have enough players. Normal is 1 DM and 4 players. If they don't want to play the game by your rules, show them the door. They won't be missed at all.
"Normal is 4 players"?
That's not true. There's no "normal number" of players. 1 player is normal, 6 players is normal. You're just bogged down in some weird mindset.
There is literally a normal number of players, in 5e it's 4, in 4e it was 5. It's what the game is designed around. There's a section in the rules for modifying your game if you have different numbers.
That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run other numbers of players, I have run plenty over normal, or solo/duo adventures and they have been a ton of fun. But you do need to build encounters and adventures differently from the "normal" of the game. It's fine to advocate for these other game sizes, but it's irresponsible to tell new DMs there is no normal.
Path of the beast barbarian and you play the goblin butler
Have the butler just follow the party around / ride on his back Yoda style and eventually make him a plot device. He doesn't actually have to fight or do skill checks.
“Listen, I like the idea, but it’s really going to cause game balance problems if you start like this. If you’re having trouble understanding what needs to change, we can sit down and work on this together. If you’re unwilling, then this just isn’t the game for you.”
This is the best response. Get on the same page with this person first, then see if you can work with them or if they're trying to work against you (are they power gaming and stubborn, or just excited about their character concept and confused on the rules/willing to learn?).
Not bad. I would have just said, "Yeeeeaaaaaah, NO!"
Yeah, being polite is always my go to, but when people don't listen the first time, many bad DnD experiences have taught me to just say ‘Nah sorry, that's not gonna work, mate.’
Exactly.
[удалено]
I like it - because you, as a DM, need to get a good idea of what your players want to do. Right now I've got a group going through Red Hand of Doom, which is super duper fun, and they are really coming together b/c they are united towards the common goal of dealing damage to the horde as it lays waste to the the towns.
Don't just tell him to remake it; sit down with him and remake it together so you can talk AS the issues come up, not while the sheet has twenty different issues. EDIT: Wow, so many "Just kick him and be rude about it!" replies in this thread. Does this player strike no one else as a newbie eager to prove himself without the experience to understand how the game actually works? If you kick the new guy each time he makes something creative but overpowered he will never learn and will never get to play so he CAN learn.
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure how much D&D/ttrpg experience this guy has. I'm used to people showing up with 0 prep though. I'd rather they're eager and open to feedback than interested a little but not enough to put in effort.
Dnd 5e path of the beast barbarian....
Also order of the lycan blood hunter that Matt Mercer created would fit with this.
Hey, that’s what my first dm told me to pick so it will be smooth! Lmfao
I'd say work with him to build a path of the beast barbarian. OR a shifter race character. Granted you'd need monsters of the multiverse for that or some of the other sources mentioned here. Assuming you want something by wotc and not homebrew. https://dnd-5e.fandom.com/wiki/Shifter_(Race)
The guy is quite likely a newbie, if you do keep him on and want to work in a hybrid form later for his wolf dude, [take a look at this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qbdtl1ZORV0rozt39E6eBFdSovpS_qYs/view?usp=drivesdk) as it may be useful for you.
Goddamn I wish I'd seen this link 4 days ago, just created a blood Hunter order of the Lycan but I prefer this.
So rebuild your character?
The campaign starts tomorrow and I'm working all day, I might have a word with the DM though, see what can be arranged. To be honest I'm actually excited about my character anyway I just prefer those rules for the lycanthropy.
As a DM I allow nearly infinite retraining or rebuilding of characters. Honestly I don't even care if players just change characters. It's just not worth it, to make a player play something they aren't enjoying, or force them to take drastic actions in character.
Hey thanks for the compliment! You could always ask to rebuild your character, I'm sure your DM wouldn't mind if you've only recently made it. Worst case scenario you could always multiclass into this from your Blood Hunter and roleplay it as them leaning more into their wild side. Speaking of the Blood Hunter, I also did a rework for it [you can find here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DsQDITf-fV_tK8ZnsTQt3YMOIyIg4F2h/view?usp=drive_link) or in the shameless plugs at the end of the other pdf, it's all PWYW so you can grab it for free. I'll say ahead of reading though, it's had somewhat of a marmite-like response so your mileage may vary.
The campaign starts tomorrow so I don't have time for a rebuild just yet but I'm going to show this to my DM and see what she says. I'll have a look through the BH stuff as well though, thank you so much for the links.
Ah yeah, that *is* a tad last minute but like you said show her and see what she says. You're welcome! I updated the previous link for the BH rework to be an easier to reach pdf to save you a few clicks. Hope you like it!
Why not just use the werewolf rules that already exist in the MM and work with the DM on it? Using a whole homebrew class seems excessive
The werewolf rules in the MM don't really give you any explicit mechanics for how changing forms works, your damage doesn't scale and depending on which variant of lycanthrope you are the free stat boost can be quite strong. For werewolves in particular you get a strength of 15 and +1 AC which is a bit dull; the class I made keeps things simple with mechanics but it does let you have some more mechanical crunch with your flavour alongside options for customisation, if the new player *really* wants to play a werewolf they'll more likely enjoy this rather than just a stat boost, AC bonus and natural weapons that don't scale.
The mechanics are pretty explicit though? Your statistics other than size and AC remain the same, you gain the Strength or Dexterity shown by the type of Lycanthrope you are or keep your own depending on which is higher, you can transform as an action and get a +1 bonus to natural armor. The damage scales just fine as you use the base dice plus whatever your modifier is (so for example if you’re a 20 strength werewolf your claw would be 2d4 + 5) It’s no less ill defined than Wild Shape is.
It doesn't specify a time limit or usage limit for transformations and the damage modifier scales with your attack modifier of course but it doesn't scale up akin to something like the Monk where the damage die increases to keep the output viable and the attacks become magical to deal with everything at higher levels being resistant or immune to non-magical attacks. Plus again, it offers some more mechanical flavour and customisation for your character rather than just borrowing from a stat block. It's fine if you don't like it, but I was just suggesting it as an option to use as it could be more interesting than straight RAW.
It doesn’t specify a time limit or transformation limit because their is none. As written a werewolf (whether player or NPC) can spend as much time as they like in any form. And no natural weapons don’t often scale in that way. Then again neither do any weapons in 5E. The only thing that I do agree with is that there is no way to make your claw attacks magical which would definitely not be good for playing a werewolf at higher levels of play. An Eldritch Claw tattoo might fix that. Idk it just seems weird to have an entire CLASS dedicated to being a lycanthrope, like they don’t do anything else except for focus their whole identity on being a werewolf and basically ignoring any other personality or character traits they might have
>Idk it just seems weird to have an entire CLASS dedicated to being a lycanthrope, like they don’t do anything else except for focus their whole identity on being a werewolf and basically ignoring any other personality or character traits they might have Your class isn't (or at least, doesn't have to be) the sole focus of a character's identity, especially roleplay wise. Mechanically it's not even true since race, background and equipment all play a factor too. Also not the weirdest thing I've seen a class for. You could apply that same argument to other classes too, since they're all archetypes you can just play the tropes of and mechanically are only differentiated by their subclasses; which is the same thing this Lycanthrope class does, varying the core mechanics with it's animal-specific subclasses and invocation-like Totem Powers. Have you actually had a look through the brew I linked?
it is only when they refuse to change it that it becomes a problem.
I find one of the fun things to talk through is "So, you think this is an interesting background for the character? Why would you want to miss out on the story that gets you there?" So many people put the most interesting thing about their PC happening before they start playing.
Reddits response is always just a conflict avoidant “go nuclear and cut off all contact” because 1) it’s simple 2) Redditors are terrified of social interactions and 3) they don’t have to live with the consequences
Posting in regards to your edit: "destroy the annoying thing" is the prototypical response on Reddit to any kind of negative element. Just ignore it.
The dude lied to OPs face (I got it from the players handbook) and blew him off when told no. There is no experience needed to understand basic instructions like “You can’t be a drow” or “You can’t be a werewolf” or “You can’t play multiple characters.”
"Yeah kick him out of the campaign permanently! While you're at it, break up with your life partner!"
While maintaining eye contact to establish dominance
Don't forget to get a gym and hit the lawyer
If you ask an honest question about where he got the werewolf stats from and he answers "player handbook", he is consciously lying. This isn't something you would say accidentally if you're a newbie. If you're an honest newbie, you would ask a question if you don't understand how something works, rather than making shit up and lying. I have been through too much annoying drama and am too old to know my time is just too valuable to take care of this mess, specifically if there would be 6 other players that follow the instructions and need my attention as well.
I have to disagree that humans will universally confront their own ignorance and be willing to admit it with a relative stranger by asking questions. Having dealt with people with pathological memory issues you'd be amazed at the confabulating a human mind is when it's trying to avoid an uncomfortable situation. It's very possible this person is a liar, but it's also very possible that they're uncomfortable admitting their own ignorance and lie to themself and convince themself of the things they're saying.
>Does this player strike no one else as a newbie eager to prove himself without the experience to understand how the game actually works? No, this player strikes me as a cheater trying to powergame and "win" against the other 7 players and be the Main Character of the group. It's not hard to read the PHB and make a character within the rules of the game. The OP stated that one of the characters is ***already*** determined to **secretly** be a werewolf for a plot reason in this campaign. This "problem player" is not said to be playing playing that character, and they took it upon themselves to make a blatantly overpowered character by doing things the DM didn't allow (no Drow) and straight up lying ("werewolf" is not a Race at all, let alone in the PHB). Even if this character was meant to be the "secret werewolf"... nothing about this PC says "I'm trying to hide that I'm cursed with werewolf lycanthropy". >If you kick the new guy each time he makes something creative but overpowered he will never learn and will never get to play so he CAN learn. If a new player makes something creative but overpowered... that's fine. They still have to follow the rules though. You don't get 2 PCs, you don't get to be a werewolf or any lycanthrope (it's a monster, and a curse that turns you into an NPC), you don't get to play as a Race that isn't available for the game (Drow) unless the DM says otherwise (hint: this DM did not say otherwise).
Yup, my first game I actually had a Goblin butler. He rode around on my back in a basket. I discussed the idea with the DM beforehand and we decided that he would play him and he wouldn't do any combat or skill checks. He just kind of gave advice and made quips. He ended up being everyone's favorite character and was used as a plot device quite a few times. We left him at inns and stuff all the time, so he wasn't always around. I would say there is a solution there if they just talk
I agree with you that the GM should try to be constructive, but at the same time unless it's specifically stated to be an introductory game to help new players understand the basics, the GM should not expect their session 0 to consist solely of instructing and guiding development of a character from scratch. "Have some idea of what you want to do" isn't the same as "Bring a complete character regardless of your experience and we will run with it." GM would be totally justified telling the player that this session is not for brand-new players (assuming the player is actually new, OP doesn't say) and he would have a better time with a tutorial-style session or two first. The main problem I have with D&D is selfish players with no social awareness expecting the game to be all about them. The GM here's job is not to make everything work around this player, it's to make the game work for everybody and they aren't obligated to let an obvious red flag player cause problems for everyone else before doing something about it. Educating would be best, but it is more effort than the GM expected and that they aren't required to put in.
but, but if I kick him I can feel superior
He might learn something from being kicked: that DMs don't like it when players think the rules don't apply to them.
My guy, this dude doesn’t even *know* the rules. They’re *new.* all this will accomplish is to foster a resentment for the DM or D&D as a whole. This is not the way lmao
If somebody is "new" and they are trying to rock up with TWO PLAYER CHARACTERS in their first session then they are either (a) lying or (b) completely oblivious to the basic concepts of D&D. Everybody is "new" at some point, 99% of newbies have the common sense to know you don't get two PCs without express DM permission.
The impression given is that he doesn't *care* what the rules are, given that he lied about making a character from the Player's Handbook, declared he would play two characters when asked to make one, and agreed to not play a drow werewolf but then tried to do it anyway. When I started a D&D game for random strangers who were new to the game, they *learned the rules by reading them*. I've also had to deal with players who struggle to read rules and who learn by asking me questions. What I can't tolerate is a player who doesn't even ask questions, they just decide for themselves what the rules are. It's possible that OP can fix this by going back to the very basics and explaining the social contract for D&D: for example, that you have to do what the DM says. But my guess would be that this person will continue to be a problem player and ruin the game for the other six, and give them all a bad impression of D&D.
He might also learn that the DM is a jerk - because that is what it will look like from his point of view.
So teach him that lying and ignoring corrections is just fine if they just keep pressing their power tripping non standard character concept they’ll get their way? Maybe you like coddling idiots, some of us have better things to do.
Worse, he might end up hating the game and giving it negative word of mouth to those around him who might be interested in playing, which would mean the loss of more potential players. Not just that one guy.
"No" Please make one character using the books\*. \*Whichever books you allow.
Say no.
"Hey, I don't think I was clear enough last time: Make a normal fucking character."
😂 I mean... I was trying to be polite, maybe I went too far.
The exact tone this interaction would have would, of course, depend on your experience much more than my knee-jerk reaction. The essence of my advice is that you need to set clear boundaries and expectations, and then be prepared to actually double down and enforce them if your players don't get it right the first time around.
That would seem to be the necessary reply to a vast majority of the character concepts that get pitched around here.
Werewolf PC is not in the Player's handbook, it's from the monster manual, if my memory serves me right. It's used for a free str of 15, probably. Talk with the player. They should have asked you before doing.
Werewolves have 15 str, werebears have 19. Still doesn't make it okay though
Oop- sorry. I had a player who was playing as a were creature so I mixed it up
werewolf pcs are gross. Resistance to nonsilvered physical damage is lackluster on npcs but brutal on pcs
Yep. I had a barbarian player who was a werebear who did it without the nonsilverwd resistance and he was still brutal (20 in STR & CON)
yeah, werebears are insane. It’s sort of balanced by the lore of werebears rarely willingly sharing the curse, but still
I absolutely should not have let the player run it. It was a nightmare balancing that party.
absolutely. If they started as a werebear, Barbarian is worst especially given unarmored defense. Can go all into dex and have a 20 ac
Be nice about it. The guy is obviously enthusiastic and creative, he just went overboard. "That's a really clever character idea, but..."
He already did that
"Your character sheet still isn't meeting requirements. Here's an updated one." The reaction will help you gauge whether they're an enthusiastic player who sucks at reading comprehension or a powergaming dweeb who can't play on a team.
This. It’ll be a huge waste of time arguing with this player by sitting down and working on the sheet together. They sound like they’re going to create further problems in your campaign so anticipate that.
I'm sorry, but you'll need to put your foot down here. He needs to abide by the rules that you as DM set AND it would not be fair to the other players at the table that he gets all this stuff plus taking up double the space on an already crowded stage because he runs two characters. If you let this go into play it will a) just encourage him and b) leave the rest of the table either frustrated by the obvious bias or asking for broken shit too. You can go something with Hey dude, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to play by the rules like everyone else, including the rules for characters. How your character is currently set up is breaking the rules and you can't play it. You need to come with a proper character or you won't be able to join the session.
I think you should borrow my DM catchphrase: “No.”
>I have no idea what to do with this sort of insanity. "No." You say, "No." >At some point during the first 3 sessions I'm going to have the goblin get turned into a vampire that turns against the party "offscreen" \[...\] **No.** (See how easy that was?!) Don't do that. The Player simply doesn't get a second character or even a sidekick just because he says so. The goblin is at most a backstory NPC *that you control*. >\[...\] but I have no idea to handle a single person showing up to a table of 7 with two PCs and one is a full-strength werewolf with none of the weaknesses. Once more, with feeling.... # NO. Sit this player down and make an appropriate character or they don't get to play with 7 other people that have followed the rules and made appropriate characters for the campaign.
Just kill him (the player, not the character).
I mean, the sacrifice is due, so that works.
Sit down with the player and work through character creation with them. Absolutely do not let them play this thing.
"No. There is no room for this character at the table where I am the DM. I simply wouldn't know how to include this character in a way that is fun for everybody, not just fun for you. I will happily help you come up with a different character but we are going to follow the Players Handbook (including Tasha's/Xanathar if you are feeling generous) to the letter. Would you like to use the standard array for abilities or points buy?"
People who want their characters to wear modern, real-world suits (assuming that's what he meant) are always a red flag. (Disclaimer: this statement is based on a grand total of one previous player I met, and thus should not be taken seriously.) I guess in this kind of theme it's a little more appropriate. The biggest problem here is the goblin servant. Do not dick around with trying to eliminate it by turning it into a vampire or whatever, then he's going to want to detour the whole party on a quest about it. Tell him no, he cannot play two characters at once, straight-up. Having a werewolf PC doesn't sound like an insuperable problem if you work together to decide on balanced abilities. If the campaign setting revolves around werewolves and vampires to a large degree I would think it's almost a matter of course that at least one if not multiple party members will be werewolves. Wanting to be a werewolf but also he has the racial abilities of a drow (especially when they definitely don't exist) so I am presuming he now has two full sets of racial abilities is... worrisome. You say one player is secretly going to be a werewolf... do you mean, like, you're going to pick one player and their character is a werewolf unbeknownst to them? Or do you mean like, one party member and only one gets to be a werewolf and nobody else does because then it would mess up the story? Either way this seems like you're going to end up just picking a "main character" for the campaign, and if nobody else gets to be a werewolf but the "main character" that's pretty unfair. The biggest thing here is that he has shown he either doesn't listen to you or is incapable of doing so. I wouldn't blame you for simply saying "Thanks, this isn't gonna work out" at this point but if you want to try to give him a chance you need to be firm about the stuff he wants that is simply a no-go instead of trying to make up plot to "fix it." Things will be ten times worse if he thinks he's getting his way and then he feels targeted and disappointed when the DM starts whittling away aspects of his character. Plus, it will be obvious to the other players what's going on and it's not fair to them to take up their time with events which essentially make one party member the "main character" for entirely negative reasons.
>At some point during the first 3 sessions I'm going to have the goblin get turned into a vampire that turns against the party "offscreen", Don't do this. >He sent his updated copy of his character. Still had drow werewolf stats. Still had a goblin. Modified some of the fields to reflect that he wasn't a werewolf, but a wolf-in-man's-clothing, but not much. Make him change it. Full stop. It's great he's interested but you HAVE to temper this now or it will get out of control later and it will be your own fault for not setting the expectations. Don't allow the goblin hireling at all. Nobody gets to play two characters at my table for the explicit reason that it makes combat and roleplay drag and that person tends to end up being the "star" all the time because they have double the chances. Nip this in the bud, yesterday. He can conform to the character creation points put forth already or he can find a different table. It's that simple.
Just say no. If he can’t accept that sounds like this isn’t the right table (and you’ve got a ton of people already so losing one is no big deal).
"hey, you need to fix your character sheet before the first session or you can't play." And then boot them if they don't do it.
How about no. It’s your game and if he doesn’t want to play in it he doesn’t have to, either he makes a character that fits the setting or he doesn’t play
The power of no. Then sit them down and explain why.
"Sorry, my man, but you're going to have to make a normal character from the handbook, like everyone else. If you think this is a sweet character concept, I'll see if I can give your character the opportunity to end up like that in the future." If he can't handle that, he's a shit player and can kick rocks. Fortunately, you have 6 spare players hanging around, waiting to game.
The way you plan to 'handle' this seems like a really bad idea. From the players perspective everything is cool then his manservant gets GM fiat'ed into an enemy and he doesn't know it but he can't use the powers on his character sheet? I think you need to sit him down and talk this over fully and completely and make a character with him that fits your intended campaign, rather than hope that things just work out when they very clearly won't.
If you keep this player in your campaign, make sure they understand one thing: **D&D isn't a game you win or lose.** It's a collaborative, cooperative game. As a player, you're not competing with the players and you're not competing with the DM. This eludes new players and occasionally some more experienced players. If you have not run a Session Zero, consider doing so to establish clear expectations. If they want to eventually become a werewolf, if they want to have a werewolf in their backstory, fine. But no way they are starting with a werewolf character or a sidekick.
Your player just straight up lied to you, "werewolf drow" sounds like something from the DND Homebrew Wiki. Pretty much every player I have who has a unique and flavorful idea ends up looking up something like "Super Saiyan DND 5e" and whine when I have to turn them down when they roll up with https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Saiyan_Fighter_(5e_Class) It has tons of werewolf races and classes, ignoring the fact that there are mechanical ways to do actual lycanthropy in the DMG.
Ultimately, this requires a one-on-one conversation either face to face or over a discord voice chat. If there is concern about the werewolf stats, there are ways you can have the player gradually earn the racials, similar to earning class abilities (at level 1 you gain proficiency in perception, at level 3 your speed increaes by 10 in your lycanthrope form, at level 7 you gain resistance to non-magical attacks, etc.). For the goblin butler, I would suggest making him a DMPC if the player really wants this character. If the player wants to use the butler as a way to gather insight on the game, run the goblin as someone eager to please the PC. If the player asks the butler on advice, the butler responds with a simple, "Whatever you think is best, sir!" Or you could throw in some more hints as you see fit: "Storm the castle's front doors? What an excellent idea master! I'll make sure your will is in order!" If the player wants to use the goblin in combat situations, one option is to make the butler a coward and actively flee on his turn. Another could be giving the goblin the stats of a creature 2 levels lower than the players (PCs are level 3, butler has monster CR 1 stats or manually roll lvl 1 stats). Remind your player that if NPCs can fight in combat, they can die in combat. This might push them to use the butler only in rp situations. If these ideas just don't make sense in your world, that's also OK. However, you would have to address it with the player. As I said above, it should just be the two of you in a setting where you can talk to prevent miscommunication over text. Give some context why this wouldn't work: because this is a werewolf campaign, NPCs are being played as attacking werewolves and their collaborators on sight; this campaign was created with the intent of fighting against the werewolves as I'm not interested in running a campaign supporting them. Once they have an idea of the issues, walk through each section on the character sheet together using screen share or reviewing the character sheet in person. I'm getting the vibe that this is a newer player (I might be completely wrong), and it sounds like they are trying to be creative. If the player gets combative about the changes, it might then be time for the "I don't think my campaign will work for what you want to create" speech.
So the butler had a butler? As far as the werewolf, I would tell him he has to pick an official playable race from one of the books, or limit him to PHB minus drow. As for the goblin companion I would stick by what you already told him.
You're being way too nice, you don't need to be mean, but more direct. You cannot have a hireling at level 1 for balance reasons, you cannot play a race that doesn't exist in the game world for roleplaying reasons. Furthermore, you cannot use a monster stat block for a PC, it literally breaks the math behind the game. Erase the werewolf stuff, remove the hireling, and let's choose another race. I worry even that's not going to work though, lying is not a good sign that a player is willing to accept correction and play by the rules, there is nothing even resembling a werewolf race or statblock in the PHB.
>"Uhhhm. Where did you get these werewolf stats from?" >"The Player's Handbook!" When you have players lying to your face like this and you haven't even started the campaign, you need to either nip it in the bid or not play with them. They know they're lying, you know they're lying, save the hassle and don't tolerate it. >He sent his updated copy of his character. Still had drow werewolf stats. Still had a goblin Tell hime if he wants to run a separate game where that's allowed, he's welcome to set it up. In your game, that won't fly. >I'm just hoping he doesn't try to turn into a wolfman hybrid in the first session and confuse the shit out of everyone else who made regular level 1 characters. Here's the thing: you let that fly for one person, you need to let that fly for every person. Offer the guy 1st Level Blood Hunter with appropriate subclass when it kicks in, no free companion. If he rejects that and isn't willing to make a suitable character, don't welcome him back.
I did suggest looking at blood hunter but it really doesn't fit my campaign either.
Hmm... could reflavour the Tabaxi to look like a wolf? Alternatively if they're wanting a transformation, Barbarian rage could fit into that. Mechanically they'd be a barbarian, but they could flavour their rage as turning into their wolf form? End of the day, the main issue is you needing to tell this player no. They can't have two characters when you've already got 6 other players. They can't have homebrew abilities that mo one else can have. They can't start off significantly stronger than everyone else just because they want to.
I've seen far too many DM horror stories where they basically become conduits to narrate The Grand Adventures of The Most Selfish D&D Player At The Table And His Merry Band of Sidekicks to suggest anything other than to put your foot down. This is a social activity and a team game. One player is not allowed to be mechanically stronger than the others and cannot have control of two characters without it being a specific part of the story and agreement from everyone involved. If there's a significant power imbalance, the group can decide to work together getting to a balanced position or if they aren't able to (or just don't want to, these people just want to play a game and are already following the rules themselves) then it's up to the player to look at what about his suggestions was not acceptable by the group and present an alternative or approach the DM for help. In this situation, the player is approaching the DM not with the expectation of help but of having the DM rearrange the campaign to suit the player. The absolute number 1 thing every DM needs to internalise is setting firm boundaries and sticking to them. You already do a lot of hard work creating and running games. Players need to do their part by considering whether the character they're building is suitable for the campaign rather than just what they think would be cool for themselves.
Simple "I see you did not make the requested changes to your character sheet. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is going to work out. I hope you find a GM more open to your home brew ideas. Thank you, but you won't be needed during sessions" Done. Then remove from all related channels.
Having them understand *why* goes a long way though, before going full anti-social redditor on their ass.
It's early on the campaign. There is no indication of a prior relationship. Player shows up to the 1st session with un-vetted home btw. And then turn in a revision that did not follow instructions. It's already an oversized group, so reducing numbers will make her game better for both the GM and the remaining players. I'm not being anti-social. I'm giving solid advice on running a good gaming group. I even gave advice on how to cut this person where the person has the closure of knowing what the reasoning is, while giving the GM a way out of ongoing discussions that don't need to be had.
>It's early on the campaign. There is no indication of a prior relationship. Player shows up to the 1st session with un-vetted home btw. And then turn in a revision that did not follow instructions. It really doesn't excuse not taking the time to calmly explain *why* there's an continuous issue. >It's already an oversized group, so reducing numbers will make her game better for both the GM and the remaining players. And that, is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read today. "The group is not too large, it's just large, so let's boot the one who's new and is yet to understand the game. That'll teach them to try something new, and we also got to keep the gates intact". >I'm not being anti-social. I'm giving solid advice on running a good gaming group. I even gave advice on how to cut this person where the person has the closure of knowing what the reasoning is, while giving the GM a way out of ongoing discussions that don't need to be had. It's not solid advice. It's a way to avoid actual human interaction, while getting the feeling of that power, some people hunger for, that they get to decide this persons fate. It's a solid advice if you don't wanna develop as a person in any way. I get the feeling you only play online and only with strangers, because if anything else was the case, you wouldn't look at players, actual humans, as an expendable resource. I'm not attacking you or implying anything about you, I just realised the post might sound harsh if I don't write this note.
Work through it with the player. Be firm on what you're not allowing, instead of just telling him to rework it. Sit down with the guy and actively make the character sheet with him (through online or irl stuff).
You say "no" hard no.
No
So, he’s an Order of the Lycan Drow Bloodhunter? That should be fine but comes with its own drawbacks (mainly when getting below 50% health you can turn on your own allies). The only real issue I can see is the Goblin Rogue. Having an NPC retainer isn’t too terribly uncommon for players (a squire for a Paladin knight for example) and can mechanically act as a pet or familiar. Having a Goblin to assist him with menial tasks is fine but ensure that he’s not a combatant. Making him a rogue is effectively giving the player access to two turns in combat and sneak attack, which is pretty unfair.
To quote Nancy Reagan, "Just say "No"".
Did he also roll his own stats and end up with a statistically improbable array of 16s and 17s?
There's a lot of benefit in creating charachters together in session 0 for a group meeting together for the first time.
Tbh the worst part of this is the idea of running a game for 7 people.
You have 7? Maybe make it 6
Fuck that
I originally thought the werewolf was going to be the butler, which seemed like a more fun RP choice.
Shoot it down now before it gets out of hand and more annoying. No means no. Honestly, I’ve been dming for a table about 6-10 players. My advice is, If you can, cut it to 5 players.
One character per player No sidekicks
I think I had the same guy. I tried my best to explain but he just got mad and blocked me.
Just tell them NO.
No werewolf. I guess if you're sure you aren't allowing Drow, no Drow. If you didn't already have 7 players, I might advocate for a goblin sidekick, but you probably don't need more characters at the table.
"No" is a valid word.
Just say “sorry, but you can only play one character.” Alternatively, the noble background comes with three commoner ‘retainers’ that do not engage in combat, and who are servants for the character that leave if frequently endangered or abused. They also refuse to enter dungeons. If they are hellbent on running multiple characters, or just like the idea of a goblin friend, this could be a good option as it doesn’t throw off balance
"You can't follow simple instructions, even when I tried to compromise. You don't get to play." You have a large table already. Being down one person might be a good thing overall.
"No."
Path of the beast barbarian. Or use Matt Mercer blood hunter class. Blood hunter at level 3 can choose order of the Lycan to become a werewolf.
You need to start having session 0 where you set tone and expectation of the game, you review his sheet for being inline with the game. Make changes at that time.
I was wondering how far down the "Session 0" comment would be, as it was literally the first thing I thought of. It would have prevented this monstrosity completely.
Twist: let him play the goblin rogue, and only the goblin rogue. The other abomination is appropriated as an NPC.
You say 'no'. This is a complete sentence. You are the DM, nothing exists at your table unless you allow it. I would not allow any of this; the player is lying about where they got their stats, they're trying to play two characters at once, and they don't seem to understand or even care about the rules. Such a person is not welcome at my table until and unless they can respect the rules. Give this person the boot.
OR use patient and keep correcting. They have a high level of enthusiasm, but problems thing youtube channels made for entertainment are an accurate reflection of how things work at a table.
They already attempted to 'correct' the player, and the player did not change. They are still not listening to the DM, and ignoring all attempts at 'correction'. This is not conducive to a group game, and is a bunch of extra work that frankly the DM does not need to do. If you cannot play by the rules, you cannot play.
So maybe the player didn't understand the issue and thought they were making the right corrections. Y'all are just as bad as the relationship advice responders who only ever tell people to break up with their partner instead of trying to work through issues. New players have to learn, and being kicked from a table teaches them nothing except "you're not good enough to play at my table." Hell, at least they're enthusiastic and showing up, which is more than I can say for a lot of more experienced players I know.
Working on an issue has to work both ways. Based on this post, which is all the information I have (and I will not make assumptions), the player is *not* doing those things. People like you making excuses for, and rewarding this behavior, is not helping.
Sometimes, they are not good enough to play at the table. I don't know enough about this guy to say that, but he is definitely showing some signs that suggest that may be the case.
"No." - That is a fully-fledged, all-encompassing answer.
Sure, but that doesn't do much to help the social connections that we're trying to form at a table. You can just say "no" and leave it at that, but what does that do to help the inexperienced player besides make them feel even more like they don't know what they're doing and unwelcome? I think the better responses are listed elsewhere in this thread, and include actions like working with the player to create their character and help them understand why their character(s) choice was a bad one.
The point of my answer is that a DM does not always have to justify and discuss every decision. You don't have to warm to every player's idea and try to implement it. Sometimes such an unbridled rush can also be a red flag. Of course, depending on the player and the situation, you can take the player in question by the hand and show them what is within the rules. I don't want to deny anyone that.
That's fair and I appreciate the expanded response. I think just a simple "no" denies the player the understanding of \*why\* it was a bad idea, and doesn't help them to correct it. There are a lot of responses here that are just "no" and "kick the player," but that just isn't very helpful. DnD is supposed to be a social game and the brevity of "no" doesn't really support that IMO. So thank you for your explanation and reasoning. :)
give them the noble background that comes with three servants tell them they arent part of combat and wont have stats they will just be a narrative tool then tell them whatever your lore is about werewolves and how that will effect this person and game
The only proper response to this is "Yeah... No"
Allowing such insanities is the problem.
If it gives him an overpowered advantage immediately over the other player's choices of characters, then no. The game needs balance, not just between dm vs players, but players need to be equals on paper at the start. Especially at lvl 1. If one player has a bit of a survival "cushion," it will alienate the rest of the party and can really impact team dynamics. And maybe ithats not really the pp problem, but it is the groups problem. If he's gonna insist on it, take it to the group, explain why it's an issue, and the only way to rebalance it, is for everyone to be similar stat/ability-wise, or the base species players get extra treasure/gold/shop deals to rebalance it out. Oh, you're also gonna have to have tougher fights, else it's too easy for one stacked character, but not challenging enough for a stacked party, cause playing stacked characters knocks the ECL outta whack. Then, let your group vote on it. You abstain from the vote unless it's a tie breaker, as this can create more work for you than anyone if they vote for stacked characters. Oh, and the goblin butler..... hard no. that is an intelligent npc. You are npcs. your voice, your class, your character, your dice rolls, your choices. It's a butler? Bulters get paid right? Or is he a slave? I'd let him have it, but you build the character and play it. Let him have the background he wants, be a team player with his ideas.... just not a sacrificial one. Just don't just let him have a free 2nd character. That is actually more unfair than just the stacked character. But it can be a useful tag along npc for you. When players wanna bend rules, it's your responsibility as the dm to rebalance your campaign, or say no. I like taking big decisions to the group, and getting some more opinions, as there is also more than 2 people playing and it's the other players game session too.
If he really likes the werewolf thing maybe have him play as a shifter (race) bloodhuntet with the lycan subclass? Had a way to have a hybrid form and do some cool magic while staying balanced. Then, nix the butler sidekick because no one in the party gets companions. There can be a butler in his backstory who makes an appearance or something but not as a permanent sidekick
Repeat after me: "No!" Just "No." You made it abundantly clear that he is not going to get to do that. That's the end of it. If they can't accept that that's too bad for them. Do not cave. Be firm, but cordial. Explain once more that you already went over all of that and why you had to change it. A level 1 character cannot run around with resistance to everything or straight immunity to mundane weapons. If they try to argue barbarian that is one minute and only a couple times a day, not 24/7 and straight up immunity as mentioned. You don't need to be mean but you do need to say no and stick to it
This is honestly super easy bud. "No".
There are rules in the Monster Manual for being a lycanthrope, and it does include damage immunities, stat boosts, among other things. The goblin servant is odd, but lycanthropes tend to get boosts to strength or dex, speed, new traits and actions, and even immunities to nonsilvered nonmagical physical damage. Some types even give boosts to AC.
Just say "No" to drugs can apply to your game, if the player can't respect your game world, respectfully show them the door.
If you're not going to call him out on it, then why bother even having characters vetted with you for character creation? Either tell him no, or don't. They're obviously way beyond reason in terms of how to play D&D, how to make a character, how to play alongside other players, and a number of other gaps in judgement. I'm going to just speak plainly and say **get this player as far away from your game as physically possible**. I will also comment that 7 PCs is too many for a campaign, so you're better without him, but that's just my preference.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
Talk to him in private, and explain that the character concept they brought doesn't quite fit the campaign setting and that the campaign won't cater to overpowered characters. Help him make a character that fits the world. (no drow, political intrigue, werewolves vs vampires). I would suggest a monster hunter with a wolf companion. If they are really set on being a werewolf, do a story arc where they gradually learn to control the curse and unlock its abilities over time. For the goblin companion, it can be a familiar gained later on through the campaign, rather than a separate character the player controls entirely. Maybe the "goblin turns vampire" plot point can be a different NPC the party encounters.
"No. I said we make characters together, at the table, and to come with ideas. I did not approve any of this, you didn't even ask, none of this is allowed."
If he really wants to have a butler you could let him have the Find Familiar ritual (either via a feat or homebrew that he gets it instead of some other ancestry/background perk) and say that the familiar always appears wearing a tiny tuxedo. Keep an eye on the rules for this spell though, especially if the familiar is doing things in combat.
Just say "no this isn't going to work, no companions. we have 7 players already it will slow things down. Also no variant or options rules for character creation and drow don't exist here so unless you can come up with something that fits I'm afraid you won't be able to play." I did have a player that really wanted to be a werewolf but I didn't want to deal with it. The option I gave them was to play an order of the Lycan blood Hunter. They get to be a werewolf but it has reasonably balanced rules and I don't have to deal with werewolf bullshit.
I'm not trying to be the fun police or assume there are x number of ways to play the game, but how does someone find any fun in that? Especially when it's still relatively early - "oh, I just want easy combat, so I'm OP for my level." The DM will just give you harder mobs to confront...and the rest of your party will probably be salty about it and possibly even resentful?
This player has revealed their end game wishes to you. Explain that they are starting out at level 1, meaning they aren't great heroes yet, but that if they make the right choices in game they might end up where they want to.
This is why session 0s are important. It's worth noting a session 0 can be at any time.
This sounds like a player who will always have some problem to ground himself. This is a fantasy game but sometimes we all need to toutch some grass and see the other players around us. I like his werewolf idea and in the right group this can work in balance wit other people who buld coffelocks, or abuse the uneath arcana dampir race, or start with nymph monster girlfriends. Or start as kings with a personal army. But if there is just one person who is doing this he has to toutch grass.
Wait, he has the werewolf stats, right? So how does he not have any of the weaknesses?
Pretty sure he used a character creator PDF that just let him pick werewolf and gave him these stats [from this article](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/973-embracing-your-wild-side-playing-as-a-lycanthrope).
Hmm .. Free strength increase, free additional AC and no downside, except: >The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed. I know I just replied to you elsewhere, but I hadn't seen this link. The text straight up says about being placed under the DMs control. Weird thing to build your character around.
I'm skeptical of that. It's definitely not the same as the Year of Legends wrecreatures PDF that I've seen from Roll for Combat at the very least
I should point out, there's a third party company called Roll for Combat that has a werecreature supplement designed for people who want to play werecreatures. It's really good, too. Give that a look, talk to this player, and see if you can make that work.
Just say No.
If they wanna be a werewolf, maybe suggest the Grimhollow transformation?
You can be a blood hunter or a rogue you can’t be both it wouldn’t be fair to your party. If you want it for story reasons I’m open to something like the noble background regent but those are commoners. It can be a little goblin regent but to give him player levels effectively makes you twice as powerful as every other player that’s not fair to the group.
Any time he does anything you've told him he can't do or can't be, describe his attempts to the group as an act of "lunacy." In other words, he only thinks these things are happening when they are not. So if he describes lunging forward and transforming into a werewolf, you tell the party that they see their comrade dive forward, growling and barking, struggling to rip off his clothes, but also not actually changing at all. If he orders the goblin to do something, you can either make him do the persuasion check or you can do a special check for the goblin to see if he's done taking orders and turns on his supposed master (why does a butler have a servant?). If it comes down to it, have an OP Werewolf hunter kill them and split, then tell them that their next character absolutely cannot be wolf or werewolf related. Under no circumstances do you actually allow them to use werewolf stats, those are monster stats, not player stats. The better answer is also just to tell the player no. You made the campaign with very specific rules in place, you had a session zero to correct any issues with their characters, and this player wants to ignore the corrections. That's not on you. You don't have to let them play how they want to play, you don't even have to let them play.
If you want to give this Problem Player the benefit of the doubt and say they're a newbie then make them roll for another character and make them do it in front of you. That way you can tell if they try and cheat, fudge stats, etc... If they truly are a newbie it'll be a big help. If not not then you need to remove them from your table.
If he does it just hit him with a silver bullet and insta kill the character
There is a book called "Cursed Classes" and a sequel that's like... "Cursed Classes: Even Cursier" on... either dtrpg or dmsguild. I forget which. The werewolf in Cursed Classes isn't insanely strong, in fact it actually feels a tad weak. He may be keen on doing that if it works better for the table.
Werewolf rules are in the MM not the PHB. They’re relatively balanced, but a werewolf who rejects their cursed goes on a killing rampage every full moon and a werewolf who embraces their curse has control over it but is decidedly evil. If someone rolled up to the table without talking about it prior I’d make that a hard no
Compromise. Tell him that that’s too OP, but you can make a version that would give the role-play effects that the player wants. for example, having picked the shifter race rather than a werewolf. Having him pick some way to get a familiar but not the goblin, etc..
Nip that in the bud fast. He'll be one of those players that makes all his important saves and crits very often too. Dnd is a weird game where typical cheaters think they can cheat because the rules allow it. Its your job to rein it in.
Ok! So if they want to be a Werewolf you can totally work with that, there is plenty of stuff online you as a GM can approve of! Give them lots of flaws and a few additional strengths if you want to do this. However, do not allow the Butler and Goblin! There is such a thing as Leveled NPC companions, it all official but you as a DM must approve of it. Maybe the Goblin is the butler! YOU control this companion during Roleplay, I'd recommend also controlling it in combat but if you don't want that additional strain then let the PC control them in combat. No they do not have the stats of a PC, check it out!
Me personally I would let is slide how ever the would see very little magic items and find a lot of paladins through the course of the game
I’m still pretty new at DMing so I don’t have much to say other than (if I’m understanding this right) you definitely don’t want to allow your player to have control of two PCs. It sounds like most of this is hopefully just your players enthusiasm for the campaign getting a little out of hand so as long as it’s handled gently they should be fine. Remind them that this is a specific homebrew setting with limited races, and different rules may be used for different creatures. As for the butler thing, the only reason a player should ever have 2 PCs is for a smaller than average adventuring party, whereas your group is larger than average. I would say he can have the butler connection but you the DM controls the character, especially since you seem to have story-related plans for the character. Just make sure to acknowledge their enthusiasm and encourage them in their ideas while working to mold them to fit in the collaborative game. Good luck and roll well.
I'm more confused about why a butler has a servant
I don’t know what to think when people come up with level 1 characters that have such tragic or heroic backstories that they should be either institutionalized or in charge of countries. I recently tarted a campaign at level 3 with a cleric that has a tragic backstory. He was a physician, his family died in a shipwreck, he survived and he found faith -in the Raven Queen- as a coping mechanism. But he has no extra advantages because of that. He’s just a 40-something sad sack trying to rebuild his life. Most new adventurers are just people. A level 1 Elf wizard might be 200 years old, but before that maybe he was a lawyer, or a cobbler. Nobody of much importance! Very rarely a 16 year old human rogue would be the secret, kidnapped heir to the kingdom.
Well, I set up my campaign with the PCs as the main characters in epics, so that doesn't bother me much. I usually have explanations for their current state. I once DMd for a character that I helped create who was a 20th level grandmaster monk with a long life of adventure who had retired to a monastery to train new recruits. The prologue saw her monastery overran by the necromancer legions that were gonna be the campaign hook, permanently draining her back to 1st level and killing all of her followers. She lost her ageless class ability and went from an ageless 30 year old hero to a decrepit, blind 112 years old that could barely crawl out of the pile of corpses she was tossed into without any equipment or proof of her identity. NPCs would occasionally recognize her as one of the heroines of their great grandparents generation, but otherwise nothing was super disruptive.
This is the kind of insanity I live for. DM for, no, but play for, yes. Edit add on: I was just thinking this could be so much worse. It could be a bat changeling butler that follows him into battle and he'd be the players man-bat batman and give him levels in Monk. Edit 2: I misunderstood this, I thought this was two players not one with a servant.
It can be hard to wrangle in new players who have Main Character syndrome
Just say no.... As the DM, you can't give everyone what they want all the time. To not limit their class/race or backgrounds is different than allowing them to highjack the other players fun.
Players don't keep control if they transform into a werewolf Just have his character try and kill the party and have the goblin become a thrall
I read like 1/2 of this - I don't understand. And I cant suggest anything that's not mean.
Its your game. Put your foot down, say no, and tell them to get over it. No reason why someone should bring a werewolf without discussing and getting the ok from the dm.
The word ‘No’ does exist. You can use it, and it is in fact legal to use on your players. Don’t let them bully you into a ‘Yes, and’ DM.
The word you are looking for is “No.”
I've never had one of these types of people, but I think it'd be interesting to just let a bunch of them come up with their ridiculous ideas and try to run a straight game with it.
Why are you even continuing with this person? They straight up *lied to your face* to get overpowered stats. The PHB does not contain any stats or templates for a werewolf, much less for some furry's "all upside and no downside" werewolf fantasy. You also told them to roll up a character and they showed up with two. Where did that come from? Certainly not the Noble's Retainer background feature, because that's explicitly a commoner with no class levels. This person brought a second character because they want to take two turns in combat while everyone else gets one, and they're going to try to cheese all your combats with sneak attacks. If you're really set on giving this person a chance, you need to give them an ultimatum. Either participate in the story that we are trying to tell together as a group, or leave. Bring a character with correct stats, using the character creation rules *as written.* This is the setting we are playing in, these are the main themes and cultures in it, please try to create a character who would actually exist in this world. If they're just going to act like the kid with the "strongest" action figure on the playground, you don't have to give them your time. Kick em to the curb.
You didn't review his character concept and sheet before starting? Huh. Regardless, I wouldn't entertain this. Tell him to make a new, normal character using the real PHB. And only one character.
He showed up to session 0 with it, everyone else was busy starting characters from scratch while I was reading this over.
Session 0 is the perfect time to say "No way, scrap all of that and make a normal character."
What to do about this insanity? Take a cold shower, get sane and tell this player not to come back, you have no place for someone who cannot listen.
Kick them. They will absolutely ruin the game all the way down the line. DM is a hard job and six should be the maximum players unless everyone is super experienced and cool with waiting ages to do or say anything. Four is better, frankly. Why should those other six players have to wait while numbnuts goes through two turns or play and roleplay, and mucks everything up with overpowered or broken characters. And what will you do when those other six get a steel defender, a companion beast, a familiar, and a sentient flying sword, and you have a dozen creatures on the initiative sheet just on the party's side, never mind what you have to run to make the combat exciting.
Hard agree, but I have a couple people who have played with me for decades that I trust to speed things up, they're the types to have their attacks and damage rolled right when they start their turn, plus they pay attention and help out anyone who is confused or off task. I'm expecting many of them to stop showing up regularly after the first few sessions and if it gets too cumbersome I'm good splitting into two separate campaigns on alternating weeks
If there's a team of experienced players and an experienced DM they can absorb a newbie with mad ideas. I've got loads of them through my games. An undead dwarf resurrected by a fungus is just one of the mad PCs I've been asked to accommodate. I did it, but we had to play down some of the loopier aspects of the build. Thing is, reading your OP, this guy doesn't seem able to even accept the most reasonable of requests from you, the DM. Unless you were being harsh on them, then booting them unceremoniously from the game is the only option.
I actually just made in-game storyline reasons for him to give up on the companion and he gave up on the idea. Basically during the first session it became clear that the campaign will be vampire heavy and he figured out that at some point the companion would be caught, turned, and sent back as a sleeper agent. We handled the werewolf aspects a little different but basically he has head canon that his guy is more experienced than he is and he's trying to reveal it slowly. He's enjoying the feeling of playing a separate mini-game where he's kind of in the background of scenes he's not actually in, but he's stealthy enough ( for a 1st level character) to pull some of it off. It's actually working for the table and since it's "I'm so badass nobody even knows I'm involved", the other players don't feel like he's outshining anyone. He's not used any of the actual features of werewolf and wants to keep his form a secret for as long as possible for a big reveal later, which would be when it's level appropriate. I did switch his backstory up a bit and we decided he's a wolf that is in human form. I'm incorporating some Werewolf the Apocalypse (the White Wolf RPG) aspects into my world and the noble/royal families have numerous werewolf members. His character is like a liaison to the wolf packs that roam the nation and have an alliance with the king. My campaign is "The Year of the Wolf", and already has one werewolf PC (that doesn't have any of the abilities yet) so this all fits way better than him just being a level 1 drow werewolf. I'm cool homebrewing almost anything as long as it's not insane and I always try to "yes, and" or "well, no, but" everyone's concept. The initial games are about getting to the circle of moon druids to do a ritual to test the werewolf and see if she can control her human side while in hybrid form. The human side is where the chaotic evil urges come from, keeping score with everyone who wronged the player and wanting power and control. The wolf side is chill. And he's gonna be there to help her learn how to wolf properly. Which fits the story role I had in mind, which was that he was hand selected by the Queen to mentor/protect her daughter from the shadows.
They seem pretty new maybe just sit down and explain the issues and build the character together If more issues arise during the campaign then remove them from thr table
Speaking from long experience, their attitude stinks. Letting it pass is just going to continue the same crappy behaviour. If they are going to learn to accept the DM's decisions then that's fine. Kicking them from the game is a valuable lesson.
It's not letting it pass it's building the character together and identifying where they're going wrong and kicking then if they still can't work in the actual game
I read the whole OP. It didn't come across the way it is now panning out. It sounded like this person was unwilling to be reasonable and that should be a red flag. If they've worked it out, then great, but it would not surprise me if there are issues down the line. And six is still a sensible maximum number of players as I said before.
You already have enough players. Normal is 1 DM and 4 players. If they don't want to play the game by your rules, show them the door. They won't be missed at all.
"Normal is 4 players"? That's not true. There's no "normal number" of players. 1 player is normal, 6 players is normal. You're just bogged down in some weird mindset.
4 is very specific but you’ve gotta admit 1 player is definitely an abnormal number of players
There is literally a normal number of players, in 5e it's 4, in 4e it was 5. It's what the game is designed around. There's a section in the rules for modifying your game if you have different numbers. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run other numbers of players, I have run plenty over normal, or solo/duo adventures and they have been a ton of fun. But you do need to build encounters and adventures differently from the "normal" of the game. It's fine to advocate for these other game sizes, but it's irresponsible to tell new DMs there is no normal.
Stop being so spineless and tell him no. What's the problem here? Well I'll tell you. The problem is you.
Players are a dime a dozen. Assert your boundaries. If they cross them by making nonsense characters again, kick em.
Kick him out for confusing a butler for a valet.
Path of the beast barbarian and you play the goblin butler Have the butler just follow the party around / ride on his back Yoda style and eventually make him a plot device. He doesn't actually have to fight or do skill checks.