HE DID IT or On Characters' self sustainability

[CLAY MORE]

(Warning, it's rant in bad english)

Do you remember the "THE MOST BROKEN CHARACTER YADDA YADDA" thread? The one that used to show up repeatedly in the 5e forum? There were a few variations of its content, but at its core the build involved a wizard (EDIT: SORCERER) casting Magic Jar to permanently switch her body with a powerful humanoid, gaining its physical stats in the process while maintaining the wizard's high mentals. Interesting concept I guess, but easily countered by a smart DM (I'm no DM, but I think an Anti-magic field its enough to do the trick...?)

Well, a player at one of my tables its actually trying to do it, or at least something really close: he made a Theurge wizard (with DM approval, of course) with a stat spread of 8 8 8 18 16 15. The party is not optimized, but we all play functional characters: so, naturally, everybody was a little perplexed by his odd choice. But not me: I recognized the build and was CHILLED. We're talking about a character with 22 HP at lv 7 that has no self sustainibility and ALWAYS. GOES. DOWN. in one single hit before it can even move. And before the RP patrol shows up, let me tell you: no, the guy's not playing it like your stereotypical crippled old wizard, but like a young lad with no impediments and proficiency in athletics. I'm the only one aware of the meaning behind the player's phrase "I need to get Lvl 11 asap and then...", and of the fact the party is going to carry his character for FOUR LEVELS before the build is complete. Four levels, with our schedule, means between 8 months and a year of play.

That said, I wanna ask you: how much do you value self sustainability? How much you can weaken your character on purpose, for a build or for RP reasons, without becoming a deadweight sandbag for your party? Paradoxically, should you try to build an halfway autonomous character just for the sake of your companions..?

[Damon_Tor]

Sorcerer.

He's always a sorcerer.

If you want to know how he gets Magic Jar, the answer is extremely annoying and basically amounts to "The DM gives me genie wishes".

[CLAY MORE]

Sorcerer.

He's always a sorcerer.

If you want to know how he gets Magic Jar, the answer is extremely annoying and basically amounts to "The DM gives me genie wishes".
A favoured by the gods sorcerer, right? Well, so it's not the same build. But it's the same concept nonetheless.

[loki_ragnarock]

Well, that's one way to avoid worrying about maintaining concentration.

It depends on what he brings to the party. If he's the guy who uniquely knows things, perhaps that's why he's there. Is anyone else in the party a capable arcanist, historian, or religious scholar? Is anyone else in the party capable of identifying magic items, casting ritual spells, or cooking dinner? There has to be something he brings to the party - something he does that the rest of you can't (because no one is self sufficient in D&D) - or there wouldn't be a reason to bring him along. So what is he bringing that prevents him from being dead weight?

Clearly, it ain't combat ability. In a party where you're expected to carry your load in combat, probably people should start questioning why they are traveling with a fellow that dies so easily. At that point, taking the time to keep him alive is a liability to everyone else. Doesn't mean you go full sociopath and kill him... but if someone keeps going down instantly you have to wonder if its a good idea to keep bringing him into dangerous situations long before you reach high level play.

Which is to say, this is an in character problem as much as it is anything else. Talk to the other characters, express your concerns, voice your fear that continually trying to save his bacon makes you wonder if it'll cook everyone else's. And start asking if everyone would like to hold auditions for a replacement, or at least leave the guy who is a dangerous liability to himself and the rest of you to the safety of town while the rest of you do the dangerous work of adventuring.

Also, maybe a table discussion about how it's unfun to watch him not quite die over and over.

[Sigreid]

Actually, if he played smarter that guy wouldn't need to go down very often. Part of the joy of wizard is you don't have to stay in the action to be a real help.

That said, the guy probably would have been better off with abjuration for survivability.

[CLAY MORE]

Well, that's one way to avoid worrying about maintaining concentration.

It depends on what he brings to the party. If he's the guy who uniquely knows things, perhaps that's why he's there. Is anyone else in the party a capable arcanist, historian, or religious scholar? Is anyone else in the party capable of identifying magic items, casting ritual spells, or cooking dinner? There has to be something he brings to the party - something he does that the rest of you can't (because no one is self sufficient in D&D) - or there wouldn't be a reason to bring him along. So what is he bringing that prevents him from being dead weight?

Clearly, it ain't combat ability. In a party where you're expected to carry your load in combat, probably people should start questioning why they are traveling with a fellow that dies so easily. At that point, taking the time to keep him alive is a liability to everyone else. Doesn't mean you go full sociopath and kill him... but if someone keeps going down instantly you have to wonder if its a good idea to keep bringing him into dangerous situations long before you reach high level play.

Which is to say, this is an in character problem as much as it is anything else. Talk to the other characters, express your concerns, voice your fear that continually trying to save his bacon makes you wonder if it'll cook everyone else's. And start asking if everyone would like to hold auditions for a replacement, or at least leave the guy who is a dangerous liability to himself and the rest of you to the safety of town while the rest of you do the dangerous work of adventuring.

Also, maybe a table discussion about how it's unfun to watch him not quite die over and over.

This post voices my worries in a perfect manner. The party already had a bard and a cleric, so there's no IN GAME reason to have this character join, other then wasting the cleric's first level slots. Well, sometimes he can actually throw a lightining bolt or two before going down, which is something only the cleric could do and I should recognize that. But as the wizard's player said: "If I die, I'll make the same character over and over again", so there's no chance to talk him out of this. I have a few funny months ahead of me, for sure.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Depends on the party and the campaign. If you know you've got a DM that likes difficult combat, you should really shore up those defenses regardless of your role. Under normal circumstances, I think your party composition matters more. If you've got 3 strong melee types with excellent lock down, you can get away with building a glass cannon for the back line. A skirmisher doesn't need quite as much defense either if your party is good at exploiting favorable positions. In a team stealth setup, the entire party can relax their defenses a bit in exchange for alpha strike potential. Then there's the opposite approach where you've got multiple strong healers, so you focus on heavy defense and attrition style combat.

As a general rule of thumb, though- I don't make characters with less than 12 Constitution unless I get real unlucky with dice rolling, I don't have less than 14 Dexterity on a character that can't wear heavy armor, and I make sure to get Wisdom saving throw proficiency in tier 3 if I didn't start with it. And I don't start fights I don't think I can win.

[loki_ragnarock]

But as the wizard's player said: "If I die, I'll make the same character over and over again", so there's no chance to talk him out of this. I have a few funny months ahead of me, for sure.

Ah, this is where it becomes an out of character discussion, then. I'll reiterate that he doesn't have to die for everyone's character to give up on him, but that sort of attitude means it isn't a problem with the character. It's a problem with the player. So it's time for a table talk.

It's possible to do this in character; if the party develops in their charter that they will no longer associate with that sort of character, it doesn't matter how many of them he rolls up. They don't cut the mustard, they don't go on the adventure. But that's not the problem. The problem is the player... and frankly, if they don't cut the mustard as a player, they can also not go on the adventure if the group starts leaning that direction.

I'll make clear; I don't have a problem with dumb gimmick builds, and dumping constitution is not a crime.
But if it's impacting your fun, and everyone else's fun, then it's something to be addressed among the players and the DM in a clear manner.

[Rynjin]

This post voices my worries in a perfect manner. The party already had a bard and a cleric, so there's no IN GAME reason to have this character join, other then wasting the cleric's first level slots. Well, sometimes he can actually throw a lightining bolt or two before going down, which is something only the cleric could do and I should recognize that. But as the wizard's player said: "If I die, I'll make the same character over and over again", so there's no chance to talk him out of this. I have a few funny months ahead of me, for sure.

I mean, if you're really against it the easy "no u" rebuttal is "You can feel free to do so in someone else' game, now get out".

[Hobbo Jim]

I value sustainability a decent amount. Now, that can come in different forms - it doesn't always have to be "Look I have high HP". As someone who plays a lot of casters, it comes from defensive and control spells, along with good positioning.

I'm also guessing you are mainly talking about casters, since a lot of other classes, exception being maybe rogue, have higher health and are better at front-lining. You're supposed to look to your team where you fall short, but surviving is your own responsibility.

As for you dude. I mean, does the DM not ever confirm kills after downing players? From my perspective, this is largely a DM issue. He'll have to balance things accordingly and decide whether or not to adjust for a sub-optimal group or go as planned. If he confirms kills or something along those lines, nothing short of sacrificing yourself will save this player for the next four levels. If your DM is more lenient and willing to let you play what you want, then with some effort he might survive. Overall, I think the best thing you can do in this situation is RP it so that if he goes down, sure you'll try to save him but putting your life seriously on the line each time he does it is impractical, and more likely to get you killed than its worth.

Edit: Just saw you post that he'll keep remaking the same character. It's an out of game issue, that basically only your DM can solve. As a DM myself, after a character dies I would hard no it without some serious RP reasoning.

[Dork_Forge]

To be honest he sounds like it's going to be rough, but there's no reason for him going down so much. He could have taken Tough to compensate for his low Con, he could be casting False Life to give him a Temp HP buffer (as well as all the defensive spells he has access to).

You should have a talk with your group/DM then with the player to see if he will at least mitigate going down so often so he isn't a burden.

[bid]

But as the wizard's player said: "If I die, I'll make the same character over and over again", so there's no chance to talk him out of this. I have a few funny months ahead of me, for sure.
IC: "Remember guys how the previous theurge was useless? Let's go shop elsewhere."
OOC: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't [let you] do that."

[Telok]

1. Let the character die (and be replaced by the clone) twice.
2. Say "Look, the revolving loot bag guys are a nice profit margin but we need to have some standards or we'll get a lousy reputation."
3. Implement an in character challenge to join the party.
4. Laugh when the next character fails the test.

My group has done variations on this over the last decade when character turnover got too high. We've started bar fights and recruited the last guy standing (it was only an npc that one time). We had applicants go three rounds with a horse (it was the cleric's wild cohort that we'd spent a miracle to upgrade to a half celestial, darn thing was almost a PC in it's own right). Drinking contests. One-punch a building into kindling tasks. Stuff like that.

[Segev]

Okay, let's just step back a moment: other than your fear of what he'll eventually do, is he actually ruining the game for anybody with how he's playing it? Is he having fun? Do you foresee the DM permitting him to take over the body of something that would make the game unfun?

Sure, you're pretty confident he's planning a broken build after level 11. But if he's not hurting anybody's fun now, and he won't hurt anybody's fun when he has the super-duper body he craves, then it almost seems pretty fair to let him play the weak wimp now who will eventually overcome this and shine.

Evaluate your concerns: are they over something that is happening, or just fear that you recognize the build? If the former, then bring it up with the whole table and talk to the guy about the problem. IF the latter, then just bring it up with the DM as a possibility, and let him worry about it.

[Anymage]

Okay, let's just step back a moment: other than your fear of what he'll eventually do, is he actually ruining the game for anybody with how he's playing it? Is he having fun? Do you foresee the DM permitting him to take over the body of something that would make the game unfun?

The problem isn't so much the player deciding to dump his physical stats in the expectation that he'll be able to Magic Jar into something down the line. The bigger problem is the player saying that he'll just return with a clone of the character if the first one dies. That sounds like someone who does not see this as a team game.

[Greywander]

Why not just cut out the middle man and roll up an intellect devourer? Actually, that sounds like a pretty fun character concept. Would probably work best with a face (i.e. social character), as you could steal someone's body and then pretend to be them, so any CHA caster might be optimal.

It sounds like either (a) the player has different expectations from the rest of the table, or (b) he's just playing at the wrong table.

I'd sit down and talk to him about it. There's definitely things he can be doing so as to not go down so quickly (Shield and Mirror Image would be a good start, as well as staying well away from melee), but maybe you should ask him if this is really what he wants to do. You could say something like the following to him:

"Hey, I think I know what you're planning for your character, and it's a really cool and neat idea and should make your character really strong, but are you really having fun? I mean right now. It seems like every fight you go down before you get a chance to do anything, and I'm sure that must be frustrating for you. It will be a while before we get to the point where your build comes together; in the mean time, maybe you'd prefer to roll up a character you can have fun with now. If they die, you could always bring back your current character, and we might even be high enough level by then. So what do you think, want to give it a shot and play something that will be fun right now?"

It's important not to just tell a player that they suck and they're playing wrong. The way he's playing is valid, and is clever in its own way, it just doesn't seem suited to your table, which is the crux of the issue. It's good for a player to expand their horizons and try playing in a way they're not normally used to, and it won't always be something they enjoy but they'll still learn something from it.

[Brookshw]

He's rolling divine soul and has an extremely broad spell list to choose his sells from, is he using any of them for defense? Between temp hp and other defensive spells he should have a lot more survivability.

[Trandir]

I am confused. When you say with the DM's approval you mean for the Magic jar shenanigan?

Also what is the RP reason for your PC's to keep him around? It seems like he's just slowing you all down for what you wrote in the OP.

[MaxWilson]

(Warning, it's rant in bad english)

Do you remember the "THE MOST BROKEN CHARACTER YADDA YADDA" thread? The one that used to show up repeatedly in the 5e forum? There were a few variations of its content, but at its core the build involved a wizard (EDIT: SORCERER) casting Magic Jar to permanently switch her body with a powerful humanoid, gaining its physical stats in the process while maintaining the wizard's high mentals. Interesting concept I guess, but easily countered by a smart DM (I'm no DM, but I think an Anti-magic field its enough to do the trick...?)

Well, a player at one of my tables its actually trying to do it, or at least something really close: he made a Theurge wizard (with DM approval, of course) with a stat spread of 8 8 8 18 16 15. The party is not optimized, but we all play functional characters: so, naturally, everybody was a little perplexed by his odd choice. But not me: I recognized the build and was CHILLED. We're talking about a character with 22 HP at lv 7 that has no self sustainibility and ALWAYS. GOES. DOWN. in one single hit before it can even move. And before the RP patrol shows up, let me tell you: no, the guy's not playing it like your stereotypical crippled old wizard, but like a young lad with no impediments and proficiency in athletics. I'm the only one aware of the meaning behind the player's phrase "I need to get Lvl 11 asap and then...", and of the fact the party is going to carry his character for FOUR LEVELS before the build is complete. Four levels, with our schedule, means between 8 months and a year of play.

That said, I wanna ask you: how much do you value self sustainability? How much you can weaken your character on purpose, for a build or for RP reasons, without becoming a deadweight sandbag for your party? Paradoxically, should you try to build an halfway autonomous character just for the sake of your companions..?

With those stats, if he were really powergaming he would have a level in Cleric for heavy armor proficiency and/or would be staying in back and holding the distance open with Expeditious Retreat/Mobile feat/Longstrider to stay alive. Frankly it sounds like he needs some advice on staying alive, when right now all he's got is a potential gimmick that comes into play four levels from now.

How much do I value sustainability? As a player I like to build PCs who can help new players recover from their mistakes, whether by healing or casting crowd control spells when they're surrounded or Dashing into melee to drag them away when they get stunned. This also means that I play conservatively, trying not to be the one who grabs the spotlight and needs to be rescued when it all goes wrong. So you might say I value self-sustainability and other-sustainability both as top priorities for play, way above stuff like nova damage. Recon is valuable too but I tend not to build for it because being the guy who tells people the dungeon layout and which enemies are waiting where tends to be a little too spotlight-grabby for my taste.

[Composer99]

(Warning, it's rant in bad english)

Do you remember the "THE MOST BROKEN CHARACTER YADDA YADDA" thread? The one that used to show up repeatedly in the 5e forum? There were a few variations of its content, but at its core the build involved a wizard (EDIT: SORCERER) casting Magic Jar to permanently switch her body with a powerful humanoid, gaining its physical stats in the process while maintaining the wizard's high mentals. Interesting concept I guess, but easily countered by a smart DM (I'm no DM, but I think an Anti-magic field its enough to do the trick...?)

Well, a player at one of my tables its actually trying to do it, or at least something really close: he made a Theurge wizard (with DM approval, of course) with a stat spread of 8 8 8 18 16 15. The party is not optimized, but we all play functional characters: so, naturally, everybody was a little perplexed by his odd choice. But not me: I recognized the build and was CHILLED. We're talking about a character with 22 HP at lv 7 that has no self sustainibility and ALWAYS. GOES. DOWN. in one single hit before it can even move. And before the RP patrol shows up, let me tell you: no, the guy's not playing it like your stereotypical crippled old wizard, but like a young lad with no impediments and proficiency in athletics. I'm the only one aware of the meaning behind the player's phrase "I need to get Lvl 11 asap and then...", and of the fact the party is going to carry his character for FOUR LEVELS before the build is complete. Four levels, with our schedule, means between 8 months and a year of play.

That said, I wanna ask you: how much do you value self sustainability? How much you can weaken your character on purpose, for a build or for RP reasons, without becoming a deadweight sandbag for your party? Paradoxically, should you try to build an halfway autonomous character just for the sake of your companions..?


This post voices my worries in a perfect manner. The party already had a bard and a cleric, so there's no IN GAME reason to have this character join, other then wasting the cleric's first level slots. Well, sometimes he can actually throw a lightining bolt or two before going down, which is something only the cleric could do and I should recognize that. But as the wizard's player said: "If I die, I'll make the same character over and over again", so there's no chance to talk him out of this. I have a few funny months ahead of me, for sure.

As much as that thread and its originator were So. Gorram. Annoying., there's nothing wrong in principle with any given character build, no matter how ridiculous or cheesy it is, as long as everyone at the table is having fun with it, especially if the DM is aware of the build and its implications and has okayed it.

However, if you and your other players aren't having fun constantly propping up a 95-pound tiddler, and aren't having fun looking forward to continuing to do so for the next real-time year, then you all, the DM, and the player need to have a talk about it. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun - yes, even fun for the guy who's having fun imagining his ULTIMATE SORCERER KING inhabiting a super-strong body with magic jar, but also fun for the people who are obliged to prop his character up until then.

And if his fun and your fun are fundamentally incompatible... well, something's going to have to give somewhere. Whether that means some kind of compromise, or he gives up on The Dream while he's at this table, or someone finds another table to play at, depends on the results of the conversation.

[Hobbo Jim]

Sure, you're pretty confident he's planning a broken build after level 11. But if he's not hurting anybody's fun now, and he won't hurt anybody's fun when he has the super-duper body he craves, then it almost seems pretty fair to let him play the weak wimp now who will eventually overcome this and shine.


If all he's doing is waiting for level 11/brings in a clone whenever he dies, is it really "overcoming" anything? That's my main issue with it. If he plays this character, survives while being a little useful, and his magic-research thesis thing comes together and he creates his super-body, sure that sounds like a good arc. Not even too DM dependent outside of approval. But if he goes down every fight quickly, is overall useless, dies twice, and still does it... Idk sounds very shoe-horned to me and trying to game the system, rather than creating a fun story. It's very un-immersive, because he's basically stated "death doesn't matter to me." I doubt the rest of his party feels this way.

[Segev]

If all he's doing is waiting for level 11/brings in a clone whenever he dies, is it really "overcoming" anything? That's my main issue with it. If he plays this character, survives while being a little useful, and his magic-research thesis thing comes together and he creates his super-body, sure that sounds like a good arc. Not even too DM dependent outside of approval. But if he goes down every fight quickly, is overall useless, dies twice, and still does it... Idk sounds very shoe-horned to me and trying to game the system, rather than creating a fun story. It's very un-immersive, because he's basically stated "death doesn't matter to me." I doubt the rest of his party feels this way.

These problems are things the other players and DM can see happening, too; you should bring up your concerns with the whole table. We can't really tell you whether this other player is "bad" or not for doing this, because in the end, it's not us playing the game with you or him.

[Finback]

It sounds like he just wants to pull off this one trick, so then he can be the Super Amazing Guy the story is based around, which kind of runs counter to the entire point of the game. He's making it not much fun for the others, because he's failing to pull his weight in a team, and if he ever GETS this trick to work, then he's going to end up trying to base the entire campaign around his Super Dude.

A conversation needs to be had with the entire group about how they and the DM feel about this, and if it's detracting from the overall enjoyment, he should either adapt or leave the group.

If he still refuses, send in the intellect devourers. They won't kill his PC, but they'll make it a lot harder to attain his goals.

[Glarnog]

Everytime their character goes down, don't heal them. Say the healing needs to be saved for those who are pull their weight, or not endangering the party. Then just leave them with friendly NPCs to recuperate with. Away from the adventure. Or he can decide to solo it and hopefully die.

Tell the DM, have an out of character talk with everyone about it.

[1Pirate]

Yeah have a chat OOC. It's as much for his sake when he realizes the SK won't work(especially from a player standpoint).

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If you are going to allow him to use it then give him a spell scroll of the spell(random loot or up for sale somewhere*)
*I like to use a teleporting magic shop of a cursed wizard, he always on the move and have to sell magic items for ever.

Make sure he knows there are ways to not be a viable target of spells and attacks if he want to continue playing a lower str/dex/con character.
My 12 con bard almost never get attacked because she is out of rang/sight(and when she can't do that she is down in 1-2 hits). A heavy caster need to cast and run to hide, the finishing off is the job of the martials.

For example: if he cast every morning breath water(ritual)on the party he can just jump to a lake and go down in order to stay safe, his cloud kill will still damage and block vision for the enemies (just the first example that jumped to my head, it can be the same with a lot of spells).


If you don't want to give him the ability to do it tell him that it will not work as early as you can so he will be able to think on something else he want to play.
I know there is joy in doing a ridiculous combo and joy in playing with a big downgrade (like low con/str/dex) but if it is not fitting the group it is time to say "bro, you can't do that anymore, it is not working in this group" it is important to say stuff like this when everyone is present so he will not feet that it is personal.

[Randomthom]

Does the DM know about this player's long-term plans for this build?

I don't know the build but as I understand it, it requires a certain little bit of DM buy-in for a point that is contentious from a RAW perspective (and possibly also from a RAI perspective).

I've been the DM in that situation once before back in 3.5, the PCs levelled up and I knew this player was very excited about it. I found out why when he started me down a long leading line of questions that I figured he'd picked up off the internet. Basically a long string of logic questions that each, in isolation, held true but I disagreed with his interpretation of what that meant and his crazy OP character was not-to-be. I felt a bit bad because it became clear to me at that point that this had been his plan from level 1.

In that case, what he should have done was come to me at lvl 1 telling me his plan for the build. I can then say yes or no to it without him losing months of game time to a fruitless endeavour. The fact that he didn't come to me is possibly my fault, that he viewed me, the DM, as his adversary to whom he didn't want to reveal his master plan rather than the storyteller and arbiter of the rules. I happen to think that it was more his error than mine since I've been having those sort of conversations with other players for years before & since without being seen as "the enemy".

Point to be clear on, these players are not doing fun wrong. If a crazy min-max build is their idea of fun then who are we to tell them it's wrong? On the flip-side, if being OP will relegate the other PCs to observers then that's not fun for them. Simple rule, if everyone is having fun then nothing needs fixing. If someone isn't having fun, alarm bells should be ringing.

[Noobstah]

I'd totally let him go for it if he really is that persistent, but at the end "knock him over". Not completely but just enough to let him know you won. And in the process let rest of the party have fun at his expense.

When he finally gets a body to posses, there will be a surprise. An unforeseen feature about the possessed bodys reproductive organs. Or the possessed strong warrior character was wearing a cursed ring that gimps the character badly ( a ring of stupidity? int/wis 8... no more spelcasting). There's just way too many potential story hooks as well. The possessed deamon was not he, but she and is pregnant.... oh boy you can go really wild with this in many ways that let the other players also have fun with the situation, depending on your groups dynamics. Sky is the limit here as you got plenty of time top plan it ahead.

This is really the salt of being a DM imo. Creating something fun out of whatever your players are going to do. Make sure whatever it is, your other players will find it funny and can get a paycheck for carrying him trough the game:).

[Anymage]

Does the DM know about this player's long-term plans for this build?

I don't know the build but as I understand it, it requires a certain little bit of DM buy-in for a point that is contentious from a RAW perspective (and possibly also from a RAI perspective).

Magic Jar (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/magic-jar) is 100% RAW as well as RAI. It isn't even the only way to dump your physical stats and then overwrite them. Wild Shape and just picking up gauntlets of ogre strength/any one of the belts of giant strength are both know, as well as polymorph in a pinch when you can afford to not stress over your mental stats.

Magic Jar also has huge problems any time that antimagic comes online or if you get hit by a dispel. "I'll just dump my physical stats and then magic jar out of them, easy peasy" requires your DM to overlook a glaring flaw you built into your character. But it doesn't depend on overly permissive rule interpretations.


I'd totally let him go for it if he really is that persistent, but at the end "knock him over". Not completely but just enough to let him know you won. And in the process let rest of the party have fun at his expense.

When he finally gets a body to posses, there will be a surprise. An unforeseen feature about the possessed bodys reproductive organs. Or the possessed strong warrior character was wearing a cursed ring that gimps the character badly ( a ring of stupidity? int/wis 8... no more spelcasting). There's just way too many potential story hooks as well. The possessed deamon was not he, but she and is pregnant.... oh boy you can go really wild with this in many ways that let the other players also have fun with the situation, depending on your groups dynamics. Sky is the limit here as you got plenty of time top plan it ahead.

This is really the salt of being a DM imo. Creating something fun out of whatever your players are going to do. Make sure whatever it is, your other players will find it funny and can get a paycheck for carrying him trough the game:).

Presumably the bodyjacker will make an effort to find a desirable host instead of just picking a body at random. If that body winds up having an embarrassing flaw, they'll either accept it as the cost of having high stats, or go out and find a better host. Assuming the wizard is a good team player, the rest of the party can help make this trivial.

The problem isn't that the player wants to play a bodyjacker. The problem is that they aren't being a team player, and are flat out saying that they'll keep trying the same character concept until they can get it to stick. They also aren't playing smart, what with running into danger when they don't have the sustainability to pull it off. Any one of these in isolation isn't an insurmountable problem, but together they add up to a headache.

[MoiMagnus]

My characters tend to be self sustainable. Mostly because I'm too lazy to try to anticipate what will happen, so I'd rather have as many tool as possible to survive to the obvious trap I fall into, or react to the situation that's happening. Having low HP force you to actually anticipate what will happen, because one error can mean you're down.

As for your specific case, you should probably have a talk with the player.

If the character is counterproductive in battles, maybe he should not participate in battles (invisibility?)? Or remain far away from the battlefield as much as possible (take long distance spells)? If he is flying during the battle, he can remain out of reach of melee attacks (which is good).

I don't think self sustainability is required for characters. However, the less you are self sustainable, the less you should put your character in danger.

And on another subject, you should make it clear with the player that there is a good probability the group will never reach level 11... People have lives, and though some campaign last for years, most stop within less than a year because of an unforeseen change in someone's life. What is he doing is pretty much the symmetric of DMs making a complex plot only interesting because of the last session's plot twist.

[1Pirate]

One of the(many, many) issues with the SK build is(depending on what you're Jaring into) it relies on Magic Jar giving you class features and/or Legendary actions. Class features are explicitly ruled out by the spell. It doesn't mention Legendary actions, but you'd need hefty DM buy-in for a 6th level spell to give you some a 9th level(Shapechange) doesn't.

[Noobstah]

Presumably the bodyjacker will make an effort to find a desirable host instead of just picking a body at random. If that body winds up having an embarrassing flaw, they'll either accept it as the cost of having high stats, or go out and find a better host. Assuming the wizard is a good team player, the rest of the party can help make this trivial.

The problem isn't that the player wants to play a bodyjacker. The problem is that they aren't being a team player, and are flat out saying that they'll keep trying the same character concept until they can get it to stick. They also aren't playing smart, what with running into danger when they don't have the sustainability to pull it off. Any one of these in isolation isn't an insurmountable problem, but together they add up to a headache.

The DM can keep up making flaws that are impossible to figure out beforehand. Ones that will actually not be just embarrassing, but limit the characters power. Imagination really is the only limit here. If the player is so persistent about his plan he is ready to make the whole game about searching a perfect bodies to try on, we are not dealing with a DnD issue here. We are dealing with something that requires professional help from a psychiatrist. We can't help there.

The point is, to show the player the DM can screw up his every plan if he is not willing to play with the DM instead of against him (and rest of the party), while still keep it within the games limits. Remaking the same character is not a solution when DM can counter it with very simple ideas. That meanwhile trying to keep the game fun for everyone and allow the player to still follow his own plan and to some degree pull it off.

[blackjack50]

Building a totally useless character is kind of rude I’d say. Even if it will get better “in 8 months.” Now sometimes it happens by accident I guess. But by design? That just seems not ok. Even if you build a weak character. That is fine. We had someone do that. But they were a 1 month guest (4 games) and their character’s weakness was irrelevant as their RP was more important.

[Mr_Fixler]

Lets be real, months are a long time. Maybe at level 10 the group fights the BBEG and the campaign is over.

[MaxWilson]

I'd totally let him go for it if he really is that persistent, but at the end "knock him over". Not completely but just enough to let him know you won. And in the process let rest of the party have fun at his expense.

When he finally gets a body to posses, there will be a surprise. An unforeseen feature about the possessed bodys reproductive organs. Or the possessed strong warrior character was wearing a cursed ring that gimps the character badly ( a ring of stupidity? int/wis 8... no more spelcasting). There's just way too many potential story hooks as well. The possessed deamon was not he, but she and is pregnant.... oh boy you can go really wild with this in many ways that let the other players also have fun with the situation, depending on your groups dynamics. Sky is the limit here as you got plenty of time top plan it ahead.

This is really the salt of being a DM imo. Creating something fun out of whatever your players are going to do. Make sure whatever it is, your other players will find it funny and can get a paycheck for carrying him trough the game:).

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm, not serious advice, especially the bits in bold. DMs should never, ever abuse their players' trust or their power over the players just to show who's boss.

[Noobstah]

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm, not serious advice, especially the bits in bold. DMs should never, ever abuse their players' trust or their power over the players just to show who's boss.

Oh I'm very serious. However, I don't think it is matter of trust here. We see the situation a bit differently. The player has already voiced that he would do what he is doing over and over again and doesn't care about what others think about it so I assume some conversations have already been had. I don't mean "winning" as that much winning from MD side of perspective, but as pointed out by someone else as player is trying to play against the DM, not with him.

Salt about being the DM. No I don't mean bullying others. I mean making a fun and unique situations and controlling whatever players come up with with creative solutions. U would personally come up with something like that, but ofc it comes down to group dynamics what works. Knowing your players is importaint. I've always known my players enough to know they can take a joke like that. Tho I've never had anyone not capable of co-operating in the first place.

[Finback]

as a sidenote (for those who didn't know, like me), Magic Jar says "humanoid". Does he have some sort of creature in mind, or is the player thinking he can use it on fiends, dragons, giants or aberrations? Because there's some comedic potential there in the idea of him trying to use it on a dragon, and ending up posessing the kobold minion standing next to the dragon.

[Stone-Ears]

In an adventuring group, self sustainability in whatever form it might take is very critical. One should never make a character that they don't know how to keep alive NOW.

Like it's ok to build squishy characters as long as you have a general idea of HOW to keep that character alive without being heavily reliant on others to help you.

Pllllllluuuuuussssss.....the player doesn't sound like a team player, so that's even more sinful than not having a general plan for keeping your characters alive.

[Rynjin]

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm, not serious advice, especially the bits in bold. DMs should never, ever abuse their players' trust or their power over the players just to show who's boss.

Normally I'd agree, but the player has as much admitted he's trolling the entire gaming group and intends to do so over the long haul. If the GM doesn't want to kick him out, he can hardly be miffed by a little counter-trolling after expecting everyone else to put up with him.

[Segev]

Normally I'd agree, but the player has as much admitted he's trolling the entire gaming group and intends to do so over the long haul. If the GM doesn't want to kick him out, he can hardly be miffed by a little counter-trolling after expecting everyone else to put up with him.No, the player has as much as admitted he's going for a particular build and is willing to play a repeatedly-dying character up until that point, so long as he can keep making the death inconsequential (to him) by having an identical build come back in.

This isn't trolling. It's not even an invalid way to view the game. It doesn't jive with most people's expectations of it, and it is at least impacting the fun of the OP, but it doesn't inherently indicate malice. It could be malicious, but it isn't necessarily so.

The correct way to handle this is to bring up the concerns with the table, including the player of this character. Figure out if it bothers anybody else, discuss why, and ask the player in question what his intentions are. Then see about helping him achieve them in a way that is compatible with everyone else's enjoyment, assuming that's possible. If it isn't, negotiate until something acceptable to all parties can be found.

But simply saying "I don't like the build he's going for, so no matter how he intends to play it, and no matter what he does leading up to it, I'm going to have my fun ruined" is not an indication that the problem is the player in question. I'm not saying the OP is saying this, but there seems to be an unspoken assumption that this is how the OP feels and that it's right to feel that way in a lot of the responses aimed at "fixing" the problem player.

[Honk]

Interesting conundrum, his magic jar idea seems interesting, but first of all, he has to find a nice vessel before he attempts his „grand resurrection“ and then that vessel best not die on hin, without his puny body being within 100ft... imo that magic jar spell is not that game breaking as he might think. Dispels or just a knife to the heart will end his grand plan.
And even if he achieves all his well planned schemes, if he isn’t able to protect his character now, some big hull isn‘t going to save his stupid butt.

[Sigreid]

My characters tend to be self sustainable. Mostly because I'm too lazy to try to anticipate what will happen, so I'd rather have as many tool as possible to survive to the obvious trap I fall into, or react to the situation that's happening. Having low HP force you to actually anticipate what will happen, because one error can mean you're down.

As for your specific case, you should probably have a talk with the player.

If the character is counterproductive in battles, maybe he should not participate in battles (invisibility?)? Or remain far away from the battlefield as much as possible (take long distance spells)? If he is flying during the battle, he can remain out of reach of melee attacks (which is good).

I don't think self sustainability is required for characters. However, the less you are self sustainable, the less you should put your character in danger.

And on another subject, you should make it clear with the player that there is a good probability the group will never reach level 11... People have lives, and though some campaign last for years, most stop within less than a year because of an unforeseen change in someone's life. What is he doing is pretty much the symmetric of DMs making a complex plot only interesting because of the last session's plot twist.

Eh, he just needs a clone stashed somewhere. Posessed body dies, he's too far from his body and dies. Soul goes to the clone.

[zinycor]

hahahaha Gotta say, I love that someone is actually trying out this retarded idea xD

[Sigreid]

hahahaha Gotta say, I love that someone is actually trying out this retarded idea xD

You doubt the Sorcerer King's omnipotence? HOW DARE YOU!!

[da newt]

1) How is this non-performing character who dies all the time advancing in level? If they don't pull their weight in the party, why would they get an equal share of the XP? If they die, why does the replacement character show up at an advanced level? This seems like a failing of the DM.

2) Why are the other PCs allowing this liability to be a part of the party? At work you fire that guy. In a social group you kick the jerk out. Why is your PC enabling this?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

1) How is this non-performing character who dies all the time advancing in level? If they don't pull their weight in the party, why would they get an equal share of the XP? If they die, why does the replacement character show up at an advanced level? This seems like a failing of the DM.

2) Why are the other PCs allowing this liability to be a part of the party? At work you fire that guy. In a social group you kick the jerk out. Why is your PC enabling this?

I have to say that you van be very effective wizard with 8 str, dex and con.
The wizard who survives the best is the one that was never a viable target.

And a character with great wis, int and cha is great for skills.
I played a game as a fighter with two barbarians friends as a party. If we had a small toy that could do all the smart and social stuff for is we were super happy (I had 14 wis as the fighter but the barbarians were pure physical).

The character in the OP is different from this because it looks like he does try to stay safe and cast stuff. But I just wanted to show that there is a place for a character with no physical stats.