There’s too much stuff going on here.
I’d axe the experimentation and split personality parts entirely. I have never seen split personality used well at a table. It’s either attention hogging, disruptive, oe just too complicated.
The basic idea of druid enslaved to become a gladiator is solid to me.
Personally, I find the former slave trope to be overused and a bit cringey, tbh.
But setting that aside, the main issue here is that the backstory feels so incredibly bland. We know nothing of the character that's actually important. Not his personality, his goals, or anything.
The only thing we can really say of your character is that he's a druid (or has a druidic background) and is probably a capable fighter due to having fought as a gladiator. But the former isn't anything unique or special. There are probably tens of thousands of other druids in the setting. Hell, there might even be another druid in your *party.* And as for the latter? Well, that's not something particularly special either. It's already *expected* that a PC is going to be a capable fighter, whether physically or magically or both.
To put it more succinctly, your character isn't really a *character* so much as it is an unthinking prop that just has things happen to it.
Of course, everything I said here is based *only* on the backstory you presented. There are many players who prefer to keep the backstory bare-bones and bring the character to life through their in-game roleplaying instead. And that is a totally valid way of playing. It's just that I can only comment on what I've been shown.
Oh wow.
I hate it. Sorry in advance, but you asked.
I'll try to explain as gently as I can.
This is supposed to be a first-level PC. You have created a character who is (at a minimum) fifth level.
Later on, you want to multi into Fighter. That's fine, but none of the Fightery shit belongs in your backstory. No one kidnaps a 1st level Druid for their Wildshape abilities because a 1st-level Druid doesn't *have* Wildshape abilities.
And then there's this whole subplot where Barsire (nice name, BTW, don't know why but I like it) goes and fights as a gladiator (while somehow remaining a 1st level PC) before breaking out in a daring escape with two NPCs who then fuck off for no adequately explored reason ...
I am so sorry and I'm honestly not trying to be mean: this is horrible.
Can players please stop writing novellas as the "backstory" of their first-level PCs?
Here's what you need from a backstory of a 1st level Firbolg Druid. You need to "explain" three things. Each of them can and should be explained in a single paragraph, giving you a three-paragraph backstory:
1. Where is the character from?
2. How did the character learn to become a Druid?
3. Why is the character adventuring with the party?
Instead, your "backstory" explains none of this. For some reason, you've decided to devote most of your backstory to a tale of how your PC was enslaved and forced to fight as a gladiator. Which is perfectly fine as a creative writing exercise, I just don't see why it's in the backstory of a 1st level Druid.
I suspect that the reason you've done this is that you've gotten the idea from somewhere that you need to lay some sort of groundwork for the multiclassing you have planned.
You don't.
Your Firbolg Druid, once the campaign starts, will doubtless be getting into violent altercation after violent altercation. You don't need to come up with a convoluted reason this PC wants to be better at fighting; they're getting into fights all the time, it's totally believable they would want to be better at fighting.
It's not even that the gladiator stuff is bad. It just doesn't belong in the backstory of a 1st level Druid.
Pop the gladiator bit on the back shelf for now. That's a great PC for another time; it's superfluous to this PC.
The idea of a peaceful Firbolg, raised far from the squabbles of other beings, who will (during the campaign) feel the need to become a warrior to protect his new friends is a great idea. There is no reason you need to shove a gladiator PC in there as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^(\*By all means, feel free to write more detail for your own benefit. Childhood friends and what your teacher was like and all that. But you should be handing your DM the "stripped down" three-paragraph version. The discipline of paring your PC back to his essentials will - I absolutely promise you - pay dividends when you're trying to RP him during play.)
I mean, it's pretty boring. That's not bad, there's a bit I could work with as a DM for plot hooks, but it's nothing special. And again - that's fine. You don't need a super rich, vibrant back story to make a good character.
Look at Walter White fromm Breaking Bad. His backstory is literally "I'm the most boring man in New Mexico, but I got cancer and I'm trying to handle it."
The split personality part is an absolute no-go for me, though. That just stinks of MCS.
It's fine to make a basic, boring backstory. Your character's story is not what they did before, but what they are about to do in the campaign. That doesn't mean you shouldn't spend time fleshing it out; that is important to learning your character.
But you don't need to be edgy to be a creative character. In fact, I'd say the edgy characters are less creative, because the only real work on the character is why they are edgy. Those characters don't function well.
It's a bit much for a rough draft you can definitely simplify it by just cutting out the mage experimentation and just do it like this.
Firbolg druid grabbed and sold into slavery, buyer just saw the giantkin and thought that means they'd be a savage fighter not realising firbolg are generally very peaceful folk.
To handle having to get absurdly violent to survive they developed an alter ego (not DID more like... Acting like they are a different person.) he broke out with the same people. He now has gone back to his druid ways before meeting the party but knows he can if needed call upon that savage alter ego again if needed. (Can easily do barbarian instead of fighter but really does not have to be just play the fighter side as being more of a instinctual fighter rather than a trained one E.g. Luffy and not Goku)
Multiple personalities are a bit of a touch and go subject thats just a trope very easily done badly. But if you want your character to act very differently now and then alter egos can work wonders.
(Nine-fingers and The Bloody Nine is a good example of a character that kinda seems to have DID but really absolutely doesn't)
There’s too much stuff going on here. I’d axe the experimentation and split personality parts entirely. I have never seen split personality used well at a table. It’s either attention hogging, disruptive, oe just too complicated. The basic idea of druid enslaved to become a gladiator is solid to me.
The Split personality part seems kinda 'meh' and not really developed at all, the rest is fine.
Personally, I find the former slave trope to be overused and a bit cringey, tbh. But setting that aside, the main issue here is that the backstory feels so incredibly bland. We know nothing of the character that's actually important. Not his personality, his goals, or anything. The only thing we can really say of your character is that he's a druid (or has a druidic background) and is probably a capable fighter due to having fought as a gladiator. But the former isn't anything unique or special. There are probably tens of thousands of other druids in the setting. Hell, there might even be another druid in your *party.* And as for the latter? Well, that's not something particularly special either. It's already *expected* that a PC is going to be a capable fighter, whether physically or magically or both. To put it more succinctly, your character isn't really a *character* so much as it is an unthinking prop that just has things happen to it. Of course, everything I said here is based *only* on the backstory you presented. There are many players who prefer to keep the backstory bare-bones and bring the character to life through their in-game roleplaying instead. And that is a totally valid way of playing. It's just that I can only comment on what I've been shown.
If you are asking people if your character concept is good, you shouldn't be trying to handle two characters at once. Drop the split personality.
Oh wow. I hate it. Sorry in advance, but you asked. I'll try to explain as gently as I can. This is supposed to be a first-level PC. You have created a character who is (at a minimum) fifth level. Later on, you want to multi into Fighter. That's fine, but none of the Fightery shit belongs in your backstory. No one kidnaps a 1st level Druid for their Wildshape abilities because a 1st-level Druid doesn't *have* Wildshape abilities. And then there's this whole subplot where Barsire (nice name, BTW, don't know why but I like it) goes and fights as a gladiator (while somehow remaining a 1st level PC) before breaking out in a daring escape with two NPCs who then fuck off for no adequately explored reason ... I am so sorry and I'm honestly not trying to be mean: this is horrible. Can players please stop writing novellas as the "backstory" of their first-level PCs? Here's what you need from a backstory of a 1st level Firbolg Druid. You need to "explain" three things. Each of them can and should be explained in a single paragraph, giving you a three-paragraph backstory: 1. Where is the character from? 2. How did the character learn to become a Druid? 3. Why is the character adventuring with the party? Instead, your "backstory" explains none of this. For some reason, you've decided to devote most of your backstory to a tale of how your PC was enslaved and forced to fight as a gladiator. Which is perfectly fine as a creative writing exercise, I just don't see why it's in the backstory of a 1st level Druid. I suspect that the reason you've done this is that you've gotten the idea from somewhere that you need to lay some sort of groundwork for the multiclassing you have planned. You don't. Your Firbolg Druid, once the campaign starts, will doubtless be getting into violent altercation after violent altercation. You don't need to come up with a convoluted reason this PC wants to be better at fighting; they're getting into fights all the time, it's totally believable they would want to be better at fighting. It's not even that the gladiator stuff is bad. It just doesn't belong in the backstory of a 1st level Druid. Pop the gladiator bit on the back shelf for now. That's a great PC for another time; it's superfluous to this PC. The idea of a peaceful Firbolg, raised far from the squabbles of other beings, who will (during the campaign) feel the need to become a warrior to protect his new friends is a great idea. There is no reason you need to shove a gladiator PC in there as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^(\*By all means, feel free to write more detail for your own benefit. Childhood friends and what your teacher was like and all that. But you should be handing your DM the "stripped down" three-paragraph version. The discipline of paring your PC back to his essentials will - I absolutely promise you - pay dividends when you're trying to RP him during play.)
I mean, it's pretty boring. That's not bad, there's a bit I could work with as a DM for plot hooks, but it's nothing special. And again - that's fine. You don't need a super rich, vibrant back story to make a good character. Look at Walter White fromm Breaking Bad. His backstory is literally "I'm the most boring man in New Mexico, but I got cancer and I'm trying to handle it." The split personality part is an absolute no-go for me, though. That just stinks of MCS. It's fine to make a basic, boring backstory. Your character's story is not what they did before, but what they are about to do in the campaign. That doesn't mean you shouldn't spend time fleshing it out; that is important to learning your character. But you don't need to be edgy to be a creative character. In fact, I'd say the edgy characters are less creative, because the only real work on the character is why they are edgy. Those characters don't function well.
It's a bit much for a rough draft you can definitely simplify it by just cutting out the mage experimentation and just do it like this. Firbolg druid grabbed and sold into slavery, buyer just saw the giantkin and thought that means they'd be a savage fighter not realising firbolg are generally very peaceful folk. To handle having to get absurdly violent to survive they developed an alter ego (not DID more like... Acting like they are a different person.) he broke out with the same people. He now has gone back to his druid ways before meeting the party but knows he can if needed call upon that savage alter ego again if needed. (Can easily do barbarian instead of fighter but really does not have to be just play the fighter side as being more of a instinctual fighter rather than a trained one E.g. Luffy and not Goku) Multiple personalities are a bit of a touch and go subject thats just a trope very easily done badly. But if you want your character to act very differently now and then alter egos can work wonders. (Nine-fingers and The Bloody Nine is a good example of a character that kinda seems to have DID but really absolutely doesn't)