[DM] - I'm the dm, and I have a wizard. What's fair?

[killem2]

"I want to preface just a few notes, that seems to get brought up in other threads upon learning that I am a DM, I am also a wizard, and a wizard who will be following the path of a master specialist."


I am going to be a wizard in this party. That is non negotiable.
I'm not here to power game or optimize.
I'm fairly level headed when it comes to making sure my group wins out more often than I would ever do.
My group is not what you would call the groups of optimizer. It is Flavor/RP first then metagame a distant 2nd.


Here is the break down of my party in class, and experience with d&d.

There are 4 people, with 5 characters. To protect the innocent, names are changed: :smallbiggrin:

Chuck: He's got a son named Harold. Chuck has played D&D since he was a kid (39-40 now), and has by far the most experience with 3.5, (nearly since its release, and also played 3.0 since then too).

-------Chuck is playing a dwarf cleric, who has the god Moradin, wants to be a Hammer of Moradin prestige class, has earth as one of his domains, and has decided to use the divine magician variant from Complete Mage.

-------Chuck is also playing a halfling rogue, who will be a master thrower, and invisible blade later in levels.

Harold: Chuck's 15 year old son. He's going to be a fighter, who will go to being a Stonelord PrC later on. He played d&d 3.0 and 3.5 for a bit. he understands the basics.

Jack: He's my friend from work. Extremely intelligent, has played d&d 2.0 for quite some time, never touched 3.0+ but after reading the pdfs I linked him too, he's gotten it down pat and created his character with no assitance, is going to be a ranger, then a PrC of two weapon master (homebrew we found), and then a champion of... (sorry again I forgot the name its from races of the wild LOL). He's the closest to an optimizer we're going to see.

Me: I've played 2.0 and about a year of 3.0. I'm familiar with the basic concepts of 3.0-3.5, as they are very similar in the basics, from games like neverwinter nights and ddo (loosely that is, not firmly related).



:smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile: :smallsmile:

Ok, that's the preface.

I've read a lot on here in my short time, that DMs in general shouldn't have a PC. It creates the chance of favoritism. While I am not worried about, because it would serve no purpose for me to ruin my friends game just so I could feel better, I still want to make sure I make my job easier too.

I was pursuing an Illusionist. After careful consideration (literally weeks of reading info about this), with a lot of the limits of illusions based on how a dm would interpret it, seemed far to wonky for me as the DM to be an illusionist.

So I am considering, going focused specialist, (evocation), into master specialist. For the following reasons:

1. Its easy to manage as a player who is the dm. (Most spells are cast it, roll some damage.)
2. It is considered among many to be the weakest school in terms of damage at higher levels. (That's fine, I'm not here to out shine my friends)
3. I like the blaster mage :).

Am I choosing the right school, to specialize in, and I was thinking I could dump, necro, enchantment, and possibly (conjuration to further my limitations) or illusion.


Thanks for the input. :smallcool:

[legomaster00156]

First of all, do not play a Wizard. If an arcanist is absolutely required (hint: it usually isn't), play something along the lines of a Sorcerer or, since you are going to be an Illusionist anyways, a Beguiler.
Second, give him a lower point-buy then the rest of the party. If you are not using point-buy, roll 3d6 instead of whatever you're using, and only use one set. This should set him at a lower power than the others.
Other than your focus, choose one or two energy-based blasting spells, and the rest should be spent on utility that does not overlap with the rest of the party. You've got a Cleric, so buffing should be handled, and you need not get spells for that.
Finally, play wisely. As long as you don't go around chain-Gating, you should be a fine arcanist without outshining everyone else.

[onemorelurker]

Yeah, I know you said that wizard was non-negotiable, but legomaster is right: This party does not specifically need a wizard, and if you're really trying not to outshine your players, then being a wizard is the wrong choice. If you have your heart set on being an evoker, there are plenty of other classes that can do that--possibly not as well as a wizard can, but if the reason you want to play a wizard is because other possible evoker classes aren't as good, that should be a red flag.

[Zaranthan]

I would pose a question to you before offering suggestions: why is it mandatory that you have a DMPC wizard? What are you trying to do that could not be accomplished through campaign design?

As for your proposal, a blaster wizard is certainly not going to outshine everyone, but the risk still exists: if your players are "not optimizers" (just throw out that pretentious bit about putting roleplaying first, low op is low op regardless of the Stormwind Fallacy), tossing fireballs may well end up doing a lot more damage than everyone else combined.

[lamrar]

How well do you know the players? Have you played with them before?

Because since you are all adults (with the exception of Harold), if you have played together before and know each other well, I think the normal warnings about DMPC don't apply.
They only ruin the fun if either the DM, the players, or both are immature and insist on hugging the spotlight.
As long as you don't do anything stupid, like building the storyline of the campaign around your character, tailor the campaign to him in a mary-suish way, or mix character knowledge and DM knowledge, you should be fine.

Evocation is probably a decent, non-threatening choice, but be careful not to optimize it to much. Make absolutely sure that your character does not outshine the rest of the party.

That being said, you could consider focusing on buffing the other characters, especially the least optimized. In this way you can be sure that the DMPC won't steal the glory from anyone in the party, and at the same time actually use him to improve inner-party balance. This can be especially fun for the fighter, since his sub-optimal choice of class can use the extra boost, and many teenagers enjoy kicking ass.

Pardon if none of this makes sense, it's been a long day.

[Aegis013]

-somehow double post- sorry

[Aegis013]

That being said, you could consider focusing on buffing the other characters, especially the least optimized. In this way you can be sure that the DMPC won't steal the glory from anyone in the party, and at the same time actually use him to improve inner-party balance. This can be especially fun for the fighter, since his sub-optimal choice of class can use the extra boost, and many teenagers enjoy kicking ass.

Pardon if none of this makes sense, it's been a long day.

Unless the cleric is buff-oriented. Be sure not to make any other character redundant, lest you significantly reduce a player's enjoyment of the game.
And yes, Damage-output ie Glass Cannon, is a party role.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Wizard and Cleric buffs often stack, meaning buffers often complement each other. Just make sure not to Haste before (or after) the Cleric casts Righteous Wrath, et cetera.

Given that you have a cleric, you're probably safe banning Abjuration. Enchantment and Necromancy are natural other choices. Definitely don't ban Conjuration or Transmutation; both schools have utility that the entire party will enjoy. MS Evocation esoterica aren't that hot, but the caster level increase isn't terrible, and you're not looking to break anything anyway. That said, may I suggest Mage of the Arcane Order instead?

MotAO gives you a few things: Versatility (via spell pool) for when your group is stuck, an organization for ++ plot points, and an excuse to recuse the DMPC if it becomes a problem.

I also suggest Sculpt Spell for when you want to avoid hitting your teammates with those pesky AoEs.

[killem2]

First of all, do not play a Wizard. If an arcanist is absolutely required (hint: it usually isn't), play something along the lines of a Sorcerer or, since you are going to be an Illusionist anyways, a Beguiler.
Second, give him a lower point-buy then the rest of the party. If you are not using point-buy, roll 3d6 instead of whatever you're using, and only use one set. This should set him at a lower power than the others.
Other than your focus, choose one or two energy-based blasting spells, and the rest should be spent on utility that does not overlap with the rest of the party. You've got a Cleric, so buffing should be handled, and you need not get spells for that.
Finally, play wisely. As long as you don't go around chain-Gating, you should be a fine arcanist without outshining everyone else.


Thanks for the reply, but I don't think you read my OP fully. I am NOT going to be illusion any more. :) I will however look over what you suggested.



I would pose a question to you before offering suggestions: why is it mandatory that you have a DMPC wizard? What are you trying to do that could not be accomplished through campaign design?

As for your proposal, a blaster wizard is certainly not going to outshine everyone, but the risk still exists: if your players are "not optimizers" (just throw out that pretentious bit about putting roleplaying first, low op is low op regardless of the Stormwind Fallacy), tossing fireballs may well end up doing a lot more damage than everyone else combined.

Thanks for the input, I wasn't trying to be pretentiousness, just stating that, when they build their characters, going for the cream of the crop is general is not their main motivation. It doesn't mean they don't want to be good at their class or anything, or that if other do that, its a bad thing. I just didn't want the impression that this party was going all out to be baddest they could be :D.

It is mandatory, because I want to play a wizard. Also, my party, kind of expects there to be a wizard, they want some of the frill that comes with it, like buffs and teleports, ect. I can pull back the reins as much as needed, and I kind of like the challenge of having this awesome powerful area of effect spells, but I have to use them carefully because I can't just sling a fire ball into the action, to take out 5 enemies, when I could just as easily KILL my party.

Just as I am not looking to boost my self esteem, these guys aren't petty :).



Unless the cleric is buff-oriented. Be sure not to make any other character redundant, lest you significantly reduce a player's enjoyment of the game.



The cleric isn't going to be godly, well he can be of course, but that's not really his path he's looking for. He really enjoys the Earth domain alot. He wil use buffs of course he can. That's partially why he went with the Divine Magician, he wanted abjuration stuff, but also likes dipping into some of that basic arcane.



How well do you know the players? Have you played with them before?

Because since you are all adults (with the exception of Harold), if you have played together before and know each other well, I think the normal warnings about DMPC don't apply.
They only ruin the fun if either the DM, the players, or both are immature and insist on hugging the spotlight.
As long as you don't do anything stupid, like building the storyline of the campaign around your character, tailor the campaign to him in a mary-suish way, or mix character knowledge and DM knowledge, you should be fine.

Evocation is probably a decent, non-threatening choice, but be careful not to optimize it to much. Make absolutely sure that your character does not outshine the rest of the party.

That being said, you could consider focusing on buffing the other characters, especially the least optimized. In this way you can be sure that the DMPC won't steal the glory from anyone in the party, and at the same time actually use him to improve inner-party balance. This can be especially fun for the fighter, since his sub-optimal choice of class can use the extra boost, and many teenagers enjoy kicking ass.

Pardon if none of this makes sense, it's been a long day.


I did think of a buffing class, but I do feel it may overlap just a bit with the cleric at mid levels, and I know he wants that, its not like he would be offended if we overlapped.

See, chuck is extremely rational, and reasonable. He gives great feed back, and keeps it real.

As far as how long i've known them, I've known Jack for almost a year, we played magic the gathering, almost every day at work, and alot at the home days, we also sit next to each other at work and became really good friends.

Chuck and harold I know for almost 3 years. Well harold I know for about a year and half (he came up from his home in florida to live with his dad rather than mom). We too played magic quite often when I worked with chuck, and we would routinely get together 1-2 times a month and play magic for hours.

Also, the reason I wanted a wizard, is because at the time we formed, Jack wasn't going to be able to make it, but things changed and now we can, but we already had characters ready to go.


My story hasn't been really laid out much, only that i'm a gnome wizard, changing schools will keep the story fine.



That said, may I suggest Mage of the Arcane Order instead?

MotAO gives you a few things: Versatility (via spell pool) for when your group is stuck, an organization for ++ plot points, and an excuse to recuse the DMPC if it becomes a problem.

I also suggest Sculpt Spell for when you want to avoid hitting your teammates with those pesky AoEs.

Where can I find info on that PRC?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You can find Mage of the Arcane Order and Sculpt Spell in Complete Arcane.

[Aegis013]

Where can I find info on that PRC?

Complete Arcane. MotAO is a great PrC.

[killem2]

Ok I will look at that too.


Also, I wanted to mention, I want to play a PC all together because, well, I want to play d&d and I just happened to be the one willing to ALSO dm :D. If we had someone else to do it, they would :)

Eventually what will happen is, we'll use my home made campaign to get to level 3 or so, then I'll randomly pick campaigns for our level and just do it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ok I will look at that too.


Also, I wanted to mention, I want to play a PC all together because, well, I want to play d&d and I just happened to be the one willing to ALSO dm :D. If we had someone else to do it, they would :)

Eventually what will happen is, we'll use my home made campaign to get to level 3 or so, then I'll randomly pick campaigns for our level and just do it.Would Chuck mind rotating the DM spot with you? I find that it reduces the DMPC problem quite a bit and takes the sting out of DMing.

[killem2]

Would Chuck mind rotating the DM spot with you? I find that it reduces the DMPC problem quite a bit and takes the sting out of DMing.

I can ask him. He's life is a bit more hetic than mine, so it is a bit easier for me to get everything together. Won't hurt to ask.

[BRC]

Alright, if you're going to run a DMPC, there are some rules you are going to need to follow. I know these are all your friends, and you don't want to ruin the game, but no DM wants to ruin their own game. The fact remains that YOU are the DM, you know what is coming. With that in mind, Wizards are perhaps the worst classes for DMPC's because of how preparation based they are. You, as the DM, know what encounters the party is going up against. If you use that knowledge, then you hog the spotlight with a spell list that is perfectly designed for this adventure. If you specifically avoid using that knowledge, it's easy to subconsciously cripple yourself as you try to avoid picking spells based on your foreknowledge. For example, if you know the party is going to be attacked by a large group of goblins, you may prepare a Fireball spell. But, that would be you using your knowledge of what is going to happen to prepare your spells, so you specifically avoid preparing AoE spells and become useless in the fight.
It is almost impossible to avoid metagaming as the DM. Just be prepared to constantly doubt yourself when picking spells, wondering if you're picking the spell because it's a good spell, or because you know it's going to be useful.

Alright, with that in mind, here are some things to remember.


Rule 1: No Player likes to see the DM interact with themselves. Whether it's watching players you control roll dice against enemies you control, or watching you switch voices for a lengthy conversation between NPC's, it will get boring fast. Cut down on this as much as possible. Make your wizard a Support caster as much as possible.
Rule 2: ALWAYS let the players make the decisions. Whether it's a social situation or a battle strategy, you're DMPC should be as silent as possible. It's going to be very hard to separate "Killem the player" from "Killem the DM". If you make a suggestion, the party is going to assume it's a good idea (OR they will assume you are trying to sabotage them, depending on the dynamic).
Rule 3: Keep your character as simple as possible. The players should be the ones who receive all the fun loot, the ancient tomes that let them shoot lasers from their eyes, the magic swords that can shoot lightning, all that stuff goes to the players. You're Wizard should receive a steady supply of standard WBL gold, which they then spend on static bonuses, scrolls, wands, and potions. This has two benefits, it helps avoid your DMPC hogging the spotlight, and it makes the character easier to play. If you're wizard only has a couple things he can do, you don't need to spend a long time each turn perusing your spell list.
Rule 3a: Always make sure your players are well-appraised of what your DMPC can do. Have the DMPC stick to a fairly standard combat routine (Buff the meatsheild, throw some magic missiles, ect). Don't say "Hey, I could use my shout spell to collapse the ceiling", wait for the players to ask "Do you have Shout prepared? You could use that to collapse the ceiling".
Rule 4: When following these other rules, don't make your DMPC an empty suit . Yes, it's important to avoid stealing the spotlight from the PC's, but if your DMPC is just a mute who follows them around throwing spells, then they just become a drain. A DMPC can move the plot, but they should not direct the plot, they can set goals, but they should not make decisions on behalf of the party. For example, your wizard could be an archaeologist who hires the PC's to escort him into some ancient ruins. He's knowledgeable (Providing a handy source of exposition), has a goal (Providing a plot), unused to combat (Explaining why he hangs back and lets the PC's have the real fun), and generally indecisive (Explaining why, once he says 'Take me to the ruins', the PC's get to pick how they get there, how they get past the monsters, ect). You're DMPC can have an amusing personality, conversing back and forward with the PC's but their personal story should be rather simple. If the DMPC is the center of the plot, the PC's start to feel like they are the supporting cast in what should be their story.


Above all else, remember that you are the DM. You are not a player. You have knowledge, abilities, and duties that differ from those of the players. Try as you might, you cannot be the DM and a Player at the same time. You lost your right to consider yourself a player the moment you sat down behind the DM Screen and looked at the horrors you were going to unleash on the party.
Any intelligent move you make the Players will think "Look at the DM, letting his character hog the spotlight". Any time your character does something stupid the players will think "Look at the DM, using his character to sabotage the party".


Now, I'm about to do something I hate, which is to answer a "How do I?" with a "Don't", but personally I think this is a bad idea. If the players expect there to be a wizard, hand off the character sheet to your most experienced player, or the player whose character is the simplest to play, during combat (I do this all the time with guest-star DMPCs or redshirt allies and it works great). If you feel that you won't be having fun unless you are controlling a character in combat, remember what it means to be a DM. You are already controlling a character, in fact, you are controlling MANY characters. In one session you control more characters than a player will over the course of multiple campaigns. Do you want to try playing a heavy melee bruiser? Throw one up against the party. Do you want to try an illusionist? They have to fight one of those too. You don't need a DMPC to "Play DnD" as a DM, A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective. On the bright sideThe boring part of being a DM ends the moment you sit down at the table, after that, you're on the fun side of the screen.
Now, in the end these characters you're playing as are going to either lose or exit the story. But if the only fun was in winning, we'd all be playing Pun-Pun.

[killem2]

Alright, if you're going to run a DMPC, there are some rules you are going to need to follow. I know these are all your friends, and you don't want to ruin the game, but no DM wants to ruin their own game. The fact remains that YOU are the DM, you know what is coming. With that in mind, Wizards are perhaps the worst classes for DMPC's because of how preparation based they are. You, as the DM, know what encounters the party is going up against. If you use that knowledge, then you hog the spotlight with a spell list that is perfectly designed for this adventure. If you specifically avoid using that knowledge, it's easy to subconsciously cripple yourself as you try to avoid picking spells based on your foreknowledge. For example, if you know the party is going to be attacked by a large group of goblins, you may prepare a Fireball spell. But, that would be you using your knowledge of what is going to happen to prepare your spells, so you specifically avoid preparing AoE spells and become useless in the fight.
It is almost impossible to avoid metagaming as the DM. Just be prepared to constantly doubt yourself when picking spells, wondering if you're picking the spell because it's a good spell, or because you know it's going to be useful.



I respect this and understand. Its why I had such a diffcult time, swallowing an illusionist path. Its why I think evocation is a safe bet. I deal damage. Yay. Damage.




Rule 1: No Player likes to see the DM interact with themselves. Whether it's watching players you control roll dice against enemies you control, or watching you switch voices for a lengthy conversation between NPC's, it will get boring fast. Cut down on this as much as possible. Make your wizard a Support caster as much as possible.


I think this will be easier done, than said :). It helps TONS that we have a play grid, and miniatures, so even though its my guy, its represent on a turn base action much like they are.




Rule 2: ALWAYS let the players make the decisions. Whether it's a social situation or a battle strategy, you're DMPC should be as silent as possible. It's going to be very hard to separate "Killem the player" from "Killem the DM". If you make a suggestion, the party is going to assume it's a good idea (OR they will assume you are trying to sabotage them, depending on the dynamic).


Yup, this was something I was going to do. If they ask me to interact, I will, otherwise, I'm gonna stay in the back ground. I might speak up, if my characters alignment should be offended, but nothing more. That was not going to change even before thinking of evocation.




Rule 3: Keep your character as simple as possible. The players should be the ones who receive all the fun loot, the ancient tomes that let them shoot lasers from their eyes, the magic swords that can shoot lightning, all that stuff goes to the players. You're Wizard should receive a steady supply of standard WBL gold, which they then spend on static bonuses, scrolls, wands, and potions. This has two benefits, it helps avoid your DMPC hogging the spotlight, and it makes the character easier to play. If you're wizard only has a couple things he can do, you don't need to spend a long time each turn perusing your spell list.


Another, yup. While I don't want my wizard being behind them in equipment for too long, I am focusing more on them. They are smart though, if there is a ring of intelligence, they will give it to me, with out question because that's best for the party. No reason to sell something that would be useful.




Rule 3a: Always make sure your players are well-appraised of what your DMPC can do. Have the DMPC stick to a fairly standard combat routine (Buff the meatsheild, throw some magic missiles, ect). Don't say "Hey, I could use my shout spell to collapse the ceiling", wait for the players to ask "Do you have Shout prepared? You could use that to collapse the ceiling".


that's really all I want him to be. Illusion made it hard, evocation makes it so much easier to be just a supporting class.





Rule 4: When following these other rules, don't make your DMPC an empty suit . Yes, it's important to avoid stealing the spotlight from the PC's, but if your DMPC is just a mute who follows them around throwing spells, then they just become a drain. A DMPC can move the plot, but they should not direct the plot, they can set goals, but they should not make decisions on behalf of the party. For example, your wizard could be an archaeologist who hires the PC's to escort him into some ancient ruins. He's knowledgeable (Providing a handy source of exposition), has a goal (Providing a plot), unused to combat (Explaining why he hangs back and lets the PC's have the real fun), and generally indecisive (Explaining why, once he says 'Take me to the ruins', the PC's get to pick how they get there, how they get past the monsters, ect). You're DMPC can have an amusing personality, conversing back and forward with the PC's but their personal story should be rather simple. If the DMPC is the center of the plot, the PC's start to feel like they are the supporting cast in what should be their story.



Yeah, there are a few story driven aspect that include my character, but no different than them. All of the characters are linked in a small way, and presitige classes will NOT be free. They will require some sort of quest, even mine, I'm no exception, but we all work as a team.



Above all else, remember that you are the DM. You are not a player. You have knowledge, abilities, and duties that differ from those of the players. Try as you might, you cannot be the DM and a Player at the same time. You lost your right to consider yourself a player the moment you sat down behind the DM Screen and looked at the horrors you were going to unleash on the party.


While I can respect this, I almost feel its a bit too overboard. Sure the DM is a big responsibility, but it isn't entireley impossible to treat the dm position as an equal. Sure I know alot more about what's going on, but at the same time, I'm perfectly capable of knowing logically how my character would act if he didn't know anything.



Any intelligent move you make the Players will think "Look at the DM, letting his character hog the spotlight". Any time your character does something stupid the players will think "Look at the DM, using his character to sabotage the party".


No they won't. Because not every move I make will always result in progress :). It may feel like a "gotcha" thing, but they will start to see, just because I am the DM, doesn't mean my play knows anymore than they do.




Now, I'm about to do something I hate, which is to answer a "How do I?" with a "Don't", but personally I think this is a bad idea. If the players expect there to be a wizard, hand off the character sheet to your most experienced player, or the player whose character is the simplest to play, during combat (I do this all the time with guest-star DMPCs or redshirt allies and it works great). If you feel that you won't be having fun unless you are controlling a character in combat, remember what it means to be a DM. You are already controlling a character, in fact, you are controlling MANY characters. In one session you control more characters than a player will over the course of multiple campaigns. Do you want to try playing a heavy melee bruiser? Throw one up against the party. Do you want to try an illusionist? They have to fight one of those too. You don't need a DMPC to "Play DnD" as a DM, A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective. On the bright sideThe boring part of being a DM ends the moment you sit down at the table, after that, you're on the fun side of the screen.
Now, in the end these characters you're playing as are going to either lose or exit the story. But if the only fun was in winning, we'd all be playing Pun-Pun.

Well said, however, yes I do want to expierence from the PC side. It'll be odd, but just playing with my friends is good enough for me. I don't need to expirence some end game reward to feel like I've done something.

Should be fun.

[CommodoreCrunch]

A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective This can never, ever be emphasized enough. Being a DMPC changes the experience of each dramatically, and ends up being less fun than either. The restrictions you have to impose upon yourself just aren't worth the trouble, in my experience.

I was coerced into assisting my DM with the campaign, as a "Co-DM", once. My character was an Enlarging tripmaster Dwarven Knight/Crusader, and I immediately began to see problems with it once I started doing DM stuff. I was suddenly aware of the biggest threats in combat and had to resist urges to guide the party along with my character. I didn't want to solve that problem by making all subsequent encounters include a flyer or two so I ended up rolling different character shortly thereafter who was a moderate-powered Artificer blaster. It was definitely a good choice, as in combat I felt much less domineering and out of combat I just played stoic and uninvolved to avoid taking decisions away from the PCs.

Since then, I've only played a DMPC a few times. Only during one-shots, and only as generic, one-dimensional healbots with low movement speed who prepare nothing but Cure spells.

I'd advise against the wizard as well, but I know that won't sway you. Thankfully, you're restricting yourself to the weaker branch of casting, so my general advice on blasting is to just keep it at a reasonable level. If you find yourself doing too much damage, consider sculpting your fireballs into lines so you're not doing too much of the PCs' work for them by blasting everything at once; or maybe just stick to lower-power blasty spells. The Lesser Orb of X spells from Spell Compendium are great spells, for example, but their power isn't overwhelming.

The simplest and maybe best thing a DMPC can do in battle is just focus on hit points. Deal damage or heal damage, whatever. If you're not getting carried away with it and don't get too caught up in tactics you should be fine. If you do anything more complex you run the risk of dominating and ruining the experience for the PCs.

[BRC]

While I can respect this, I almost feel its a bit too overboard. Sure the DM is a big responsibility, but it isn't entireley impossible to treat the dm position as an equal. Sure I know alot more about what's going on, but at the same time, I'm perfectly capable of knowing logically how my character would act if he didn't know anything.

I'm not being overboard at all. The position of DM is incompatible with that of the players. Their goals, experiences, and tools are entirely different. The players are given a relatively limited set of tools and a straightforward goal: Defeat the enemies the DM throws at them. The DM's tools are nigh-unlimited, but their goal is far more complex: To bring the players so close to defeat that they can smell it's foul breath seconds before they snatch victory from it's jaws.

When the party enters the dungeon, the players think "What is behind that door?". The DM knows what is behind that door, they know what is behind every door, what they are thinking is "How will the PC's respond?"


No they won't. Because not every move I make will always result in progress :). It may feel like a "gotcha" thing, but they will start to see, just because I am the DM, doesn't mean my play knows anymore than they do.

I assume you meant to type "Player", I also assume you meant to say "Character". But that particular Freudian slip proves my point. You Cannot fully separate the player from the character. You cannot forget what you know when making your decisions, and even if you do, it won't be the same. There will be no mystery, no wonder. If a PC decides to use fire against the boss monster, they are taking a risk. Maybe it's vulnerable to fire, maybe it's immune to fire? You already know about it.
Even if you manage to avoid metagaming, you will not be a Player. You'll just be going through the motions of one. And trust me, it is not the same.


Well said, however, yes I do want to expierence from the PC side.

If you want to experience the game from the PC side, have somebody else DM. That is the only way to do it. A DMPC will not do the trick. That said, This:

It'll be odd, but just playing with my friends is good enough for me. I don't need to expirence some end game reward to feel like I've done something.
Is the proper mode of thought for the DM. The Players are the ones who get an end game reward. When the dungeon has been cleared, the dragon slain, the schemes thwarted, and the town saved, the players get treasure and experience to reward them for their efforts.

The DM gets to look around and ask the question "So, how did you guys like today's game?". And when the players respond "It was awesome", treasure that. THAT is your reward, that feeling that your hard work just provided several hours of fun for you and your friends. Those smiles on their faces is your pile of gold coins, the stories they tell about the game are your magic swords. It's a good experience, some might say better than that of the players, but it is not the same.

[killem2]

I am being completely honest when I say this...

This is a foreign concept to me. The whole, DMs can't play characters and cannot interact like the other characters. I was actually taken back when I was first replied to, about a week ago with the horror of me being a DM PC.:smallamused:

In my 2.0 and minor 3.0 time, my dm, had ALWAYS played a character. He even took the lead role sometimes in social activities. We never once experienced any of this doom and gloom. Keep in mind, we were teenager then, and we managed to be mature enough to not stoop to the pettiness that seems to come with DM PC of today. Maybe its just the way it is now. :smallconfused:

All I really wanted from this thread was, what's the best wizard to choose as a DM so you don't steel the spot light. I suppose seeing how this thread opened to, that I didn't need a preface, because apparently it doesn't matter. No one has any willpower.

I guess I will have to be the first to prove everyone wrong. :smallcool:

[BRC]

I am being completely honest when I say this...

This is a foreign concept to me. The whole, DMs can't play characters and cannot interact like the other characters. I was actually taken back when I was first replied to, about a week ago with the horror of me being a DM PC.:smallamused:

In my 2.0 and minor 3.0 time, my dm, had ALWAYS played a character. He even took the lead role sometimes in social activities. We never once experienced any of this doom and gloom. Keep in mind, we were teenager then, and we managed to be mature enough to not stoop to the pettiness that seems to come with DM PC of today. Maybe its just the way it is now. :smallconfused:
It's not about pettiness, or spotlight-stealing (Though that is a serious risk). It's about fun. There is the stereotype of the DMPC who is basically just the DM acting out a power-trip fantasy, and that exists for a reason, because otherwise a DMPC is just not very fun to play. It's all the hassle of playing a character with none of the mystery or sense of achievement. From the sounds of things, I don't think you are going to ruin the game with your Wizard, but I don't think you will be having very much fun with it, or at the very least, no fun you couldn't have without a DMPC.

Done properly, the players will not be annoyed by a DMPC, but the DM certainly won't be enjoying themselves.


All I really wanted from this thread was, what's the best wizard to choose as a DM so you don't steel the spot light. I suppose seeing how this thread opened to, that I didn't need a preface, because apparently it doesn't matter. :smallannoyed:
It's not just about choosing a type of wizard (Though I think you have made the right choice there). It's about how you play that wizard, it's about how you act in game, how you handle running the game and a character.

I'm not judging you or accusing you, I'm warning you.

[CommodoreCrunch]

No one has any willpower. I guess I will have to be the first to prove everyone wrong. :smallcool: It's not about willpower or proving us wrong. What BRC (and myself) is trying to warn you about is not doom and gloom, and its not pettiness. Its about the disparity between a DMPC and a PC. If you're looking for a PC experience it. Will. Not. Be. The. Same. I won't go into the reasons, since BRC is covering that well enough.

[The_Jackal]

Don't. Just don't. If you want to play, play. If you want to run, run. Doing both creates a conflict of interest, which is enough drama-fuel to derail any campaign, EVEN IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE WRONG.

BRC is right. If you play your character properly, your DMPC should be indistinguishable from the myriad NPCs you portray for the amusement of your players. Anything else, and your players will feel like supporting cast in your power trip.

[MukkTB]

A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective

This is really the case. Knowing whats going to happen takes the fun out of things quick. I'm not saying don't do it. But if you do I recommend building a weaker utility character, maybe going sorcerer to get rid of the 'What spells should I prepare?' metagaming that will inevitably come. After all the DM is always in the spotlight. The characters are only in the spotlight when they have something useful to do.

This is what I'd recommend.
If the party likes to have a wizard but none of the players want to be the wizard (/I am confused.) then make a wizard NPC to accompany the party.
Ask someone else to DM something in the future so you can have a chance to play. Offer them a moderate bribe (pizza), or suggest that you will buy a premade adventure for them to run. (Its easier for them. They don't have to pay 10$ for it. You get to play in a kind of story that interests you.)

Even if you act totally mature you will have more fun roleplaying a bunch of NPCs as DM, and playing a PC with someone else as DM, than you will with a DMPC.

[Mathias1313]

I understands everyones apprehension about having a DMPC, but I myself have done it in the past, in fact quite frequently cycle thru different DMPC while we play.
I do this for several reasons. First because sometimes the adventures require more characters, second because my players dont always like the idea of playing multiple characters, third, somtimes I like trying different builds and a DMPC gives me the opportunity to try it out.
I think as long as you and your players are open about DMPC, ie them telling you if they feel he is taking some of the spotlight, then eveything is fine.
If you are smart and you play with friends then there should not be a problem.

I will however also suggest one thing, I agree with some of the above in saying you should try playing a Sorcerer or some other type of spell caster for the simple fact of having to choose which spells to memorize each day.
Some of the above posts already touched on the issues with you being too prepared for certain fights, whereas if you had a Sorc, you would just have your set spell list, period.
Also, having a wizard as the DMPC forces you to spend too much time deciding which spells to prepare and which new spells to buy. It would be much easier to just pick something with a static spell list.

That being said, I hope you have fun in your game. :)

[Palanan]

Killem, I would also like to offer a different perspective here. Like yourself, I'm fairly new to this forum; and like yourself, I'm a little surprised how aghast some folks are at the notion of a DMPC.

In my first 3.5 group, which was large and boisterous, our DM frequently ran a DMPC, specifically designed as a support character. Our DM loved roleplaying, was a hilarious actor, and did an excellent job with the various personalities. Not once in fifty-odd sessions did anyone feel his characters were overshadowing anyone else. He had a great time with them, and they contributed to the party, the storyline and the general rollin' good times.

When I ran a campaign of my own for a smaller group, I included not one, but two DMPCs--the first designed to be the party's arcanist and rogue, and the second who joined as part of the storyline. Both of those characters had several levels of wizard, and between them managed to serve the party's arcane needs in addition to other support roles.

Like my previous DM (though without his acting talent) I had a great time with these characters, and some of the most enjoyable roleplaying we had was between my arcanist/rogue and one of the PCs. I never knew where those conversations would go, because we were all so deeply into the characters, and it made for some excellent give-and-take. As personalities, they were equal members of the party, but in terms of mechanics they were decidedly a notch below the PCs. (The other DMPC was a mystic theurge, which hardly qualifies as overpowering.)

Choosing their spells each morning did require some careful thought, in order to avoid exactly the sort of metagaming issues that others have already mentioned. I just did my best to put myself in the position of two very different personalities, and tried to imagine what they would think of as their priorities for any given day. It required that I pay particular attention to their moods and perceptions, which I enjoyed, and it made for an extra element of roleplaying.

I'm sure that BRC and the other folks who have commented on this are all speaking from hard experience, and their advice is certainly worth listening to in that context. But their experience doesn't need to be your experience. In the groups I've been in with DMPCs, we had a hell of a lot of fun.

[Glaurung]

I'm sure that BRC and the other folks who have commented on this are all speaking from hard experience, and their advice is certainly worth listening to in that context. But their experience doesn't need to be your experience. In the groups I've been in with DMPCs, we had a hell of a lot of fun.

This is very good advice. Many of us have had trouble with DMPCs but that does not make it inevitable that a DMPC will ruin an adventure. It is a tool. A complex tool with many contradictory edges and perhaps not enough grip space. Use it well and it will help your game.

At the same time, be very careful. Many, many DMPCs have caused more harm to a game than good. The warnings you have received are not frivolous. DMPCs can easily derail a game. I would second the comments that suggest your DMPC will be a kind of NPC, if an important one.

I have never used a DMPC but I have had a Gandalf-like wizard occasionally adventure with a party (Melian, a Silvanesti red-robe in a 3.5 Dragonlance game). She had a preset spell list each day UNLESS the PCs wanted something different from her. She often had "business" elsewhere the required her attention, that kept her away from the decision heavy portions of adventures, relegating her to the role of sage adviser before much of the action. On one occasion (and this trick would have worked once) this allowed me to use her to tip the scales when a TPK was close. It worked. She became an integral part of the story (as good NPCs are),

In the end, it is up to you. Do what makes sense to you and don't be afraid to change tack if its not working (unhappy players). You've been careful so far. Its only a game. Have fun.

[MukkTB]

The reason most people rally against DMPCs is this. Imagine an (american) soccer game where the ref is a player running around kicking the ball. Yeah. Not cool.

[Taelas]

There's nothing wrong with playing a DMPC A's long A's you are aware of the issues involved. If you are, don't let nay-sayers dissuade you. It's a different experience than being a player, but it is not inherently wrong the way some people's are implying.

Man, typing on an iPad is annoying as all hell...

[Leon]

A Simple Character such as a Transmuter Buff bot or a Evocation Artillery platform that can augment what the real party do as your DMPC really should be more of a NPC without taking much of the stage - play it was a a normal PC but stay out of the light and let them excel with a silent partner aiding them

[DrDeth]

In general a DMPC is a bad idea. Playing a Tier one PC that will outshine everyone else as a DMPC just makes it worse. Do to their ability to prep for what’s coming next, a wizard is absolutely the worst choice. And as BRC sez “A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective” thus one of your reasons for wanting to play a wizard is gone. (He also sez “It's all the hassle of playing a character with none of the mystery or sense of achievement” which is a great line!).

A healbot is the best DMPC, if DMPC you must. Asking “who should I heal this round?” has the players making choices, too.

Mind you, you can also draw up a NPC, roleplay him during non-combat, then hand over the sheet during combat to the players.

I used to run DMPCs and I also used to complain about other DMs DMPCs. Somehow I thought mine were special, everyone liked mine.

But of course, the players always told me to my face that my DMPC was just fine. I found that doesn’t mean much. First- people like to be polite, next players don’t like to complain and finally some players figure that complaints will get their PCs discriminated against. If your players hate your DMPC, you will never know- you will either just see empty chairs or they will just be having less fun.

Sigh, you learn a lot over more than 30 years of DMing and playing.

[ericgrau]

I'd do necromancer or transmutation for the debuffs or buffs, respectively. It's a good way to stay in the background.
Necromancy: (empowered) ray of enfeeblement, false life, spectral hand + vampiric touch, (empowered) enervation, maybe magic jar, create (greater) undead, waves of fatigue/exhaustion, energy drain.
Transmutation: feather fall, bull's strength (buffing round only if possible), spider climb (on scrolls if possible or prepare several and spam), haste, greater magic weapon, fly (same strat as spider climb), telekinesis, mass bear's endurance, disintegrate (also for tunneling), reverse gravity, statue, etherealness. The polymorph line could get complicated and problematic, and you can't buff allies with time stop.

Also consider abjuration buffs and heroism. Get a lesser rod of extend spell to make buffs last longer.

The above tend to make the party grateful, as it's mostly support. A metamagic fireball slinger can outshine the party in many of the fights, though not all. Especially if you get things like energy type changing and shaping to hit more targets while avoiding allies. Even when he doesn't outshine he does a decent chunk of the fight himself. DM PCs should never steal thunder, pun not intended.

[killem2]

Just as an update, I've conversed with my group, they agreed it would be hard for me and odd for the overall flow if I was an Illusionist, and actually wanting me to be evocation.

I asked about abjuration, they said, they'd rather see an evoker. Chuck says it helps roleplaying easier to ban necro, and the trickster part (enchant/illusion) is a fun challenge they will think, as it means a lot of the players will need to use skills to change social interactions, not just magic.

Should be really fun :D

I also think this may be quite an experience as the evoker has some bad ass area of effect spells, but my cleric, fighter, and ranger, and rogue are melee at heart. The want to be up in the action, the fighter has a dog too, so I have to play it smart.


In general a DMPC is a bad idea. Playing a Tier one PC that will outshine everyone else as a DMPC just makes it worse. Do to their ability to prep for what’s coming next, a wizard is absolutely the worst choice. And as BRC sez “A DMPC will not let you experience the game from the player's perspective” thus one of your reasons for wanting to play a wizard is gone. (He also sez “It's all the hassle of playing a character with none of the mystery or sense of achievement” which is a great line!).

A healbot is the best DMPC, if DMPC you must. Asking “who should I heal this round?” has the players making choices, too.

Mind you, you can also draw up a NPC, roleplay him during non-combat, then hand over the sheet during combat to the players.

I used to run DMPCs and I also used to complain about other DMs DMPCs. Somehow I thought mine were special, everyone liked mine.

But of course, the players always told me to my face that my DMPC was just fine. I found that doesn’t mean much. First- people like to be polite, next players don’t like to complain and finally some players figure that complaints will get their PCs discriminated against. If your players hate your DMPC, you will never know- you will either just see empty chairs or they will just be having less fun.

Sigh, you learn a lot over more than 30 years of DMing and playing.

With this, I would have a lot more reservations if I was playing with acquaintances or strangers. I do apologize to everyone in here, I didn't mean to come off as insulting to you, or assume you were being petty (after reading my post it seems that way.


I love the advice, and it is going to go a long way. My group knows this is my first time to be a DM, they aren't taking advantage of it, they are open and communication is perfect.

[Leon]

In general a DMPC is a bad idea. Playing a Tier one PC that will outshine everyone else as a DMPC just makes it worse.


That some people consider it high on the ranking system they use does not mean that the class will outshine anything - How a person plays a class is how it is made overly powerful or not.
If you play it as a shadowy support character you won't outshine anything, but if you are going to try and lead the group then yes you are going to be doing the bad DMPC route

[killem2]

That some people consider it high on the ranking system they use does not mean that the class will outshine anything - How a person plays a class is how it is made overly powerful or not.
If you play it as a shadowy support character you won't outshine anything, but if you are going to try and lead the group then yes you are going to be doing the bad DMPC route

Yeah there are a lot of assumptions around here that just because you have the key to be amazing and overpowered, you automatically will be.

[January]

Wow, nice!

[Endarire]

I was a GM who ran a GMPC Wizard. The other characters were fairly optimized, but we didn't pull out all the stops. (No planar binding nor gate for us most the time, though we did go level 1-21.)

I made him a Strongheart Halfling Wizard. Later, for plot reasons, he respecced as a Transmuter.

He focused on crowd control, buffing, and utility spells. Rarely did he blast. Others didn't feel overshadowed. They quite liked his humor.

People loved that he was an efficient Wizard. Who didn't like puzzles (of which there were many). And he played by the same rules as everyone else, with the occasional GM leniency. (It's OK to put a Wand of polymorph on that boss for Boddyknock to find because it's my birthday, right?)

[killem2]

We had our first ever session today. It went great. I am having way more fun as an evoker. It makes things way easier to manage as well.

I did have a lot of fun, with the transposition spells. I would send my hummingbird and switch it with our rogue :D. The Magic Missiles of course are easy going, and the burning hands is just really fun.

99% of the show was on them. When it came to meet me, I joined up, was already on my own mission. I used detect magic once, when our cleric ran out of his detect magic.

So far, so good. They are happy to have me around as a wizard, and the melee are def stealing the show so far. I'm sure later on if we split up in a dungeon it would be nice to have the powerful magic on both ends.