DM character

[Macrus]

Hello I run a group that has four members that includes the DM (me) and one of the players will be leaving soon so that will only leave three people, so I was wondering whether I should make a character for the DM use to help the players out. Ideas?

If so what sort class should he be? The classes that the players have are monk and sorcerer.

Macrus

[Norin]

So the group is 4 members and they are monk and sorc? So 2 of each?

Edit- Note to self: learn to read the post before asking like a retard!

[AMX]

So the group is 4 members and they are monk and sorc? So 2 of each?

4 members including the DM, means 3 players - minus one who's leaving works out to one monk and one sorc.

[WhatBigTeeth]

I hear DMPCing makes you go blind

[Macrus]

One of us is the DM (me) and the three players are two monks and one sorcerer.

[Waker]

Most people generally frown upon the use of DMPC, however if the situation warrants it, they have their uses. They are best put into support roles who won't risk stealing the spotlight from the rest of the players.
I would suggest making a cleric, focusing on being a tank with a fair amount of buff spells in his list. Never prepare any cure spells, relying on spontaneous curing only when absolutely necessary. Outside of combat, use wands to keep the party healthy.
Since you aren't trying to be Clericzilla, shy away from the DMM/Persist/Divine Power combo. Instead you might consider some of the other divine channeling feats. Unfortunately I'm afb, so I can't make any specific suggestions.

Alternatively, you might consider a Bard with a dip in Warblade or Crusader. It would be able to fill in the role quite well, but with the added bonus of being a bit more of a skillmonkey as well.

[Norin]

4 members including the DM, means 3 players - minus one who's leaving works out to one monk and one sorc.

Haha, that made me feel retarded. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

I would recommend some sort of Bard into War Weaver or War Chanter situation. UMD takes care of the wands you need for healing, and the rest is buffing the party with cool stuff.

[the_david]

You might want to give the players an extra character instead. Or a cohort, without the need of a leadership feat.

[Darius Kane]

Suggest to one of the players to take Leadership and play the cohort.

[HKR]

I agree with the cohort suggestion. You could give each player a cohort or just give them one cohort that you control in rp situations and they control "democratically" in combat.

[Darius Kane]

I agree with the cohort suggestion. You could give each player a cohort or just give them one cohort that you control in rp situations and they control "democratically" in combat.
I would do it the other way around, actually. Hell, I would RP the cohort in all situations as a sorta DMPC.

[javijuji]

Normally when this happens I ask the players if they want to continue playing as if or if they would like me to reduce the difficulty. Of course that keeping the same CR with only 3 people means more Xp and gold for everyone. Which is normally the route they take.

[prufock]

Another option that will increase the flexibility and power of a 2-man party is to have them rebuild as gestalt characters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm), so you could have a monk//psychic warrior and a sorcerer//paladin, for example. This won't give them any extra actions, however.

You could simply tone down the encounter levels (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) to match a 2-person party.

Other people have mentioned cohorts and hirelings.

A DMPC is not always a bad idea, but should be a support character, and receive no special considerations. The reason so many people look down on them is because they're so often used as DM wish fulfillment.

[Phelix-Mu]

As a DM with a character, you simply have to be disciplined about having your character follow rules and only knowing what is knowable as a character (i.e., not privy to all your DM knowledge about the future). It's basically just a recurring npc that is part of the party. Avoid special consideration or using your character to vote for a certain course of action. Other than that, have fun.

Most of the campaigns I played in up until college involved me and the DM, and we both played 1-2 characters. Worked fine, and some of the best campaigns were excellent in quality and featured many memorable events, good storyline, good characters, as per any successful game.

The bad press DMPCs get from the forum generally is because they can go quite wrong if the DM is self-serving or indulgent with their character. Avoid this kind of behavior and ignore the bad press.

[Zanthy1]

Make.....a commoner.


Or bard, and have him just sing in the back all the time, and take spells that buff mostly, maybe a healing spell or two.

Feats? take feats the enhance your bardic music

[Vaz]

Something that makes the party awesome.

However you lack healing so Cleric is a 'must'. A Dragon Shaman can heal, but they tend to be fairly showy.

A Bard Dip with Dragonfire Inspiration goes a long way to nice damage buffs. 1d6 damage minimum on each attack with two flurrying monks? Yes!

[killem2]

It's a perfectly fine idea for the DM to come in with a PC of their own. Those who frown upon it, do so because they can't do it themselves with out metagaming the hell out of it.

OOOO, touch a nerve on some of you purists? Good. You all annoy me when this subject come up.



Anyway, with two monks and a sorcerer, I see no issue with a focused specialist buffer wizard. Some other suggestions might be a nice battlefield tripper or grappler. I also see no reason you could not be a healer or cleric that has dove 150% into healing.

These suggestions are if you feel you can't do anything other than support, otherwise, go crazy, let them free a monstrous being, that was being tortured by other monsters like a minotaur or something. Could be fun, make it a ghost that is wanting help to get his soul released.

[nedz]

It's a perfectly fine idea for the DM to come in with a PC of their own. Those who frown upon it, do so because they can't do it themselves with out metagaming the hell out of it.

OOOO, touch a nerve on some of you purists? Good. You all annoy me when this subject come up.


What people normally object to are Mary Sue DMPCs where the players are just spectators.

It is also very hard to do since you do have plenty of OOC information. In the groups I play with we go out of our way to avoid the player's knowing OOC information because it distorts the decisions you make: Which is no fun.

That said a passive heal-bot is generally OK.

The DM just has to refuse to have the NPC make any decisions, so active DMPCs are a problem.

[Zanthy1]

For every DMPC I use, all he does is support, and when they ask him questions, he answers to the best of his knowledge. He does not offer to do anything special unless told to by the PCs, and if they ask him for advice on what to do I throw my arms up, and in the characters voice say, "I dunno."

Gives the benefit of an added body, without pushing the players or making them spectators. They can do cool things, there is nothing wrong with that. Just so long as the PCs have fun, there is no reason why the DM cant enjoy a little adventure.


ESPECIALLY when he is the only DM, and he really really wants to play :(

[RFLS]

It's a perfectly fine idea for the DM to come in with a PC of their own. Those who frown upon it, do so because they can't do it themselves with out metagaming the hell out of it.

OOOO, touch a nerve on some of you purists? Good. You all annoy me when this subject come up. (http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28377842.jpg)

It's generally considered difficult to run a DMPC if there's any sort of plot going on; you either have to be really, really passive, to the point of muteness, or you risk giving away plot details. The reason they get a bad rap is because many DMs can't help but Mary Sue, and we get those horror stories here.

[WhatBigTeeth]

What's the point, when giving the players an extra character (old school!) bypasses all kinds of potential problems in spotlight time, metagame knowledge and even more paperwork for the most paperworked player at the table?