Best Class for a DMPC

[Elricaltovilla]

Yes, yes. I know the whole thing about DMPCs being bad, but here's the story:

I finally convinced my roommates to try Pathfinder with me running it for them. We'll be doing the Kingmaker AP and since the party will contain at most 3 people who have never played Pathfinder or any other tabletop RPG system before, I want to include a character that can help keep them alive and moving forward without hogging the spotlight.

Since I have only two guaranteed players, with a possible third, I know I'll need somebody to help shore up the party. I'm planning on using all the 1st party pathfinder stuff, plus Psionics and Path of War from DSP.

Also, here's what I know about what kind of characters I'll be working with: One of them wants to play a stealthy archer character. Yeah.

I'm just looking for general class suggestions right now since I don't know specifics on what any of them would like to do. Help?

[Vhaidara]

Well, I would rank defensive, support characters near the top.
Playtest Zealot sounds promising, popping temp HP all over the place and generally buffing the party.
Tactician and Vitalist (Guardian or Healer) also seem to have potential, though I haven't played either one (much, you know my vitalist experience)
Silver Crane/Golden Lion Warder: throws out healing, protects his allies, and grants people more actions.

[Red Fel]

When you absolutely, positively have to have a DMPC, I usually recommend a Bard. The Bard is a perfect force multiplier - he makes your melee-types stronger, keeps your caster-types safer. He fits in any gaps you might have without being overwhelming at it. He knows just enough to be useful, without having to be your all-purpose skillmonkey. Heck, if you want to make one that's more healing-oriented, I was never particularly fond of the Songhealer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/songhealer) archetype, but it's a thing.

You won't be the big blaster, the big crusher, the big tank, but you can do some controlling, some buffing and debuffing, and make things just a bit easier for the party.

You know, until they get the hang of it. Then you can kill off your PC dramatically, and inspire them to vengeance.

[jaydubs]

The best class for a DMPC really depends on what everyone else wants to play. It should fill a role that the players can't or don't want to fill, and it shouldn't grab the spotlight. Usually that means some kind of support character. But just pick whatever the players don't want to play, and make the character less exciting than the PCs. If there's no cleric, make a buffing and healing cleric. If there's no arcane, have someone who can make knowledge arcana checks, identify, cast the relevant utility spells, etc. rather than a wizard throwing around offensive spells. You get the idea. Build and how you play it will matter as much as the class.

If that role is something that usually happens solo, feel free to handwaive it or condense into a series of quick rolls. For instance, if the DMPC is the designated trap finder, scout, or face character, just briefly describe what occurs rather than roleplaying out the events in detail.

Also, sometimes no matter how hard you try, the players will hate an NPC. In that case, let it go. That DMPC can leave, die by enemy, or the PCs will kill him/her. And then ask the players if they'd like to recruit a replacement, and if so what kind. People are usually more invested in thing they've had a personal hand in creating. I don't mean hand them a character sheet to roll up. But it's fine to specify "a halfling bard" or "a tanky dwarven fighter" or something to that effect. Makes narrative sense as well, since a group of adventurers could go looking for a specific kind of hired help.

[Hobosub]

You can (almost) never go wrong with a buff/healbot with ranks in just the right knowledge skills.
I think you might want to avoid the social skills actually, to prevent (or at least lessen) the feeling of being railroaded.

Clerics are great at staying in the shadows until things tend to go horribly wrong (and then actually save everyone).
In my experiences the main problem DMPCs have is completely upstaging everyone else, you don't want that, especially not with people new to the game, they will just feel useless.

Having ranks in knowledge skills gives you more leeway when it comes to feeding info to the PCs.

It's always a bit tricky introducing new people to the game, especially if you don't know up front how they will react.

[GreyBlack]

When you absolutely, positively have to have a DMPC, I usually recommend a Bard. The Bard is a perfect force multiplier - he makes your melee-types stronger, keeps your caster-types safer. He fits in any gaps you might have without being overwhelming at it. He knows just enough to be useful, without having to be your all-purpose skillmonkey. Heck, if you want to make one that's more healing-oriented, I was never particularly fond of the Songhealer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/songhealer) archetype, but it's a thing.

You won't be the big blaster, the big crusher, the big tank, but you can do some controlling, some buffing and debuffing, and make things just a bit easier for the party.

You know, until they get the hang of it. Then you can kill off your PC dramatically, and inspire them to vengeance.

Actually, both when I DM and when I'm a player, I'm not allowed to play a bard. Something about ruling the world at level 6 with hordes of archers with flaming arrows and an alphorn.

[Vhaidara]

Actually, both when I DM and when I'm a player, I'm not allowed to play a bard. Something about ruling the world at level 6 with hordes of archers with flaming arrows and an alphorn.

I have done this. It is really funny to give an army (military campaign) +12 to hit and damage. Especially when your army is the "larger, untrained army" and suddenly they can 1v1 members of the "smaller, better trained army" that they outnumber 4 to 1.

[Elricaltovilla]

I worry that bards have too much socially oriented stuff, which tends to lead to them being spotlight stealers... although if there's some archetype that can fix that they'd gain a lot of appeal as far as I'm concerned.

[EyethatBinds]

The best class for DMPC is Don't.

Make an NPC one level lower than the lowest member of the party.

[Tvtyrant]

Play a Healer if you are trying not to step on anyone. If there is already a Cleric in the party then play a Dragon Shaman and use auras to make your party slightly better.

[Vhaidara]

The best class for DMPC is Don't.

Make an NPC one level lower than the lowest member of the party.

DMPCs can be done well, especially since this is a matter of supporting new players, which is why I recommended 2 defensive classes ("I'll keep them off you"), a healer (You can stay in!"), and a full support character ("I'll lend a hand!")


Play a Healer if you are trying not to step on anyone. If there is already a Cleric in the party then play a Dragon Shaman and use auras to make your party slightly better.

Pathfinder

[Tvtyrant]

Pathfinder

Spend two seconds converting them and then play one? The whole reason Pathfinder is what it is was backwards compatibility afterall.

[Elricaltovilla]

The best class for DMPC is Don't.

Make an NPC one level lower than the lowest member of the party.


Play a Healer if you are trying not to step on anyone. If there is already a Cleric in the party then play a Dragon Shaman and use auras to make your party slightly better.

Its a real pet peeve of mine when people don't read the OP. I know DMPC is bad. I said that, and frankly I see no difference between "DMPC" and "NPC who follows the party around." I still need someone to fill what I guarantee will be an empty space in the party, since I don't want to overload my friends with Gestalt or other ways of shoring up small party weaknesses for an AP designed for 2x the number of PCs I'll have. And there's a tag on the thread, it reads "Pathfinder." Healer isn't an option.

Again, pet peeve. Sorry if I come off as a bit rude.

[GreyBlack]

I have done this. It is really funny to give an army (military campaign) +12 to hit and damage. Especially when your army is the "larger, untrained army" and suddenly they can 1v1 members of the "smaller, better trained army" that they outnumber 4 to 1.

Step 1. Dragonfire Inspiration is your friend. Trade your normal inspire courage for +1d6 per bonus point, then combine with Words of Creation.

Step 2. Convince your DM to let you take leadership.

Step 3. Have DM ban you from a class for life.

[Jormengand]

Adept. You can't go too far wrong with an Adept. Not going to overshadow PCs? Check. Helps the PCs? Check. Unlikely to steal the PCs' important kills? Check. Even if the Adept is a level or three above them, they're still probably better at what they do than the Adept is at what he does. And of course, what he does is making them better at what they do anyway.

Or a truenamer? Not even joking, because the truenamer's almost-unlimited healing, buffs to attack and defence, ignoring cover, reducing saves by 5 with no save, increasing CL by 2, permanent ability to attack incorporeal opponents, and energy resistance/immunity, time screwery, and tons of other stuff isn't great for the truenamer, but is amazing for the wizard chucking empowered silent CL+2 spells or the fighter shooting someone three miles away through a wall without an action.

[Vhaidara]

Step 1. Dragonfire Inspiration is your friend. Trade your normal inspire courage for +1d6 per bonus point, then combine with Words of Creation.

That's how I got to +12 at level 8. And I actually prefer the accuracy, since my entire group could convert to damage through PA, Rapid Shot, or TWF (and it made the mooks guaranteed hits)


Step 2. Convince your DM to let you take leadership.

Was already taking it, got the army separately


Step 3. Have DM ban you from a class for life.

Or
3. Have an awesome GM who encourages you to play bard more.

[Elricaltovilla]

Adept. You can't go too far wrong with an Adept. Not going to overshadow PCs? Check. Helps the PCs? Check. Unlikely to steal the PCs' important kills? Check. Even if the Adept is a level or three above them, they're still probably better at what they do than the Adept is at what he does. And of course, what he does is making them better at what they do anyway.

Or a truenamer? Not even joking, because the truenamer's almost-unlimited healing, buffs to attack and defence, ignoring cover, reducing saves by 5 with no save, increasing CL by 2, permanent ability to attack incorporeal opponents, and energy resistance/immunity, time screwery, and tons of other stuff isn't great for the truenamer, but is amazing for the wizard chucking empowered silent CL+2 spells or the fighter shooting someone three miles away through a wall without an action.

Path. Finder. No Truenamer.

[jaydubs]

I worry that bards have too much socially oriented stuff, which tends to lead to them being spotlight stealers... although if there's some archetype that can fix that they'd gain a lot of appeal as far as I'm concerned.

Just because bards can be great at social stuff, doesn't mean they have to be. There are several archetypes that lose access to versatile performance (which is what bards usually use to get tons of skill points in social skills). And there's nothing stopping you from sinking points into non-social skills instead. Just make it skill, knowledge, and buff focused, instead of social focused.

[Jormengand]

Path. Finder. No Truenamer.

Fair enough. Adept, then, although because uh, you're the DM, pesky things like "This class doesn't actually exist" shouldn't be a barrier to you - if the players complain, say they're allowed to play truenamers if they want to and they'll promptly shut up about it.

But anyway, PF adept works just as well as the 3.5 one.

[GreyBlack]

Archaeologist bard. Trapfinding, spellcasting, but not strictly OP.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In addition to the previously mentioned wisdom about defensive/support characters, I'd add on "passive." The DMPC's turn should take as little time as possible, and-- especially for new players-- involve as few moving parts as possible. You don't want to take up much table time in combat, and you don't want your players to go "huh? How does that work?" Even if it benefits them-- transparency should be key here, to prevent subconcious "well, the DM is just doing what he wants" feelings. Does Pathfinder have something like the Marshal? Or if you do go Bard, focus on the songs and Knowledge skills, while letting your spells fade into the background with healing-type stuff. Basically, you don't ever want the players to look at your guy and thing "wow, he's cool."

[Ssalarn]

***Silver Crane/Golden Lion Warder: throws out healing, protects his allies, and grants people more actions.

This was going to be my first suggestion as well; it gives you some healing, support, and martial competence while leaving lots of room for the "real" players to do their respective things.

Normally I'd say bard, but you want to avoid the DMPC being the party face. Cavalier could be good; buffing, coordination, and martial competence, and Kingmaker's a solid AP for the cavvy.

Buff-focused Life Oracle would be good too. Reluctant players almost never want to play the healer, and Life Oracle is so good at healing that it won't take much brain power away from the rest of your duties as DM.

Tactician and Vitalist would also be good choices.

Grod mentioned the 3.5 Marshal; my class from Amora Games, the Battlelord, fills that niche with lots of passive aura-based buffing abilities. Link to the Liber Influxus .pdf is in my signature line below (and there's actually a ton of other cool classes in their too).

[Shining Wrath]

Cleric with a vow of silence.

[Tvtyrant]

And there's a tag on the thread, it reads "Pathfinder." Healer isn't an option.

Again, pet peeve. Sorry if I come off as a bit rude.

I did read the OP. Pathfinder and 3.5 are near identical, so not using one when you are running the other makes no sense to me. As it is I can not help you, but good luck.

[jaydubs]

Oh, and you can even stick the inspire courage buffy goodness of a bard on a cleric, by taking the evangelist archetype. Then take the heroism domain. A great support character if no one wants to play a cleric or bard.

[GreyBlack]

This was going to be my first suggestion as well; it gives you some healing, support, and martial competence while leaving lots of room for the "real" players to do their respective things.

Normally I'd say bard, but you want to avoid the DMPC being the party face. Cavalier could be good; buffing, coordination, and martial competence, and Kingmaker's a solid AP for the cavvy.

Buff-focused Life Oracle would be good too. Reluctant players almost never want to play the healer, and Life Oracle is so good at healing that it won't take much brain power away from the rest of your duties as DM.

Tactician and Vitalist would also be good choices.

Grod mentioned the 3.5 Marshal; my class from Amora Games, the Battlelord, fills that niche with lots of passive aura-based buffing abilities. Link to the Liber Influxus .pdf is in my signature line below (and there's actually a ton of other cool classes in their too).

Bard doesn't have to be the party face. The bard could just be the guy in the corner singing songs and collecting plot hooks in the bar and have no skills negotiating and such.

[Feint's End]

I support the idea of picking a Tactician. It's a better support than bard without the necessity to be very social (you still want a 14 in charisma though).

You'll offer lots of buffs to your players, you can cc and you give them telepathy to talk to each other.

Very good to make other people shine without stealing the social spotlight.

On a related note Vitalist works great too. Just play as the calm supporter sitting in the back ranks and keeping the group alive. On top of it you'll be able to swap your powers daily (and they are limited) so you don't have to put that much thought into planing the Character. Just go Vitalist 1-20 and you are solid.

I generally try to avoid DMPCs. Not because I can't handle playing them as a second line character (I treat them like NPCs really) but rather because it takes too much to handle them in combat on top of all the other things going on. It's just a pain to do.

[Elricaltovilla]

I did read the OP. Pathfinder and 3.5 are near identical, so not using one when you are running the other makes no sense to me. As it is I can not help you, but good luck.

How does "Because all pathfinder materials are available for free on the internet with minimal searching, and I don't have the time or money necessary to track down an out of print book for one class that I'm using in a campaign when I have so much other more important stuff to do for it, like running it." sound as a reason?

[Ssalarn]

The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the Tactician or Vitalist. They have great abilities that help increase the party's coordination, and set up is fairly simple. Vitalist is probably best due to the whole reluctant players' aversion to healers thing I mentioned earlier.

[JusticeZero]

Items. Give them lots of items. CLW wands, special purpose scrolls, etc.

[Feint's End]

The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the Tactician or Vitalist. They have great abilities that help increase the party's coordination, and set up is fairly simple. Vitalist is probably best due to the whole reluctant players' aversion to healers thing I mentioned earlier.

Yeah I came to a similar conclussion. Bonus points for Vitalist ist that you have to put less effort into actually building the character due to being able to swap powers around. This way you can change pretty much every day. You also don't really have any must have feats (well psicrystal is nice) so that's a boon too. Overall probably the best choice both for support, healing and effort to build and play.

[Aegis013]

...vow of silence.

Plenty of good class recommendations, so I'd like to second this or a variation thereof. Having a DMPC on hand with all the knowledge/answers/guidance tends to cut away at immersion for me. I want to investigate something in game rather than have a DMPC spoon-feed info to the group.

I also recommend just having various NPCs that are available to be recruited and just assign the DMPC stat block to the recruited character. It gives the players additional illusion of choice and keeps them feeling in charge.

Just food for thought.

[jjcrpntr]

My players had a pretty long time with a range npc that was probably the closest thing to a dmpc I've run. He was great. Could help in combat but wasn't op, had plenty of skills so he could help there but if the party was all there he wasn't really needed.

[Oddman80]

Ok, this will probably get shot down, as they are actually quite powerful, so bear with me... What about an Oracle?
Specifically, a Dual Cursed (Merciful Child) Lunar Mystery Oracle. You bring to the table the excellent "Misfortune" reroll to aid the party when the roll poorly, or when an enemy crits against them... You must aid/heal them during battle, and you get the lay on hands/mercy abilities of a paladin. But you are just a child... Let them think of you as the quintessential superhero's child sidekick. Let them give you a demeaning nick name. Your character pretty much just stays out of the way, while still giving the party the best gift of all, life and second chances...

For your lunar revelation, you can take something random (moonlight bridge) or - if you are concerned they may need help in combat - primal companion. Players tend not to have the same distaste for animal companions as they do for DMPCs.
Maybe it's because they can't talk... Or that they feel like they are a pet to the whole party... But give them a bear or a tiger to act as flanking buddy to party members, or personal bodyguard to a squishy caster....

[Vhaidara]

I also recommend just having various NPCs that are available to be recruited and just assign the DMPC stat block to the recruited character. It gives the players additional illusion of choice and keeps them feeling in charge.

Eh, with Kingmaker it's a matter of a country literally going "Hey, this area is full of bandits and we're sick of it. Anyone who wants to volunteer to clear them out, come get a charter and you can keep the land." So the GMPC would just be another person looking to set up a little place to call his own. Probably joined up with the party because they could use a healer/some extra muscle

[P.F.]

Eh, with Kingmaker it's a matter of a country literally going "Hey, this area is full of bandits and we're sick of it. Anyone who wants to volunteer to clear them out, come get a charter and you can keep the land." So the GMPC would just be another person looking to set up a little place to call his own. Probably joined up with the party because they could use a healer/some extra muscle

I might still recommend the Party Narrator Exposition Bard (like a regular bard, but takes all 10 knowledge skills and none of the social skills). I like them as DMPC's because they change the question from "do we know anything about..." to "what do we know about..." (these monsters/this area/the mayor/whatever). For a small party they can really help fill in the gaps as each PC is likely to have 1 or 2 Knowledge skills at best. And no matter who rolls the knowledge check, I as the DM am usually going to do the exposition anyway.

And of course they don't have to have all the most game-breaking options; although I do like the Pathfinder Chronicler's Deep Pockets ability, which can be utilized by the party, as in, "Hey Narrator, did we remember to bring any...." This allows them the opportunity to use their creativity to use whatever sort of mundane item can reasonably be carried in a backpack without having to know that they need it ahead of time. I as the DM don't have to suggest or use it, my DMPC just produces the item and hands it over.

[Incorrect]

The Kingmaker campaign is full of NPCs that can help the party. The players will probably recruit some of them to help run the country anyway. Just have the npcs offer to help in clearing out bandits and other nasties.

Note that "x uses per day" things (spell casting, smites, certain items) are really good in kingmaker, as you usually only have one fight per day. Consider giving your players things like this if they need more power.

[Coidzor]

I'd say prepare an Adept with Channel Energy, maybe Lay on Hands, too, depending upon their choices, maybe buffing its spells per day by 1 more spell per day per level; an Expert, potentially with trapfinding, set up to cover the holes that the PCs don't cover in the skills system; and a Warrior, potentially upgrading to Fighter or Cavalier if none of your players want to take on a primary melee combatant/damage-dealer role.

As a baseline, anyway. Depending upon how many of your potentials end up playing and what they end up playing, cut and tweak from there.

As was mentioned, you may want to play up the potential NPC allies in the AP itself as well.

[DarkOne-Rob]

It is a bit off topic, but I feel compelled to mention that perhaps opening up the PC creation options as widely as you have and running the AP in which Mythic alternate rule systems are introduced is a bad idea for a bunch of first time players.

I have played and DMed a lot and with a large variety of groups - controlling the options so that people don't get overwhelmed with the system complexity is really worthwhile in a group that includes new players. Unless they are really interested in learning about all the options and want to do that specific AP, you might consider something else, just to help them get their feet wet.

As for a DMPC I think the biggest goal worth mentioning is making sure your PC doesn't take control of the narrative. That isn't a mechanical issue as much as an RP one, but it sure is important. Certain classes tend to take backstage pretty easily when it comes to decision making and NPC interaction (non-face, no strongly held belief systems, mechanics focused on your allies and not the NPCs). Think "vanilla" or "tasteless" and run with it from there. Classes that stand out to me are a bland-philosophy worshipping cleric (with the healing domain and one other), a low-Charisma (14 at tops) bard, or to give the PCs a wand of Cure Light Wounds and not have a DMPC at all.

[Vhaidara]

It is a bit off topic, but I feel compelled to mention that perhaps opening up the PC creation options as widely as you have and running the AP in which Mythic alternate rule systems are introduced is a bad idea for a bunch of first time players.

I actually disagree. I think players should be introduced to DnD with ToB/PoW. The only reason people think those books are overpowered is because they compare them to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

[goto124]

I'd say prepare an Adept with Channel Energy, maybe Lay on Hands, too

DMPC: Lay on Hands.
P1: Stop touching me!
DMPC: What, you don't want any more heals?
P1: Stop. Touching. ME!

Looks like an allies-focused DMPC can help foster relationships (not just romantic/sexual ones) between the DM and the players.

[prufock]

When you absolutely, positively have to have a DMPC, I usually recommend a Bard.
Seconded. Buffing and healing/recovery are what you want in an NPC. Bard fits these very well. Plus he can write songs about the exploits of the heroes.

I know OP said that they tend to be social, but that doesn't need to be the case. Don't train any social skills. Make him a scribe, penning epic songs about the PCs, singing to inspire them to greater heroics, using downplayed tactics, passive spells, and so on. He's a great support character.

I also agree with Adept, which can supply much the same way, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree.

[Elricaltovilla]

I actually disagree. I think players should be introduced to DnD with ToB/PoW. The only reason people think those books are overpowered is because they compare them to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

This is something I agree with very strongly. I'm very involved in Path of War, and I've taught it or shown it to most of my friends who already play Pathfinder, and haven't heard a bad word about it.

My friends are used to videogames like Dragon Age, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda and the Elder Scrolls. In games like that, discreet abilities with cooldowns are a part of the game for all the classes. That's what they do, whether warrior, mage or rogue and I think that Path of War does an excellent job of imitating a system they're already familiar with. I'll be there to guide them every step of the way, and I've worked hard to make myself something of an expert on the subject.

[Ssalarn]

I actually disagree. I think players should be introduced to DnD with ToB/PoW. The only reason people think those books are overpowered is because they compare them to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

Pathfinder Paladin actually roxxorz teh boxxorz pretty hard. If you think that Path classes are OP compared to the pally you've either got one of those GMs who goes around actively looking for ways to screw with the paladin, or you're doing Path wrong. Archetyped monks are pretty slick too, once you get to combining Qinggong with Zen Archer or Sensei, or grapple-win Tetorii, etc. It's that "CRB only, martials are the best" stuff that skews with perceptions.

Anyways, I'd generally much rather bring someone who wants to play a "Fighter" in as a Warlord or Warder than an actual Fighter since new players tend to be like "WTFhowdoIeven..." when they try build to a concept from that class.

Double-check the kingdom building rules from Ultimate Campaign while you're prepping though; they smoothed out and enhanced the system from Kingmaker (although they also changed brothels to "dance halls"...).

[Vhaidara]

I was specifically referring to the floors of power. I don't think you can deny that unoptimized fighter, monk, or pally really compete even with an unoptimized PoW equivalent.

Then you get the poor saps like me who love Dex based builds like double daggers on a full BAB class. Which is worthless without deadly agility.

[Elricaltovilla]

To bring this more back on topic, my top five classes are probably going to be bard, cleric, tactician, vitalist and oracle. I know the group is going to need healing, there's a good chance they'll need buffs, and while I don't anticipate needing too many skills (I'm pointing the one person who kinda knows what she wants towards Ranger or Stalker) it'll be nice for the party to have them as a backup. I can always adjust as necessary once they sit down with me to build their characters.

[dascarletm]

I have to chime in on bard.

Role-playing wise, he is a skald (not the hybrid class). He is searching for epic deeds to witness so that he may tell the tale again. You could even have the DMPC recount what has been happening after session breaks to jog everyone's memory. This character seeks not the glory for themselves, witnessing it is all they need.

In-game wise, when the players need to know something the DMPC can tell a story (which may or may not be horribly embellished). It shouldn't provide answers, but clues on where to go next.

Pick up all the support-type spells for spells know. Get a wide array, thus the bard isn't too powerful in one aspect, but can help out with anything.

I agree that using PoW and psionics is great, but I wouldn't make the DMPC one. Why? Well, as others have said, you want his turn to take less-than 10 seconds on average. Keep the newbies rollin' through combat and don't let it get bogged down.

[stack]

Really can't beat the vitalist for healing, buffing, and handling the annoying requirements of the system regarding status removal and ability damage. Either you need a convenient way to fix them, cut them entirely, or players get annoyed. Waiting for natural healing is boring.

Also, vigor is a great way to soften the learning curve.

[Seerow]

Two suggestions, of which you will probably like neither:

1) Don't make a decision at all. Give both players a cohort for free. Let them pick what they want. Since they're new, offer to run the cohort for them while they get into the swing of things, but let them usurp control of the cohort whenever they begin feeling comfortable with things.

This is the way we typically handled it when groups got too small to form a proper party, having each player get leadership or just running two characters.

2) Expert. Yes, the NPC class. Again running from personal experience, I've had an Expert NPC become an integral part of the party by shoring up gaps in the party's skill repertoire. At the very least it's pretty useful for low level where another warm body even without class features can be an asset to the party in combat, and skills are still fairly useful.

Possibly consider running an Expert and a Warrior (for a four man party) until the players are comfortable enough with the system to take on a cohort. Or Expert and Healer (another suggestion from above that I liked).

[Barstro]

Since they're new, offer to run the cohort for them while they get into the swing of things, but let them usurp control of the cohort whenever they begin feeling comfortable with things.

I respectfully disagree with this idea. First-time roleplaying is hard enough working with the mechanics of fighting and trying to wrap your head around in-game puzzles. Trying to include actually playing a role is difficult.

Using a DMPC as healbot, buffer, or in-game way to give the PCs and players knowledge is a great way to speed things up and keep people safe while they learn. Nobody (few, at least) wants to sit there confused for half an hour trying to figure out what knowledge roll to make or who to talk to in order to get the next plot hook. Using a DMPC gets all that information out when the DM thinks is necessary and the DMPC can go find other things to do when the players get better at the game.

I agree that Bard would fit the bill nicely.

[DarkOne-Rob]

I actually disagree. I think players should be introduced to DnD with ToB/PoW. The only reason people think those books are overpowered is because they compare them to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.
My point has nothing to do with OP or not. It has to do with overwhelming new players with too many options. There is a term for this, but it is summed up as paralysis due to an overwhelming amount of choices.

I haven't used the Path of War material, but was a BIG fan of Tome of Battle in the 3.5 days. However, when introducing new people to that game, I didn't open up every base class to which I had access (that's over 30, I believe). I showed them the basics, helped them make something competent, and got them playing. That is what I am advocating.

Anyway, it is off topic - just my 2 cp.

[Ssalarn]

My point has nothing to do with OP or not. It has to do with overwhelming new players with too many options. There is a term for this, but it is summed up as paralysis due to an overwhelming amount of choices.

I haven't used the Path of War material, but was a BIG fan of Tome of Battle in the 3.5 days. However, when introducing new people to that game, I didn't open up every base class to which I had access (that's over 30, I believe). I showed them the basics, helped them make something competent, and got them playing. That is what I am advocating.

Anyway, it is off topic - just my 2 cp.

It is a little hard to draw that line between overwhelming a new player with options and accidentally leading them into a class by not giving them enough choices and information to make an informed decision. My most recent game I had two new players who had never gamed before, and one player who had played an older edition but wasn't completely familiar with the new stuff and we had an all day character planning/building day as the party assembled itself where I laid out literally all the options. I don't think I'll be doing that again, mainly because it's just too much to absorb at once. Next time I'll go back to my usual "think of a concept and I'll tell you a few different ways to get there" approach.

[Kaidinah]

I have to chime in on bard.

Role-playing wise, he is a skald (not the hybrid class). He is searching for epic deeds to witness so that he may tell the tale again. You could even have the DMPC recount what has been happening after session breaks to jog everyone's memory. This character seeks not the glory for themselves, witnessing it is all they need.

In-game wise, when the players need to know something the DMPC can tell a story (which may or may not be horribly embellished). It shouldn't provide answers, but clues on where to go next.

Pick up all the support-type spells for spells know. Get a wide array, thus the bard isn't too powerful in one aspect, but can help out with anything.

I agree that using PoW and psionics is great, but I wouldn't make the DMPC one. Why? Well, as others have said, you want his turn to take less-than 10 seconds on average. Keep the newbies rollin' through combat and don't let it get bogged down.
Also, I think a Skald-like character may be less likely to steal the spotlight if roleplayed as a storyteller. Sure, he can out-talk most PCs. But why would he want to? He wants to tell their story. He'll have a hard time doing that if he becomes the main character. As a story-teller, he should want to witness their successes, instead of making the situation his own success.

[dascarletm]

Also, I think a Skald-like character may be less likely to steal the spotlight if roleplayed as a storyteller. Sure, he can out-talk most PCs. But why would he want to? He wants to tell their story. He'll have a hard time doing that if he becomes the main character. As a story-teller, he should want to witness their successes, instead of making the situation his own success.

Exactly! Even a failure or two is good for a story. "Of course I could try to talk the mayor into granting us access to his personal library, but it would be more exciting for the story to see what So-and-so does when facing this obstacle."

Can't let them die horribly (unless a getting a resurrection would make for a good story arch....)

[Yahzi]

Yes, yes. I know the whole thing about DMPCs being bad
Apparently not because you are still trying to use one. Why would you taint their first game experience with one of the worst techniques?

I suggest the class you provide is: magic item. Make an intelligent item or 3 and hand them off to your players. Having a nagging NPC telling you what you're supposed to do is fine when the player is perfectly empowered to ignore it. Having a DMPC who is more powerful expressly to bail them out when they screw up can only lead to disengaged, bored players who then do silly things because nothing they do really matters.

[P.F.]

Apparently not because you are still trying to use one. Why would you taint their first game experience with one of the worst techniques?

I suggest the class you provide is: magic item. Make an intelligent item or 3 and hand them off to your players. Having a nagging NPC telling you what you're supposed to do is fine when the player is perfectly empowered to ignore it. Having a DMPC who is more powerful expressly to bail them out when they screw up can only lead to disengaged, bored players who then do silly things because nothing they do really matters.

There is no rule requiring a DMPC to be more powerful than the PC's, nor is there any constraint requiring him or her to nag, tell the players what to do, or bail them out when they screw up. A good DMPC is a party resource who, in this case, can stand in for a missing character without taking the place of a player.

And if a DMPC is an overpowered nag-hag who shoulds on the party, I shudder to think what intelligent magic items would do to the players, even with relatively low ego an intelligent item is by definition opinionated and wants to be in charge. They might make the party more powerful but they would still fail to give the party the benefit another character would provide.

[Thy Dungeonman]

I'm not familiar with the DMPC complaints. What's the shorthand, not overly crabby version of the reasons against? I'm open to hear that so coming hostile is totally unnecessary. OK, I see other DMPC users have brought the hostile. NM.

My only problem running them over the years is that I'm still being a DM enough that the character becomes as minimally played as any other NPC. That isn't a big deal, only a slight disappointment for me if I wanted to play them more. Doesn't impact the players at all at my tables, I imagine the grief is because of types of experiences that didn't happen with us.

As for class decisions, there have been enough replies here I'm sure they have it covered. I'm tempted to derail into what the laser precision optimizers of the forum would consider an ideal party altogether, because I haven't seen that spelled out in the short time I've been here.

Aside from the common opinion a solo Wizard is a party unto their self.

[Thy Dungeonman]

My dude says DMPCs are also useful because many of the PCs we've had were profoundly bad at self-motivation. Basically, having someone to say, "Maybe ya might wanna adventure, fellas? Just, ya know, as a thing to do?"

[Seerow]

My dude says DMPCs are also useful because many of the PCs we've had were profoundly bad at self-motivation. Basically, having someone to say, "Maybe ya might wanna adventure, fellas? Just, ya know, as a thing to do?"

I am having a hard time imagining a worse reason to have a DMPC in a game.

And an even harder time imagining any group who got together to play D&D, yet not a single player in the group had motivation to have their characters want to do anything. Even something as simple as "Let's go to the tavern and hang around until a plot hook gets thrown at us" would obviate this reasoning for a DMPC.

[Thy Dungeonman]

"an even harder time imagining any group who got together to play D&D, yet not a single player in the group had motivation to have their characters want to do anything..."

Believe me, they exist. It's hard for me to imagine their mindset as well. They do want to play but they need to have their hands held to move toward any given plot. It's like, their characters have little motivation except chit-chatting with each other (in character, at that), but still expect someone to tell them what to do - without coming off as dictatorial.

Yeah, it can be accomplished with NPCs, but a DMPC has the advantage of staying with them during travel.

[Red Fel]

Yeah, it can be accomplished with NPCs, but a DMPC has the advantage of staying with them during travel.

There's a very fine line between motivating the PCs to undertake a quest, and motivating them to stay on it. There's also a very fine line between motivating the PCs to stay on the quest, and darting about their heads squeaking, "Hey! Listen!"

I'm not saying that using a DMPC for this is always bad, in part because I hate generalizations and in part because I don't like telling people they're engaged in badwrongfun. I am saying, however, that it's all too easy for that kind of DMPC to transition from gentle hand-holding to "Get back on the train, this rail's taking us all the way to Sigil! Woo woo!"

[Jigawatts]

Life Oracle.

[137beth]

You could try making the DMPC and npc class. Since you are using PoW, fighter and rogue are both excellent NPC classes. Or adept, since they can use healing spells.

[Thy Dungeonman]

Red Fel - You're quite right. My players aren't total zombies, they just need an answer to "Where do we go George?" intermittently. I think the relative success I've had with DMPCs not confronting players is from running them like any NPC. They're just an NPC with similar power who helps with the adventuring thing.

And I think the similar power thing doesn't bother them because no one in the game is an optimizer and they're happy to have any effect on combat & plot events at all. We take instances of overshadowing on a case by case basis & come up with workarounds, and the DMPC in the current Pathfinder thing hasn't brought any complaints yet. The only tough situation so far was resolved by getting the fighter/rogue a nice ranged weapon for situations where toe-to-toe was bad.

[Yahzi]

There is no rule requiring a DMPC to be more powerful than the PC's
A DMPC who works for the PCs and is under their control (i.e. he can be dismissed from the party) is just an NPC. This seems to be a perpetual point of confusion. There is, of course, nothing wrong with NPCs who work with or for the party; nor is there anything wrong with a higher level NPC who bosses the party around. Yet none of these are DMPCs. A DMPC is a specific creature, separate from a regular NPC. It is also a bad creature that should never, ever appear in a game. I am sensitive to the notion that no one should call badwrongfun, but DMPCs are the one exception to this rule.

Your comments basically describe an NPC. They can hire (or be assigned) a healer, scout, adviser, meat-shield, etc. But these are just NPCs; their is no more DM about them than any other NPC. It is specifically the DM part I am objecting to.


I shudder to think what intelligent magic items would do to the players
Intelligent magic items are supposed to be annoying. :smallbiggrin: They are also a classic way for the DM to mess with the characters and interject his own agenda (thanks, Elrond!). If you want to make them more powerful while still having a voice to argue them back onto the rails, the intelligent item is a great choice.


They might make the party more powerful but they would still fail to give the party the benefit another character would provide.
Er, well, that was the point. If the party needs help, give them help; but don't give them a better party-member than any of them can be.

[Nightcanon]

I have to chime in on bard.

Role-playing wise, he is a skald (not the hybrid class). He is searching for epic deeds to witness so that he may tell the tale again. You could even have the DMPC recount what has been happening after session breaks to jog everyone's memory. This character seeks not the glory for themselves, witnessing it is all they need.

In-game wise, when the players need to know something the DMPC can tell a story (which may or may not be horribly embellished). It shouldn't provide answers, but clues on where to go next.

Pick up all the support-type spells for spells know. Get a wide array, thus the bard isn't too powerful in one aspect, but can help out with anything.

I agree that using PoW and psionics is great, but I wouldn't make the DMPC one. Why? Well, as others have said, you want his turn to take less-than 10 seconds on average. Keep the newbies rollin' through combat and don't let it get bogged down.

I'd agree with this. In addition, the heroic tales of the party's bravery could be used to give the party's leader/face character a circumstance bonus on social skill checks, to pass the benefits of having a bard in the party on to a PC.

[stack]

One more point for the vitalist - at high enough levels, the NPC healer wouldn't have to be WITH the party. At even higher levels, he wouldn't need to even be on the same plane. Harder to interfere, still able to buff and heal. :smallcool:

[P.F.]

A DMPC who works for the PCs and is under their control (i.e. he can be dismissed from the party) is just an NPC. This seems to be a perpetual point of confusion. There is, of course, nothing wrong with NPCs who work with or for the party; nor is there anything wrong with a higher level NPC who bosses the party around. Yet none of these are DMPCs. A DMPC is a specific creature, separate from a regular NPC. It is also a bad creature that should never, ever appear in a game. I am sensitive to the notion that no one should call badwrongfun, but DMPCs are the one exception to this rule.

I suppose we have a platform mis-match then. Your definition of a DMPC is based on something about being "better than the other players can be." Is this definition construed from the "PC's as Spectators" from the DMG? Although that passage does reference a DMPC, it does not, as I recall, define it. Is there a R.A.W. definition of the DMPC, perhaps in the DMGII or somesuch, that I am unaware of?

My personal definition is based on party rôle, in which a DMPC is differentiated from other NPC's by having the same sets of privileges and responsibilities as a Player-Character, but being controlled by the DM. Like an NPC, the DMPC is managed by the DM, and serves specific game-mechanic and story-telling functions. Unlike an NPC, the DMPC uses the same stats and level requirements as other Player-Characters, is bound to the adventuring party in the same manner as the other PC's, and is neither subordinate nor superior to the other players.

In short, a DMPC is exactly like the PC's, but controlled by the DM rather than a player. A bad DMPC is one who mary-sue's all over the campaign, upstages or sidelines the party, marginalizes the players, and abuses the DM's discretion in awarding treasure, approving houserules, &c, &c. A good DMPC is one who fills the rôle of a party member without foisting extra work off on the players.


Intelligent magic items are supposed to be annoying. :smallbiggrin: They are also a classic way for the DM to mess with the characters and interject his own agenda (thanks, Elrond!). If you want to make them more powerful while still having a voice to argue them back onto the rails, the intelligent item is a great choice.

Well, I can't disagree with that assessment.:smallwink: