One player, two characters

[Nirhael]

Exactly as the title says, I'm sure someone must've tried that, how was it?

I spent 15 minutes writing up this post and then realized it turned into a block of text due to all the context and other details, decided to chop it all and simplify:

1. I will have three players (newbies) and, probably, a DMPC (players requested one, yes I know what to do/not do).
2. Players will get Leadership as a free feat at level 6 (or whenever they obtain the first MacGuffin).
3. Players will need to defend a tower built to house the MacGuffin while hunting other MacGuffins (this is where the second characters come in, they'll be using the cohorts from Leadership, additional followers will be useful for defending).

Depending on how much they like their cohorts, I might waive the XP clause from Leadership and let them level as normal, up to their main character's level. Cohorts will have standard WBL, which means the players could, in theory, stack a single character with more goods than it could have normally (doubt it'll happen but who knows).

Personally, I don't really see any major issue with playing two characters other than wrecking WBL somewhat and potentially trivializing encounters if they bring both teams together since I'll be designing those with one party in mind, though that'd be a terrible idea for many reasons. This is pretty darn important though so I'm posting it up and hoping to see this dissected a bit just in case I'm missing something big.

Thanks in advance!

[JW86]

In my experience as a player having been in a campaign where we each ran two characters..

Pros - it allows the player to be creative - with builds, characters, roleplay, you have scope for it all...

Con - Roleplaying - it can be difficult to inhabit the minds of two differently minded/aligned characters, making roleplay less immersive.. more emphasis on "player", less on "PC"

Con - Ridiculously long combat - more from my specific campaign, perhaps.. 8-12PCs at Level 16+ fighting an entire Beholder cult did become a bit tedious...!

Pro - tactical planning - which characters go where to achieve what goal - was kind of enjoyable.

Just a few rushed snippets from my experience. It was generally enjoyable.

[endur]

3. Players will need to defend a tower built to house the MacGuffin while hunting other MacGuffins (this is where the second characters come in, they'll be using the cohorts from Leadership, additional followers will be useful for defending).

If both characters adventure together, it hurts role-playing. i.e. if I'm a player and I'm role-playing both a husband and a wife, that is not as effective as when two separate players role-play the husband and wife.

If the characters adventure seperately, i.e. two adventuring parties (Justice League and Teen Titans), then that's fine ... its just like playing a different game. No impact on role playing then.

[M Placeholder]

I was in a PF game where one of the players was a Dwarf Druid, and the DM let him have a Spinosaurus as an animal companion, and did nothing to nerf the shapeshifting ability. When his dino wasn't eating everything, the player was eating the fourth wall.

It was not fun in the slightest. My advice is don't allow it.

[atemu1234]

I was in a PF game where one of the players was a Dwarf Druid, and the DM let him have a Spinosaurus as an animal companion, and did nothing to nerf the shapeshifting ability. When his dino wasn't eating everything, the player was eating the fourth wall.

It was not fun in the slightest. My advice is don't allow it.
Well, breaking the fourth wall is its own issue.

[Nirhael]

Oh wow, I've been working too much on mechanics lately and completely forgot about the potential role-playing issues, I'll have to think about what could be done and discuss with my players, thanks for pointing this out!


I was in a PF game where one of the players was a Dwarf Druid, and the DM let him have a Spinosaurus as an animal companion, and did nothing to nerf the shapeshifting ability. When his dino wasn't eating everything, the player was eating the fourth wall.

It was not fun in the slightest. My advice is don't allow it.
I'm sorry but I really don't see the relevance between this and my situation. Unless the Spinosaurus was the one shapeshifting, that just seems like a standard Druid with an unconventional pet. :smallconfused:

[Kol Korran]

I have never tried it, and my initial concern was what ednur mentioned- if the two characters are in the same group, since that may indeed hurt roleplay. But this does not seem the case.

Thinking about it though, there may be another snag: What if the players don't want the second group, or worse- some do, and some don't? This can be either because they don't like that game premise (protecting the McGuffin may seem repetitive maybe), or maybe they don't like the delays in "the main story" (Forgoing that to play the "minor story"), or maybe they just want to focus on those characters, and so on... Switching between the two stories comes very close to playign two different games, and thus each game gets less play time, which maybe not all would like.

I suggest to bring it up with the party near or when it happens, but don't force things on them. This is aa big change. You need to see if all are on board.

That said, this sounds interesting, especially if the party members switch on different missions, to create different compositions. I'd love to hear how it went! :smallsmile:

[M Placeholder]

I'm sorry but I really don't see the relevance between this and my situation. Unless the Spinosaurus was the one shapeshifting, that just seems like a standard Druid with an unconventional pet. :smallconfused:

Basically, the guy was playing two characters, due to the sheer power of the Spinosaurus, and every encounter was designed around him having a Spinosaurus.

I have to say though, there was not much role playing in the group (Except for me), it was more Roll playing, which is why I left.

[atemu1234]

Basically, the guy was playing two characters, due to the sheer power of the Spinosaurus, and every encounter was designed around him having a Spinosaurus.

I have to say though, there was not much role playing in the group (Except for me), it was more Roll playing, which is why I left.

Also, isn't a Spinosaurus not a normal animal companion, by the rules? Can a druid even get one?

[Nirhael]

I have never tried it, and my initial concern was what ednur mentioned- if the two characters are in the same group, since that may indeed hurt roleplay. But this does not seem the case.

Thinking about it though, there may be another snag: What if the players don't want the second group, or worse- some do, and some don't? This can be either because they don't like that game premise (protecting the McGuffin may seem repetitive maybe), or maybe they don't like the delays in "the main story" (Forgoing that to play the "minor story"), or maybe they just want to focus on those characters, and so on... Switching between the two stories comes very close to playign two different games, and thus each game gets less play time, which maybe not all would like.

I suggest to bring it up with the party near or when it happens, but don't force things on them. This is aa big change. You need to see if all are on board.

That said, this sounds interesting, especially if the party members switch on different missions, to create different compositions. I'd love to hear how it went! :smallsmile:

All three players have indicated interest in the idea, but I'll still be careful with it and see how they react to it in actual play. If they don't like it much I'll keep the cohorts and followers in play (I've already stated that they could use them as crafters so that the main characters didn't "need" to take any crafting skills/feats other than for the fluff) but not give them an active role.

You're absolutely right that it might feel like two different campaigns, while the main group does typical save-the-world sort of things, the secondary group might end up foraging for resources, dealing with minor bandit problems and such. It's possible that I'm trying to incorporate too many things at once since they're new at D&D and I want to test the waters to see what type of thing they prefer, at the end of the day, the players will decide what they want and I'll run with it.


Basically, the guy was playing two characters, due to the sheer power of the Spinosaurus, and every encounter was designed around him having a Spinosaurus.

I have to say though, there was not much role playing in the group (Except for me), it was more Roll playing, which is why I left.

I see, that does sound unpleasant but, luckily for me, my players are both new and not powergamers so I doubt I'll have to worry about that.

[Vhaidara]

One of my earliest games was like this. I actually like the idea, as long as the player does something interesting with it. Now you get Batman and Robin. I actually used LEadership to simulate this before: A Paladin-styled roguish character who was sharing a body with an Incubus. His cohort was a Succubus. Both were trying to convert the other.

JW86 really summed up the pros and cons effectively, but he did leave out the pro of allowing play with fewer players.


Basically, the guy was playing two characters, due to the sheer power of the Spinosaurus, and every encounter was designed around him having a Spinosaurus. \

So...what you're saying is...Druid is OP when they get a buff to their weakest (but still really strong) ability?

[M Placeholder]

So...what you're saying is...Druid is OP when they get a buff to their weakest (but still really strong) ability?

A Druid is incredibly overpowered with a buff to that ability. I just put it up as an example of a guy playing two characters.

Another Con I would put down is that the campaign can become centered around their two characters, if the DM is not careful.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The Druid/Spinosaurus example doesn't apply here because everyone will have the second character. When everyone is super(powerful, thanks to the extra character), nobody is.