PDA

View Full Version : What do I play?



CommanderFalken
2007-04-09, 07:01 PM
I'm DMing a group that is just starting out for the first time. I am going to be running a character 'cause there's only three of them. I wanted to know, what is the general opinion of what I should play?

The group is a Paladin, Ninja, and Ranger. I'm thinking I should go a little Arcane, or play a Dwarf Cleric.

What's your advice?

daggaz
2007-04-09, 07:14 PM
Dont play. Three is enough.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-09, 07:17 PM
3 is not enough with new players and those 3 classes. You want a healer cleric. Go cloistered cleric and be a heal bot. And as you don't have an arcane caster be very careful what you throw against the party.

headwarpage
2007-04-09, 07:21 PM
Heal-bot is a very good choice. Just be sure to make him a walking band-aid, not anything that might look like a DMPC.

CommanderFalken
2007-04-09, 07:49 PM
Heal-bot is a very good choice. Just be sure to make him a walking band-aid, not anything that might look like a DMPC.



Why not? I'm more than willing to play and I know what I'm doing. I've done it before.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-09, 07:51 PM
DMPC's are not a good idea.

CommanderFalken
2007-04-09, 07:53 PM
Everybody's said that, yet nobody gives me a reason... I have run DMPC's pretty much all my career, and no issues have been voiced... I've had to run them, cause my groups have always been 4 people total.

storybookknight
2007-04-09, 07:58 PM
DMPCs are a bad idea because ... essentially, it never ends well. It's too easy for favoritism to occur, or for the DM to want to use the PC to further the story. If the DMPC encounters a scene where they're more useful than the rest of the group, it could inspire resentment... essentially, from those who have done it before, don't do it, man.

To compensate for the lack of healing, be liberal with potions and with Wands of CLW. Both Paladins and Rangers can use said wands at about 4th level, making them very useful for after-battle healing.

Otherwise, just watch encounter CRs, and make sure they stay within a decent range (not overly tough, essentially - no more than average level +2 for a single monster (with maybe minions for a BBEG), and no more than level +1 for a group). You should be able to keep the players alive and keep the game going without resorting to a DMPC.

A lens of detect magic once or twice per day wouldn't be a bad plan either. It's cheap treasure that will come in handy!

headwarpage
2007-04-09, 08:07 PM
Remember, there's a difference between a DMPC and an NPC who follows the party around and fills a missing role. One is bad, one is good (or at least a necessary evil).

Your job as a DM is to provide an engaging adventure for the PCs. Every time a DMPC overcomes a challenge, you're stealing some of your players' thunder. That's their job, not yours.

But if your character hangs back, lets the players shine, and just casts healing spells as needed, you're doing fine.

Maxwell
2007-04-09, 08:15 PM
I have encountered two DMPCs. Me and the restwould have killed one but he was too powerful, so wew basically left him behind in the middle of the night. The other, well lets say the DM didn't make him powerful enough, hehe... No one likes the teachers pet, or the DM's pet. That being said I like the idea of a cleric that runs aroud and heals people. Would be even better as a Mystic if you have access to the Dragonlane campaign setting. A Mystic is to a Cleric as a Sorcerer is to a Wizard. Or you could just not run anyone.

CommanderFalken
2007-04-09, 08:22 PM
Ok, first things first, I will almost definitely be a character. My friends appear to want me to.

What do you all think of a dwarven cleric, healer primarily? Silent most of the time, supports the Paladin in wanting the right and just..?

my_evil_twin
2007-04-09, 08:29 PM
If the players actually want a DMPC, there's not so much of a problem. I ran my first campaign with a DMPC for a little more than a year and the only person it bothered was me. It was just that much more work, and the aforementioned balancing act between making your guy useful vs. a favorite.

That said, what your group needs most is a healer, although they could get around that with a good stock of healing potions, and getting the ranger a want of cure light wounds as soon as they can get 750gp together.

Here's just a thought, and I fully expect to get shot down on this, but a mystic theurge might be an interesting way to fill the missing divine and arcane slots without outshining the other characters.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-09, 09:04 PM
Well if you did it right you could get into MT at level 3. That would leave you with sorcerer spell progression in one of the 2 classes. So Cloistered Cleric 1 / Wizard 1 / MT 10 / Cloistered Cleric 8 would get you as a CL 19 cleric and a CL 11 wizard at level 20. That is 9th level cleric spells and 6th level wizard spells.

Indon
2007-04-09, 09:06 PM
I'd drop in a Bard as a DMPC. It's pretty easy for them to stay in the background as a support character, and they can be good plot hooks to boot.

(Not to mention you have an excuse to make up limericks about your dungeon crawls; there once was a lich from Ravenloft...)

Kel_Arath
2007-04-09, 09:25 PM
bard who focuses on his healing, beef them and heal them

Nebo_
2007-04-09, 10:14 PM
I just skimmed over the thread, so I don't know if this has been suggested. In a similar party (ie. they lacked a healer) I used an Archivist NPC. He hung out at the back of battles and used dark knowledge to boost the PCs and every so often summoned monsters to help with flanking. Make sure the PCs are the center of attention and that anything you do is more of an aid than direct input.

PnP Fan
2007-04-09, 10:29 PM
ditto concerns about DMPC. I won't echo what others have said, just be careful. Also, if your players are ASKING you to play a character, then you clearly have a social dynamic that most of the rest of us don't have.
Regarding class. . . Cloistered Cleric wouldn't be bad, Bard as well. I like the Mystic Theurge thing, except that if you play the character well, you'll likely spend more time picking spells during combat and what not, and it could slow the game down a bit. If you give up playing the character intelligently for the sake of expedience, then it might be okay. I would stick with Bard or Cloistered Cleric though. They are much easier characters to have in the background. That's my two copper, best of luck!

CommanderFalken
2007-04-09, 11:14 PM
What is this cloistered cleric everyone's wondering about?

Amiria
2007-04-10, 01:09 AM
The Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric)

I don't see any problems with DMPCs. I almost every game my group played we had one, sometimes as much as three. Our group has always been small, never more then four people, including the DM. And in recent years there where just two of us. We are used two play whole groups of PCs, but since it often gets too much for a single player to handle the DM plays the other half of the group.

DMPCs should just take a backseat in decision-making. But if there is a task in which they shine then they should step into the spotlight, they where probably included in the group for those tasks.

McDeath
2007-04-10, 01:40 AM
My group had a DMPC. However, as we slowly drifted from Good to Neutral and then (some of us) into Evil (all within roleplaying logic), she just became...unnecessary. A headache for all of us, especially the DM. So he created a lovely plotline where she decided to out us as evil swine to the king, and we got to head her off before she could. Lovely encounter!

No more DMPCs for us. As people have said, no matter how it starts, it ends badly.

Kiero
2007-04-10, 04:30 AM
Dont play. Three is enough.

Bingo! No need for GMPCs there, three is plenty. Just adjust the encounters you throw at them accordingly.

Ethdred
2007-04-10, 04:56 AM
Why do people get fixated on having four PCs in the party? OK, that's how the mechanics in the book are worked out, but you are allowed to vary things. Just tailor the encounters to the party's strengths and weaknesses - it's not that difficult

Zincorium
2007-04-10, 05:05 AM
Reasons why I personally do not use DMPCs and recommend most others do not:

1. The PCs are the center of the game, period. That's all they have, one character (usually), some freedom, and the knowledge that the game if not the game world revolves around them. You have an entire multiverse...

2. ...and you're responsible for making that multiverse work. DM's generally have enough going on at any one time that putting effort into making a decently thought out PC makes other things worse from neglect.

3. The maturity to successfully run a DMPC and the desire to have one are not generally found together. Exceptions obviously exist, but make sure you are one of the exceptions before starting a DMPC.

4. Metagaming. You know how it's hard to not metagame when you already know stuff about the game world, and it takes will and constant vigilance to not let that affect your thinking at all? The DMPC is a lot worse. You know every monster in the dungeon, every twist and turn. You're also distracted by running it all.

Matthew
2007-04-10, 04:02 PM
DMPCs can be a problem, beacuse of what it implies. DMNPC Adventurers are no problem at all. Given that you are starting at Level 1 and that the general Alignment of the party is towards Good and Lawful (which it might not be) a Neutral Good Human Cleric of Pelor would probably be an easy fit.