Should i add an npc to the player party?

[Ethernil]

After only a handful of sessions the party collapsed. People started arguing and now i have 3 players left out of 5. They will be rerolling new characters. Would it be a good idea to create an npc to cover the basic roles in the group? We haven't discussed it extensively but i think nobody will be playing support or skill monkey. So, considering i don't want an npc taking over social interactions, would some class npc be helpful to the game or would it do more harm than good and if yes which class?

[liquidformat]

It would help to know what the three remaining players are going with.

Also have you looked at gestalt? It was literally designed around the idea of I don't have enough players to fill all party roles but don't want to have npcs either. If you work with your three remaining players to make sure they fill all party roles that might be a great choice to balance the party without adding in npcs.

[Malimar]

If you absolutely must use a DMPC, Marshal and Healer are good choices.

But there's almost no situation where you absolutely must use a DMPC. Maybe if you're running an adventure meant for a full party and you only have one player (I know a couple who did this with Iron Gods). If you're not running an adventure, even a solo campaign with one player running one character and no DMPCs is doable, I've done that, just have to be careful with encounter design.

Three players is slightly under the game's assumption of a party of 4, but it's not really any worse than a party of 5 which is slightly over the game's assumption. If you're running a module or adventure path or whatever, and you use the XP system correctly, then a party of any size will wind up at the correct power level for the module pretty quickly. If you don't use XP and instead use checkpoint leveling, then probably add or subtract one level for each missing or extra party member below or above 4. If you're not running a module, then just be careful about the power of encounters you're throwing at them.

All of that said, the above suggestion of letting the players gestalt is A+. A party of 3 gestalt characters is comparable to a party of 4 or 5 non-gestalt characters. Still gotta be a little careful with encounter design because the action economy will be against them, but it's easier than 3 non-gestalts.

[zlefin]

The key question is what the players want; if the players want to have that, it's generally fine.
depending on the char classes, 3 people is often fine anyways, as long as you appropriately account for the effects on party strength.

you can also, dependin gon the types of adventures, simply avoid challenges where a skill monkey would be important if noone is one.

[Ethernil]

2 of the players actually suggested the npc addition. At first i thought of bard but having a mute bard in conversations wouldn't make much sence. Now i am considering either a rogue/cleric into shadowbane stalker or a straight factotum, capable of filling gaps but not being so formidable in any field as to overshadow the pcs. They hated the idea of gestalt.

[DeTess]

2 of the players actually suggested the npc addition. At first i thought of bard but having a mute bard in conversations wouldn't make much sence. Now i am considering either a rogue/cleric into shadowbane stalker or a straight factotum, capable of filling gaps but not being so formidable in any field as to overshadow the pcs. They hated the idea of gestalt.

I wouldn't pick a glass to fill all the gaps, actually, as someone filling in the gaps will be getting a decent amount of spotlight time, and you don't want your DMPC to do that. instead use something that makes everyone else better at what they do, such as an aura class (Dragon Shaman or marshall) or a buffer spellcaster, and design your adventure around your PC's strengths, using their weaknesses only when it makes for an interesting challenge for them to overcome.

[Kelb_Panthera]

After only a handful of sessions the party collapsed. People started arguing and now i have 3 players left out of 5. They will be rerolling new characters. Would it be a good idea to create an npc to cover the basic roles in the group? We haven't discussed it extensively but i think nobody will be playing support or skill monkey. So, considering i don't want an npc taking over social interactions, would some class npc be helpful to the game or would it do more harm than good and if yes which class?

You have bigger fish to fry than wether or not a tag-along npc is appropriate.

[Ethernil]

The players had been playing under a different dm for many years until they stopped like 2 years ago. The problems stemmed from back then. True i dont want to steal the spotlight and dragon shaman is indeed a very good option, thanks.

[BlackOnyx]

Whatever class you do end up going with, if you're still debating whether or not you *should* add an npc to the group, I'd say leave the decision fully to your players and their characters.


Introduce an npc in game that tells them "if you'll have me, I can travel by your side." If they like the idea of an npc companion (and that particular npc's skill set) they'll likely accept.


If you *really* want to give them options, consider introducing them to a situation where several npcs have shown interest in joining their party. Allow them to host an interview/test session to select the npc they think suits them best.


That said, I'd probably shy away from offering any diplomancers unless your party's playstyle is extremely combat oriented; dmpcs typically work best if they only speak/act when directed to (regarding plot changing decisions, that is). As others have mentioned, you don't want to overshadow the players themselves.

[Nifft]

You could do something like create a half-golem Cleric who lost his will & individuality.

He's utterly passive, except to the three people he knew best before his unfortunate accident. He listens to them. He heals them.

The PCs can direct him verbally (as a free action in combat); he makes a good-faith attempt to follow whatever he was told to do. He doesn't succeed at complex tasks, and he doesn't act at all without instruction.

[NomGarret]

If you go sufficiently down the rabbit hole of ‘if’s wherein diplomacy is handled by the NPC, keep as much of that off-screen as possible. Don’t make everyone sit through you negotiating with yourself when a quick “the bard goes to speak with the chief. A few minutes later he emerges, having secured safe passage and mounts” will do.

[Telonius]

Are the players of a level where the Leadership feat would be possible or appropriate? It sounds like the players are asking for a free cohort.

[Kyrell1978]

After only a handful of sessions the party collapsed. People started arguing and now i have 3 players left out of 5. They will be rerolling new characters. Would it be a good idea to create an npc to cover the basic roles in the group? We haven't discussed it extensively but i think nobody will be playing support or skill monkey. So, considering i don't want an npc taking over social interactions, would some class npc be helpful to the game or would it do more harm than good and if yes which class?

The DMPC gets a lot of bad press lately. When I was learning this game, it was quite common to have DMPCs in pretty much every campaign. I believe that most of the bad reputation is due to poor DMing and the tendency of an inexperienced DM to involve his NPC in the story too much. The DMPC should be utilized only as a background character that is able to do things that the party asks of it. The one I am currently running in Pathfinder is a trapfinder ranger. He opens locks, tracks things, and is a harassing archer in combat, but he doesn't do any of that unless asked.

[Thurbane]

My PCs are a Ranger, Paladin and Warmage.

I threw in an NPC Favored Soul to assist with buffing and healing, and it's worked out pretty well.

[lightningcat]

While not always the perfect solution, the rule I try to follow is "If the DMPC is useful, make them uninteresting; if they are interesting, make them barely useful."
Which means that if the DMPC fills a missing role should not do much in the way of plot. Instead of a fighter, you could have a giant dog, which fills the exact same role (including using the same rules), but has no dialog or interaction with the plot.
While a very interesting character that is important to the plot, is basically an escort quest. He will do stuff, but not always good stuff.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Unless you're holding fast to modules with very little adjustment for your group, you can accomplish the same adjustment to the challenge presented in your game by a DMPC by simply changing the encounters instead. Even if you do stick to modules, you can still adjust the encounters by adding, removing, or changing the creatures listed in the book/ pamphlet.

A tag-along is just a band-aid over the bleeding gash of your inability to accurately judge and adjust challenges. A DMPC is you stepping on player toes because you either want to be on that side of the screen or you need an engine for your railroad.

If your problem is one of setting challenges, insert the tag along only with the intent of removing him once you've got the hang of it.

If you're putting the adventure on rails, be damn sure that's what your players want or be prepared for MASSIVE headaches.

If you need a character you can call "yours," put that energy into your BBEG.

Otherwise, avoid DMPCs altogether and save tag alongs for short plot arcs.

[Shocksrivers]

Thinking outside the box for a minute, but depending on the role they miss, you might allow one player to take two characters. Now, this only works with a player that is experienced enough to handle the workload and, more importantly, that understands that hogging the spotlight is a no-no. So, going back to the "if it's useful, make it uninteresting" suggestion, the same would go here. I have played with a fighter and a ranger (on separate occasions) next to my mine character, a cleric. I am not sure how this would work for a skill monkey, but I think it could work.

That being said, three people should not be to big a problem anyway, it all depends on the group and the DM. But that might as well be the tagline for any response on this forum.

[Crake]

One of the suggestions was to gestalt, but if you feel like that's too much, you could instead allow them to gestalt with an NPC class of their choice to shore up any holes they might have. A character with a bad will save and few skills might pick expert, a rogue might pick up warrior for full bab and good fort, or adept for some light spellcasting and a better will save, etc etc. That way you don't have the problem of dealing with a FULL set of new abilities, but people getting a little bit extra here and there can help make sure you have most of the bases covered.

[Ethernil]

One of the suggestions was to gestalt

One of my replies was that the players don't like the idea of Gestalt.

Anyway, i spoke to the players and it seems they will be playing a cleric, a wizard and a rogue/ranger/undecided need ideas(i m guessing skillmonkey). They trully suck at optimizing and have very little system mastery. I know that normally this group setup could handle anything but they have been playing stuff like fighter 20 and wizard diping fighter so that he can fight with a longsword(not gish build, he just liked Gandalf in the movie). IF i decide to add an npc it seems it will be some low intelligence, low charisma beatstick like a tripper fighter or crusader focused on white raven and devoted spirit defensive and support maneuvers and that maybe for the first few levels that combat is pretty deadly(a cat ccould oneshot the wizard for example).

[Kyrell1978]

If this is 3.5 I'd suggest a Scout/Ranger with the Swift Hunter feat for your skill monkey rounding out character. If it's PF I'd go with a trapfinder ranger. This is assuming that most of the skills the party wants is the dungeon crawling skill set though. Both make excellent archers and give that skill set.

[Ethernil]

If this is 3.5 I'd suggest a Scout/Ranger with the Swift Hunter feat for your skill monkey rounding out character. If it's PF I'd go with a trapfinder ranger. This is assuming that most of the skills the party wants is the dungeon crawling skill set though. Both make excellent archers and give that skill set.

To be honest i was going to suggest he goes either swift hunter or wildshape ranger into master of many forms myself since he doesn't want to bother with large spell list builds like unseen seer would have. Most likely he ll go straight rogue though, MAYBE daring outlaw.

[Thurbane]

If you need support/skillmonkey, a Cloistered Cleric might fill the roll. A dip into Ninja gets trapfinding and Wis to AC. Or Kobold domain also gets trapfinding.

[Nifft]

Or Kobold domain also gets trapfinding.

Cloistered Kobold is awesome.

Kobold really is the answer to everything.

[Ethernil]

If you need support/skillmonkey, a Cloistered Cleric might fill the roll. A dip into Ninja gets trapfinding and Wis to AC. Or Kobold domain also gets trapfinding.

I want a character that is weaker than the normal players... cloistered cleric is like tier 0,5...

[Thurbane]

I want a character that is weaker than the normal players... cloistered cleric is like tier 0,5...

Well maybe a Spellthief then?