NPC Tagalongs

[Talakeal]

Something came up in my last gaming session that I need some advice on how to handle as a GM and a game designer. The system in question was a home-brew based on my Heart of Darkness system, but it is a general question that applies to any "traditional RPG" such as D&D and its imitators.


Basically, my party sorcerer decided he wanted to go full blaster and didn't want to serve as a support / buffer character anymore, but said that it is a necessary role for the party to function and that they were entitled to one.

So he found an NPC with a very high natural charisma and made a few social rolls to convince her to come along with the party, and paid for her to receive basic adventuring training.

Now, he said that as she is adventuring she should gain XP. As he is providing / paying for her training he should determine what classes, skills, and feats she gains as she levels up, and plans on turning her into the ultimate buffbot bard.

I told him that he does not get to simply recruit random NPCs and treat them as if they were his secondary PCs, to which he responded that I let the ranger have an animal companion and so it is only fair that he gets one as well (of course his existing familiar doesn't count because it isn't a combatant).

I told him I would consider it, but if I did I would either require him to take the leadership feat and treat her as a cohort OR simply count her as an additional party member who gets an equal share of XP and treasure, has a mind of her own, and that I would be scaling the CR of encounters for a larger party in the future. The player balked at these suggestions, but said he would consider them.


So in short, how do you or your DMs handle PCs who recruit NPCs into their party, either through charisma or magic? (I have had a similar problem with necromancers and enchanters wanting to bring a horde adventuring with them in the past). When a player takes the leadership feat (which is outrageously powerful imo) do you adjust the CR of encounters to compensate?

Thanks!

[Thrawn4]

Some random thoughts...

Is buffing necessary in your system? If not the reasoning is not valid.

Do you want to play an additional NPC in every session? If it is not your preferred style or too much work, find another solution.

Can one just pay some money in your system and get an instant mage?

Charisma and spells do not work like permanent brainwashing. Characters still have a motivation, they do not Turm into property. This serves both plausability and balancing.
You can have helpful characters, but they do not help you all the time. They have other goals most of the time.
Now, having an apprentice can be a Lot of fun, but usually also requires time and other resources.

Tldr: If you as a dm like the idea, grant him some help but make the npc believeable and balanced.
But from what you said I doubt the player will accept that.

[Talakeal]

Is buffing necessary in your system? If not the reasoning is not valid.

Necessary no. But it is useful, and the larger the party is the more useful it gets.

Which I think is the root of problem, they have a five person party, which is just about the break point where having a buffer becomes more helpful than another DPS.

So the player recognizes that if he doesn't buff the party will be weaker as a whole, but he doesn't actually want to play a support character because he finds it more fun to play a blaster and blow the bad guys away.

[Thrawn4]

Necessary no. But it is useful, and the larger the party is the more useful it gets.

Which I think is the root of problem, they have a five person party, which is just about the break point where having a buffer becomes more helpful than another DPS.

So the player recognizes that if he doesn't buff the party will be weaker as a whole, but he doesn't actually want to play a support character because he finds it more fun to play a blaster and blow the bad guys away.

How about balancing the buffs or just providing everyone with a buff item that does not stack?

[Kaptin Keen]

NPC's are controlled by the GM. That's really all that needs saying about it. Would a young, attractive person with lots opportunities open chose to follow a random vagrant into life threatening situations for nothing more than the vague promise of training? I'd say no. Never. No matter the dice roll.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My party is also fond of making friends. One thing I'm very clear on is that they are NPCs, controlled by me, unless and only unless they came from a "class feature". I'll take suggestions and general strategies (Attack! Back off!) but the NPC decides for itself what it does. I also control how (if at all) they progress.

I'd find "I'm going to offload my responsibilities to this NPC that I'll control and make all decisions for in exchange for a couple Social checks" to be way past my tolerance limit. Social checks are not mind control. That's like letting them get a free, infinite duration, no-concentration dominate person. Nope. Really nope.

Now a NPC mercenary buff-bot may accompany them at your discretion, but he'd require pay and refuse suicidal risks. He'd also make his own choices.

Spoiler: aside

Show

My current "pets" for my 5e games are

Group 1 (level 8)
* Private Eye Guana -- A giant lizard/Warrior (UA) 5 that the party befrended. It follows for the munchies.
* Eyebite the Reformed -- a Tabaxi Seeker of Forms (homebrew class) 5. This one's temporarily attached and probably won't follow any more
* An unnamed pseudodragon quasi-familiar. Doesn't do much. That one's under the command of the wizard PC as her familiar.

Group 2 (level 3)
* Fooz -- an imp serving as a contracted familiar. He'll get UA Expert levels but is still an NPC rather than a true familiar.

[Darth Ultron]

So he found an NPC with a very high natural charisma and made a few social rolls to convince her to come along with the party, and paid for her to receive basic adventuring training.

Well, like most stories I wonder how they even start. The player has their character make some rolls vs a DM's NPC...and the DM just rolls over and is the best Buddy DM in the world as they fall on the floor and offer the NPC to the almighty player on a silver platter?

WHY?

In ANY sort of normal game, the DM 100% decides what happens at all times. So anything that happens is because the DM lets and allows it to happen. So the question is: why is your game not like that? And if your game does have special Player Dm rules or your play style all about how the players control the game with the DM just watching...then why not just do that, and not have the problem/question.

A player just randomly making a NPC 'Buddy' and then just telling the DM ''tough, I rule and you suck" would never happen in any normal sort of game.

Now, he said that as she is adventuring she should gain XP. As he is providing / paying for her training he should determine what classes, skills, and feats she gains as she levels up, and plans on turning her into the ultimate buffbot bard.

Now, see this is just more of the above. The player is making demands and even being a co-dm or worse and adversarial dm.

Again, in no normal game can any Player just ''make" another character on a whim and add them to the group.

I told him that he does not get to simply recruit random NPCs and treat them as if they were his secondary PCs, to which he responded that I let the ranger have an animal companion and so it is only fair that he gets one as well (of course his existing familiar doesn't count because it isn't a combatant).

It seems this comes a bit late. After the player does all the above then you as the DM wake up and say ''hey, wait, you can't do that".

I don't see how the Animal Companion is even a point: the animal is in the rules as a class feature. Is 'best buddy buff sorcerer' a class feature of the player characters class? If no, they they can't have one.


In general, I don't have any problem with adding a NPC or six to a PC group. Most of the time they will be a support role and 100% always controlled by the DM. Every so often I will let a player that really wants to make or use another character or two. Though note it is always the DM in control.

In general, I don't bother too much to adjust the CR or such unless the game is really effected in a negative way. Mostly the whole 'encounter' math is a joke, and I can adjust things much more with a simple 'couple goblins in a tree with bows' to make a devastating encounter.

[Talakeal]

:snip:.

Basically, they encountered an NPC with high charisma. The PC asked her to come with them. I didn't see anything wrong with that, gave him a charisma check DC to pass, and when he did said sure why not.

THEN he started talking about keeping her as a permanent cohort and choosing how she would advance, at which point I put on the brakes until I figure out how to handle the situation.

[Talakeal]

How about balancing the buffs or just providing everyone with a buff item that does not stack?

IMO there is nothing unbalanced about having group buffs, but the nature of a group buff means that it is going to be more useful in a bigger group. The only solution I can think of would be to only have personal buffs (which would create a lot of drama imo) or figure out some way to have the benefit divided amongst the party (which would be very math intensive and very difficult to balance). Either way I am not really interested in reworking the entire system to solve a very specific problem when it is otherwise working correctly.


As for giving them an item, honestly I think that is really what he wants. He is less interested in having a cohort than just having a floating buff. Simply giving the players a super powerful item because one of the players has a conflict between fun and optimization seems to be a bad solution, and I would still be left with the question of how to balance challenges in accordance with the change.

[Draconi Redfir]

Personally i would say this:

She requires the leadership feat and counts a a cohort, so will always be a few levels below the rest of the party

She's predominantly controlled by the player in question, BUT the GM provides a base-line personality, some goals, traits, and things she absolutely will not do (E.G. won't fight spiders because she's terrified of them etc) and she has a mind of her own, and may disagree with things the party does at times.

If the player can adequately convey all this and treat her like a separate character shared between them and the GM, then all is good. If they try to turn them into a buff-robot with no thoughts, loot, or rights, then the GM will take control / take them away.

Admittedly i'm not a GM, and the on time i did GM, i played the party's one NPC companion myself as a sort of DMPC since they didn't have any tank-role characters. so i might not have the best opinions here.

[Velaryon]

It sounds to me like the sorcerer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to supply the party with all the cool support magic, but don't want to devote any character resources to it. Basically they're trying to play a second character so that they can have all the offensive magic AND all the buff magic. If I have correctly understood the situation, then Darth Ultron is correct. You need to rein this in and put your foot down.

Is the Ranger's animal companion a class feature, as in regular D&D? You said you're using a homebrew system so I don't want to just assume. If the animal companion IS a class feature, then this is no different than your sorcerer saying "The Rogue gets to add +3d6 when he sneak attacks, so I should get to add +3d6 to all my spells." Not only is it a bad argument, going along with it would be unfair to the other players.

In general I don't think NPC tagalongs are a bad thing, but I absolutely would not just let the Sorcerer just have 100% control of them unless you are having other characters do the same thing. Games where all the PCs have subordinates and assistant characters and such can be cool, though it's very easy for things to get out of hand and the party to become very difficult to challenge. But it can still be a lot of fun. If you want to go this route, by all means give it a try.

If you don't want to go into that, then I'd suggest one of these three options:

1. If your system has something like the Leadership feat, then do as Draconi Redfir suggested. Have the Sorcerer take Leadership and make this NPC the Sorcerer's cohort. He is responsible for paying and equipping her out of his share of the party treasure.

2. Make this character your DMPC. Have them play support and generally assist the party without claiming much of the spotlight for themselves. In this case, she gets a full share of the party's treasure. Make it clear you are open to suggestions how she levels up, but that the final decision is up to you.

3. You don't have to allow this character to come along at all if you don't want to. "That was fun, but now I need to go. [My sick mother is waiting for me/University is starting up again next week/This was fun for a few days but I don't really want to be an adventurer.]" Presumably this NPC had a life before encountering the party. High charisma checks, Diplomacy/Persuasion checks, etc. are not mind control. Maybe she goes back to her regular life and becomes a contact the party can meet again someday or get some assistance from whenever they're in town, but she doesn't join the party or anything like that.

What's not okay is for this player to have a second character who has all the abilities they don't want to spend resources for on their main character. This would be unfair to everyone else, yourself included.

[Talakeal]

It sounds to me like the sorcerer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to supply the party with all the cool support magic, but don't want to devote any character resources to it. Basically they're trying to play a second character so that they can have all the offensive magic AND all the buff magic. If I have correctly understood the situation, then Darth Ultron is correct. You need to rein this in and put your foot down.

Is the Ranger's animal companion a class feature, as in regular D&D? You said you're using a homebrew system so I don't want to just assume. If the animal companion IS a class feature, then this is no different than your sorcerer saying "The Rogue gets to add +3d6 when he sneak attacks, so I should get to add +3d6 to all my spells." Not only is it a bad argument, going along with it would be unfair to the other players.

That is pretty much what he is trying to do.

It isn't a class feature per se, but she did invest in animal handling skills. I let everyone in the group have a companion of some sort at character creation. The ranger has an animal companion, the warrior-princess has a hand-maiden, the rogue has an amulet which allows him to commune with the soul of his dead mother, and the sorceress has a baby shadow dragon as a familiar. The tinkerer chose to have an anachronistic firearm that is far beyond the tech level of the rest of the campaign world instead of a companion.

1. If your system has something like the Leadership feat, then do as Draconi Redfir suggested. Have the Sorcerer take Leadership and make this NPC the Sorcerer's cohort. He is responsible for paying and equipping her out of his share of the party treasure.

Yes, the game does have the equivalent of the leadership feat. I think this is probably the best option. But I know he is going to be extremely pissed if I tell him that she gets a share of treasure AND he needs to train and equip her.

[zinycor]

I try to avoid having NPCs become members of the party, so my experience on this is very low.

On this situation I would allow the NPC to travel with the party as an extra member, who takes advice of this particular PC in order to level up, but in the end the final decision would be mine as a GM.

As For the ranger argument, that doesn't make any sense, Animal companion is a particular feature of the ranger class.

[Talakeal]

Question about the leadership feat in 3.5:

Do cohorts count as members of the party for calculating the CR of an encounter?

[Florian]

Question about the leadership feat in 3.5:

Do cohorts count as members of the party for calculating the CR of an encounter?

Yes.

As For the ranger argument, that doesn't make any sense, Animal companion is a particular feature of the ranger class.

We´re still not talking about D&D. And it is rather uncommon in systems that are not D&D.

[zinycor]

Yes.



We´re still not talking about D&D. And it is rather uncommon in systems that are not D&D.

Oh! It sounded like D&D. My bad!

EDIT: So the questions about the rues on 3.5 are unrelated to the topic at hand?

[Talakeal]

Oh! It sounded like D&D. My bad!

EDIT: So the questions about the rues on 3.5 are unrelated to the topic at hand?

I was asking about how 3.5 handled the situation because mine doesn't really have any rules to cover it and 3.5 is the system that is best understood around these parts.

[Mr Beer]

Various options:

1. Player has a second PC. Cool but only if it's officially announced and everyone else can have one if they want one and if you're OK with that and if the other players are OK with that. Pro: potentially everyone gets what they want. Cons: more work for you, potential for hard feelings all around.

2. You play the NPC because that's how it works. Arguments met with a stony laugh because seriously, that's how it works. NPC gets a full share of loot. Advances as normal but capped below PC level if you like. Pro: that's how it works. Cons: none really.

3. You let Sorc play the NPC but under certain conditions e.g. full share of loot, own personality etc. Pro: less work for you. Con: Can definitely be used as a Trojan horse for Sorc to acquire an extra PC. Seems like Sorc gets an inch and takes a mile.

Other options include no NPC or having someone else play the NPC if you have a trusted back-up DM.

Personally I'd go with option 2, I'd explain it as saying 'no-one else is getting a second character' and I'd be getting ready to tell Sorc to take a walk by now if there was any whining about it.

EDIT

I'd have a couple of hard lines with this whole thing though.

One is that there needs to be a clear distinction between PCs and NPCs. PCs are the property of the player, down to what they think. NPCs are the property of the DM.

Two is that someone who adventures with the players can either committed to the action and take risks with everyone else, in which case they get a share of XP and loot; or they hang back and don't do much, in which case they don't.

No party should expect free help in the form of a fully controllable NPC who doesn't want to do anything or get anything except advance a player's agenda.

[TerryHerc]

I play in a regular Adventurer, Conqueror, King game where all the players have henchs. The DM treats them as shared control. As a player I can say what I want them to do, but there are certain situations they would act in a certain way. These times are clearly defined in advance and know by both players and DM. As long as the henchs have clear goals or motivations, there are no misunderstandings when they are roleplayed out.

[Erloas]

Basically, they encountered an NPC with high charisma. The PC asked her to come with them. I didn't see anything wrong with that, gave him a charisma check DC to pass, and when he did said sure why not.

THEN he started talking about keeping her as a permanent cohort and choosing how she would advance, at which point I put on the brakes until I figure out how to handle the situation.

Just because he was able to convince her once to come with them that doesn't give him any more control over the NPC than any other case. It would be like letting a bard dictate the actions of every single NPC you came across in a campaign.

That is pretty much what he is trying to do.

It isn't a class feature per se, but she did invest in animal handling skills. I let everyone in the group have a companion of some sort at character creation. The ranger has an animal companion, the warrior-princess has a hand-maiden, the rogue has an amulet which allows him to commune with the soul of his dead mother, and the sorceress has a baby shadow dragon as a familiar. The tinkerer chose to have an anachronistic firearm that is far beyond the tech level of the rest of the campaign world instead of a companion.


Yes, the game does have the equivalent of the leadership feat. I think this is probably the best option. But I know he is going to be extremely pissed if I tell him that she gets a share of treasure AND he needs to train and equip her.

He got his "free companion" already, he can't just wish up another one. Especially when you're comparing essentially another PC versus being able to talk to your dead mom and a gun.
"He isn't going to like it" isn't a valid excuse for any table and if that is even a potential problem then it sounds like the player might be more trouble than they're worth. (and I don't say that lightly, but this is just over the top, a single player trying to dictate the game).


He may have convinced her to join with you for a while, but if it seems to dangerous or she finds that it doesn't "mesh" with her actual wishes she is free to leave. Even if she has a good reason to want to stay with the party, she is an NPC and under the DM control at all times and the DM gets to make the choices for the NPC based on what the NPC would want to do. If the whole team is basically insisting that you run a DMPC, then run it as a PC with all of it's own agency and actions. And yes, she gets an even split of the loot and XP.

If a "cohort" is really what he wants, then he can get that in whichever way your game system allows and following all of the same rules for it. But even then, it is still an NPC and still will act of it's own best interest. Which is also true of animal companions, though often overlooked.

[Malifice]

So in short, how do you or your DMs handle PCs who recruit NPCs into their party, either through charisma or magic?

They fade into the background and never do anything. I dont roll initiative for them, they dont get miniatures on the board, and they're largely ignored for anything other than the Social pillar (i.e. the Players can talk/ roleplay to them and vice versa).

They're there, but they're ignored for most game mechanics purposes outside of the narrative.

The players are the protagonists, not the NPCs.

If asked about it, the 'in game' justification is: 'imagine they're doing stuff appropriate to the situation, but outside of the action of your PCs, unless I specifically say otherwise (NPC with secret agenda, cowers in fear instead of fighting, does something evil to show he's not a nice guy etc)'. For example, if the PCs are fighting Orcs, assume the NPC is as well, but it's all happening 'off camera'.

I just dont mechanically worry about it, and run the encounters as normal (PCs vs Monsters), referencing the NPC doing stuff from time to time, to remind them he's there, and to maintain verisimilitude.

I might have a NPC spellcaster or Fighter pop up with a spell or attack from time to time to provide minor assistance when things are going poorly for the PCs or simply to inform the narrative (again; very sparingly used, as the players are the protagonists, not the DMNPC).

For example: 'The Orc towers above you about to bring its axe down on your neck, when an arrow thuds into its chest and it staggers backwards. To your right you see [NPC] smiling a knowing look in your direction, as she draws another arrow and fires in the direction of the other Orcs'

The main exception to this rule, is NPCs gained through class features, feats and similar (familiars, simulacra, animal companions, extras, minions, followers and so forth). While still NPCs (and the DM has veto over their actions) I mostly let players run them as normal.

[Pauly]

If the party want to have an unbalanced sub-optimal party then I see no readon the DM shoukd wallpaper the dracks for them.

If a player chooses to build a suboptimal character then it’s up to the player to work around those problems. Same goes for the party.

[Pelle]

Are there any good reasons for simply not letting the player have two PCs if he wants?

There's a reason for why the default is that every player runs one...

[Malifice]

If the party want to have an unbalanced sub-optimal party then I see no readon the DM shoukd wallpaper the dracks for them.

I disagree, but on a different level.

If the party wants to create a 'suboptimal party', then it is incumbent on the DM to wallpaper the cracks for them.

By toning down the threat of the adventures.

Ditto if the party wants to run a bunch of 'Pun-Puns' (and the DM is happy with that campaign and doesnt veto it on sight). He simply tones up the threat of the adventures.

You tailor the adventure to the party in front of you. Up or down. My mantra is (and the mantra of every DM should be) The players are the protagonists.

Every decision you make in your campaign as DM should revolve around that assumption being not only a truism, but a position to be advanced whenever possible.

[Pelle]

I disagree, but on a different level.

If the party wants to create a 'suboptimal party', then it is incumbent on the DM to wallpaper the cracks for them.

By toning down the threat of the adventures.

This depends on the players and their intentions. If the players choose to make sub-obtimal characters because they want to be challenged, don't ruin it for them by making the encounters non-challenging. If the players optimize because they want to roflstomp enemies in combat, don't make it more challenging.

[Malifice]

This depends on the players and their intentions. If the players choose to make sub-obtimal characters because they want to be challenged, don't ruin it for them by making the encounters non-challenging. If the players optimize because they want to roflstomp enemies in combat, don't make it more challenging.

I disagree, but again for different reasons.

Every encounter should be challenging, but designed for the PCs to win. A game where there is no challenge isn't very fun (why bother with rules at all, and just free form it at the end of the day) and a game that is too challenging invariably results in a TPK and a feeling of frustration and inability to change anything or progress the story.

Your group might be used to steamrolling pushover encounters and never bothering to think about how to deal with a challenge (likely due to a pushover DM) but I'm pretty sure with a better DM and challenging encounters, they'll be a lot more engaged and entertained.

Players will tend to prefer Goldilocks campaigns; where the difficulty is just right - not a constant fantasy underground Vietnam, where every encounter has a chance of TPK, and not a cakewalk either. Their actions matter, it's clear that they're the protagonists of the story, they're challenged without being constantly overwhelmed, and are making progress towards some final goal or story arc.

There might be exceptions to the rule, but (anecdotally) for every group that I've DMd for that has come from one of those extremes, they've all much prefered the 'just right' approach when it's done well.

[Knaight]

I mostly avoid these, but this sounds like a player issue. Talking an NPC into coming with the party for a while is entirely reasonable. Thinking you get a secondary PC out of it where you not only control their actions but their advancement? Not so much. You want one of those, you pay for the advantage or take the feat or whatever it is in the system, and you probably do it again every time you want them getting stronger.

The exception to avoidance is support staff, but those are designed to fit particular roles. They're usually either noncombatants or close enough to count (a marine component on a starship that fights boarders isn't going to get in the way when the PCs are all fighter pilots, and would fit in the close enough to count), they tend to show up in campaigns where there's some sort of moving group the PCs are a part of, and they're fundamentally NPCs. Keep them that way and they work fine, even allowing for players bringing them in to scenes that by rights should be just PC scenes.

[Pelle]

Players will tend to prefer Goldilocks campaigns; where the difficulty is just right - not a constant fantasy underground Vietnam, where every encounter has a chance of TPK, and not a cakewalk either. Their actions matter, it's clear that they're the protagonists of the story, they're challenged without being constantly overwhelmed, and are making progress towards some final goal or story arc.

What I am saying, what is "just right" also depends on the players. Maybe you should push the challenge lever a little up or down depending on what they prefer. And the players can also express their preference when creating their characters.

[geppetto]

Seems pretty straightforward really. He wants another PC. So easiest is to let him have one. Of course the XP, CR, loot etc etc all get adjusted accordingly. If he doesnt like it well tough, explain that life is a series of compromises.

Or its an NPC and YOU control it. Period.

Or drop the whole idea.

Let him pick since its his idea. But dont tolerate any whining or complaining. He can choose A, B or C. And thats it.

[GloatingSwine]

Seems pretty straightforward really. He wants another PC. So easiest is to let him have one.

It sounds like what he wants is a bunch of extra spells per day that cast themselves, rather than another PC.


Since this is in a homebrew system, it sounds like you've found one of those cases where a playtest brings up something you hadn't thought of players trying and you need to write some new rules for follower characters and/or henchmen.

What does a Sorcerer's Apprentice look like in your game system, what can and can't they do, and what does the Sorcerer have to do extra to manage them.


(Please be aware that soon they will all want one).