What role does the DMPC need to fill?
- Thread starter Asmor
- Start date
Atlatl Jones
Explorer
IMO, DMPCs should never steal the PCs thunder. They should support the PCs, not take the glory for themselves.
For that reasons, I would use DMPCs for leaders primarily. Warlords in particular are able to make the rest of the PCs more awesome without taking the credit. Their powers buff the other PCs, and their at-will power commander's strike adds extra firepower, while letting the PCs roll the attacks and enjoy taking down the enemies.
I would also consider using a fighter if the PCs don't have a defender, and choose powers focused on defense instead of offense.
For that reasons, I would use DMPCs for leaders primarily. Warlords in particular are able to make the rest of the PCs more awesome without taking the credit. Their powers buff the other PCs, and their at-will power commander's strike adds extra firepower, while letting the PCs roll the attacks and enjoy taking down the enemies.
I would also consider using a fighter if the PCs don't have a defender, and choose powers focused on defense instead of offense.
Desdichado
Hero
None. I'm very firmly of the philosophical bent that it's my job as the GM to 1) allow the players to make their own characters, within the parameters that I give them, without demanding that any given role be filled, and 2) run a game that fits the players I've got, not one that's a "one size fits all, and it's up to the players to fit it."
I would never consider running a DMPC just to cover a "hole" in the party make-up. It's up to me to make sure there are alternative ways to cover that given the party I have, not stick someone in the hole and run it as a DMPC.
I would never consider running a DMPC just to cover a "hole" in the party make-up. It's up to me to make sure there are alternative ways to cover that given the party I have, not stick someone in the hole and run it as a DMPC.
Obryn
Hero
I put Controller down because we actually did do this for a few sessions in 4e. Kinda. Technically, it was an actual PC whose player left, and was passed around from player to player for a few sessions until she came back.
So yeah, I suppose that isn't a DMPC...
I hate running anything resembling a DMPC. If there's an NPC with the group, it's for dramatic reason, and their presence is temporary... Anyone who sticks around longer than that will be a henchman.
-O
So yeah, I suppose that isn't a DMPC...
I hate running anything resembling a DMPC. If there's an NPC with the group, it's for dramatic reason, and their presence is temporary... Anyone who sticks around longer than that will be a henchman.
-O
takasi
First Post
Probably a topic for a forked thread, but does 4E only define combat roles? What about non-combat roles?
I prefer to play a DMPC for non-combat reasons. No matter how well you describe something as a narrator there are always going to be gaps between how the DM interprets a situation (since they know the 'secrets') and how the players see things. Having a DMPC can help fill the noncombat roles of 'information broker', 'adventure motivator' and 'brainstormer'.
As a player I prefer asking an NPC to clarify something in the environment, in character, rather than asking the DM narrator out of character. In towns and social situations there a lot of NPCs, but it's nice to have a trustworthy NPC who is 'always there', sharing in your struggles and who would realistically relate with you when problems arrive.
However, if I had to answer a combat role it would either be whatever's missing.
I prefer to play a DMPC for non-combat reasons. No matter how well you describe something as a narrator there are always going to be gaps between how the DM interprets a situation (since they know the 'secrets') and how the players see things. Having a DMPC can help fill the noncombat roles of 'information broker', 'adventure motivator' and 'brainstormer'.
As a player I prefer asking an NPC to clarify something in the environment, in character, rather than asking the DM narrator out of character. In towns and social situations there a lot of NPCs, but it's nice to have a trustworthy NPC who is 'always there', sharing in your struggles and who would realistically relate with you when problems arrive.
However, if I had to answer a combat role it would either be whatever's missing.
Asmor
First Post
I ask because I'm considering statting up some simple DMPCs of every level from 1-30... Leader seems like a gimme, but not sure if other roles might be in demand too...
I can totally respect the people who don't like using DMPCs at all, but frankly it IS necessary to have a healer.
I can totally respect the people who don't like using DMPCs at all, but frankly it IS necessary to have a healer.
Before I answer, I feel I have to qualify my answer.
I am the sort who:
* doesn't feel all the roles need to be filled
* doesn't encourage detailed player conversations about what types of characters they are going to make for the game
These two factors allow for more diversity on party composition and tactics -- making every group more unique (for me). Though, I also do not run published adventures as is, so I have a lot tweaked for the party composition.
I also abhor rolling dice as a DM. I roll way too many already and the thought of rolling more irks me - so a DMPC would make me a sad DM. So the NPCs remain as plot/story characters, not adventuring companions whenever possible.
Having said all that... *if* I _had_ to have a DMPC in the group because a gun was being put to my first-born's head, then I would go with leader or defender.
* Leaders offer more support to characters. (Of the leaders, I'd go with warlord, that offers less powers and options to keep track of since clerics have the power divinity things which adds a couple more, and as a DM you have enough options and powers to keep track of to begin with)
* Defenders can act as meat shields to soak damage while the PCs run around doing the nifty abilities that make them feel all special inside. (Of the defenders, I'd go with fighter -- it has the simplest of the "mark" abilities, which in turn means less for you to keep track of over all. Maybe paladin if you feel there should be a little more healing than is already covered)
I would _not_ choose controllers because they have the potential to hit more targets which would outshine the PCs. Similarly, I would _not_ choose strikers because they have the potential to damage more to a single target, again, outshining any other PC.
I am the sort who:
* doesn't feel all the roles need to be filled
* doesn't encourage detailed player conversations about what types of characters they are going to make for the game
These two factors allow for more diversity on party composition and tactics -- making every group more unique (for me). Though, I also do not run published adventures as is, so I have a lot tweaked for the party composition.
I also abhor rolling dice as a DM. I roll way too many already and the thought of rolling more irks me - so a DMPC would make me a sad DM. So the NPCs remain as plot/story characters, not adventuring companions whenever possible.
Having said all that... *if* I _had_ to have a DMPC in the group because a gun was being put to my first-born's head, then I would go with leader or defender.
* Leaders offer more support to characters. (Of the leaders, I'd go with warlord, that offers less powers and options to keep track of since clerics have the power divinity things which adds a couple more, and as a DM you have enough options and powers to keep track of to begin with)
* Defenders can act as meat shields to soak damage while the PCs run around doing the nifty abilities that make them feel all special inside. (Of the defenders, I'd go with fighter -- it has the simplest of the "mark" abilities, which in turn means less for you to keep track of over all. Maybe paladin if you feel there should be a little more healing than is already covered)
I would _not_ choose controllers because they have the potential to hit more targets which would outshine the PCs. Similarly, I would _not_ choose strikers because they have the potential to damage more to a single target, again, outshining any other PC.
Took me a while to figure what's a DMPC...
/facepalm
Anyways, I went with both Striker and Leader.
I already tried to go with Controller, and it went bad... no bad doesn't even start to describe it.
In one of my games, i'm running a Warlord DMPC, and it's working very well.
I think Strikers (preferably rogue, or even better, an archer ranger) would work nearly as good (or even better) because most of the times all they have to think about is dealing damage, without the other players conscent.
The hardest part IMO, is the communication, it's hard to form a good communication with an NPC and the players in battle, even more when they don't know what the DMPC is capable of.
/facepalm
Anyways, I went with both Striker and Leader.
I already tried to go with Controller, and it went bad... no bad doesn't even start to describe it.
In one of my games, i'm running a Warlord DMPC, and it's working very well.
I think Strikers (preferably rogue, or even better, an archer ranger) would work nearly as good (or even better) because most of the times all they have to think about is dealing damage, without the other players conscent.
The hardest part IMO, is the communication, it's hard to form a good communication with an NPC and the players in battle, even more when they don't know what the DMPC is capable of.
Similar Threads
