DMPCs, Companions, etc.

[klofft]

I'm putting together a new game and it looks like we'll have 3 or 4 players. If we have 3 players, we are going to use a Companion. But for the 5th, we'll likely use a DMPC.

Now, before I continue, I can ignore all the groaning about DMPCs. We've used them in all of our campaigns, and it's not a problem for our group, because the character is always a support character.

But I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this. Under most circumstances, a DMPC doesn't disrupt the table flow in combat that much. But 4e characters are more detailed, so there's some concern that the biggest problem with the DMPC will be a time burden. Yet Companions certainly lack the full flavor of a full character.

So if you WERE to use a DMPC, what would be the ideal role be for the character?

My first thought was Defender, because it's an ideal support role that is unlikely to steal glory from any player. But a sticky defender runs the possibility of extra attacks during a round (e.g., a fighter).

Controller and Striker both seem like gloryhounds, wiping out Minions or doing loads of damage at once respectively, thus potentially stealing PC thunder. I suppose a Controller that is more about battlefield control might be possible.

Leader can be a support role, but I'd hate for the DMPC to be responsible for keeping the PCs alive, in case something goes wrong in an encounter.

Now, all of this might make someone conclude that this is why there should be no DMPC, but if there isn't, I'm afraid two Companions will deprive the party of too many options in an encounter.

Anyone have some experience they'd like to share or informed insight to offer about the role issue? Thanks in advance.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm putting together a new game and it looks like we'll have 3 or 4 players. If we have 3 players, we are going to use a Companion. But for the 5th, we'll likely use a DMPC.

Now, before I continue, I can ignore all the groaning about DMPCs. We've used them in all of our campaigns, and it's not a problem for our group, because the character is always a support character.

I don't understand the difference between a companion and a DMPC. Aren't they the same thing?

But I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this. Under most circumstances, a DMPC doesn't disrupt the table flow in combat that much. But 4e characters are more detailed, so there's some concern that the biggest problem with the DMPC will be a time burden. Yet Companions certainly lack the full flavor of a full character.

That's probably the point. There's nothing preventing a DM from creating a full-fledged personality and history for their NPC. But why would you want to have an NPC who in every combat is more complicated to run than a monster? Companions are easy to use.

I've made some NPCs using monster rules but also having abilities of the equivalent PC classes. For instance, an avenger might have Censure of Pursuit or an Invoker might have that retaliation ability. They always end up with fewer powers than a PC might have, though, as monsters usually only get 1-2 abilities per tier. It can get complex enough running 5 monsters, each with 2 abilities, without also having an extra character with a daily ability or two plus the full gamut of class abilities, etc. I think companions have more balanced damage as well; NPCs tend to do more damage (as their abilities are more limited than what PCs have), while NPCs built using PC rules do much lower damage.

So if you WERE to use a DMPC, what would be the ideal role be for the character?

My first thought was Defender, because it's an ideal support role that is unlikely to steal glory from any player. But a sticky defender runs the possibility of extra attacks during a round (e.g., a fighter).

Controller and Striker both seem like gloryhounds, wiping out Minions or doing loads of damage at once respectively, thus potentially stealing PC thunder. I suppose a Controller that is more about battlefield control might be possible.

Leader can be a support role, but I'd hate for the DMPC to be responsible for keeping the PCs alive, in case something goes wrong in an encounter.

Now, all of this might make someone conclude that this is why there should be no DMPC, but if there isn't, I'm afraid two Companions will deprive the party of too many options in an encounter.

Anyone have some experience they'd like to share or informed insight to offer about the role issue? Thanks in advance.

I've only ever had a DMPC once, and that was in d20 Modern, where the only difference between a PC and NPC using a heroic class is the number of action points. I don't even recall if the DMPC was an "Ordinary" (an NPC class) or a hero. He was lower level, and the PCs kept him around for a couple of sessions because he had medical training and none of them did. (In Modern, Surgery is basically a martial ritual that heals a ton of hp.) Said doctor used bows and arrows, in an effort to keep him safe, but he nearly died in one encounter to a trap anyway. (The PCs were controlling him, and didn't spot the flaming log trap right where someone taking cover behind a pillar would stand.)

The companion's role would depend on what role is missing from the party. For a defender, I would recommend a paladin rather than a fighter or knight. Any leader works, it doesn't seem to matter within the rules, but I'd recommend against a warlord as they're "take charge" characters.

 

[klofft]

Are DMG2 Companion characters less capable than full PCs in terms of encounter balance? I just read this elsewhere. The companions won't really serve their purpose to me if I have to re-balance encounters to properly use them (I'm using premade material).

If they're sufficiently weak to not count as full characters for encounter purposes, I'd rather just deal with the headache of full PC strength NPCs at the table.

 

[corwyn77]

Are DMG2 Companion characters less capable than full PCs in terms of encounter balance? I just read this elsewhere. The companions won't really serve their purpose to me if I have to re-balance encounters to properly use them (I'm using premade material).

If they're sufficiently weak to not count as full characters for encounter purposes, I'd rather just deal with the headache of full PC strength NPCs at the table.

Companions balance pretty well with PCs. They have PC HPs, surges, damage. I think their defenses are a point or two low but, if you agree, that's easy to fix. They can have encounter powers but not dailies so the only thing you have to track across encounters are surges. IME, encounters balance fine counting companions as a PC.

If they don't, just beef up damage a bit.

 

[Saagael]

For using a character, I'd use a Skald: the bard build from Heroes of the Feywild. Its simple (Essentials line), and his healing word is an aura that allows anyone in the aura to heal anyone else twice per encounter. That's fairly player friendly and has some neat buffing/debuffing powers from the bard class.

 

[fba827]

Are DMG2 Companion characters less capable than full PCs in terms of encounter balance? I just read this elsewhere.

Similar to corwyn77's experience, I don't find them less balanced.
The difference is that they are less complicated/detailed than full PC stats giving two main benefits: a) easier to build (no worrying about feats etc, it takes me 10 minutes or less to build a companion that is very much very much 'real' and in story with the PC's actions) b) fewer options to wade through, as they have maybe 4 or so powers so their turns go by quickly)

Some random thoughts you might consider:

a) ditch the full DMPC and instead make it two companions
b) rather than your proposed split, make 3 companions (giving you 3 PCs + 3 companions) and make each companion be specifically tied to a particular PC (the squire for the knight, the acolyte from the church, or whatever your PCs are) -- then you can have the companions run by the associated players (or at the very least, run by the players during combat but they are handled like NPCs out of combat). Just realize though that this means you will have to balance encounters for effectively 6 PCs.
c) option b but instead just make 2 companions and one player would not have a companion assigned to him
d) make both your companion full DMPCs -- it will just seem very odd to have such different levels of details between the two NPCs that go with the group. If you're willing to go through the effort to make one DMPC, just bite the bullet and make them both DMPCs


As for what role to have them fill, it would (in my opinion) depend a lot on what roles you get covered by the PCs. And if you're worried about stealing attention away from the PCs, I think the only thing there is to simply not pick any/too many powers that would overshadow (and if you went with companions, this sort of takes care of it itself since companions don't get the big show-stopping dailies like the PCs will have).

 

[fba827]

I don't understand the difference between a companion and a DMPC. Aren't they the same thing?

I believe (in this context)

DMPC = a NPC built just like a PC would be built and traveling with the party, etc.

Companion = a NPC built using the companion NPC rules (a very streamlined set of level + bonus numbers -- very similar to monster charts but slightly different).

The first one is very detailed. The second one is simplified in the hopes of being quick and simple to make and use, as well as not having 'daily' powers, thus saving the 'big effects' for PCs to have as their limelight.