D&D General Am I the only one who plays D&D with more than 1 character per player???

[Guest 6801328]

I've done it very occasionally.

But since Tasha's came out I've kind of been wanting to be in a campaign (DM or player) with fewer players, but a couple of sidekicks.

 

[billd91]

We haven't needed to do it in awhile. But I ran a PF1 game with 3 players, each one playing 2 characters. For them, one of their PCs was generally portrayed as their "primary" and the other was their somewhat less dynamic secondary. But we were playing a Paizo AP and I thought 3 PCs might be a little short of resources. It was easier to go to 6 PCs than try to cover all their adventuring needs with 3.
I think this would be considerably less necessary in 5e since the niche protection is so much lower.

 

[ccs]

Back in my original B/X & 1e days we frequently had multiple characters. Usually a main character & an extra. This practice varied though on how many players we had.

Later on we all generally had multiple characters, but they weren't played simultaneously. Rather we'd pick who went on a given adventure.

In 3x/PF we often had characters with the Leadership feat, highly detailed animal companions, familiar, etc. Sometimes to crazy degrees.

In the last 5 years though?
I've only been in two PF1 games where we used 2 characters each. Both were at times when we only had 3 players. And in the 2nd game one player opted to stick with just one pc at a time.
Me? I DM alot. I gotta make my PC time count! So In both campaigns i took full advantage of the chance to play 2 completely different characters at a time.

 

[ArwensDaughter]

I've run games that way when I've had 3 or fewer players, for the reasons stated above. It works o.k.

 

[Retreater]

I think this would be considerably less necessary in 5e since the niche protection is so much lower.

That's true, but we do it for the action economy, which is a real thing to keep in mind in 5e.

 

[Inchoroi]

With the exception of two of my players, the others have trouble remembering all their own abilities, rather than trying to run another character.

As a DM, I've done it when a player can't join, for example, but I prefer not to if I can get away with it.

 

[payn]

I've avoided it in D&D due to the complexity of chargen. Though, it's something I do a lot in other games like Traveller or Call of Cthulhu.

 

[Stormonu]

Our group did that for our main campaign in 2E - everyone had 2 characters they played. A couple people eventually dropped to just one so they could focus on the character they liked more, but when we stopped that game we had about 5 players and 8 characters in the group.

Currently, in 5E I am running a Goliath Warlock (Hexblade) knight who has three attendants statted up as Sidekicks - two hunters and an acolyte. I actually think I like one of the sidekicks (Ein the Sharp-Eyed) better than my main character.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Once long ago in my AD&D 2e days I had a party where two players had two characters each, the other two players had a single character each.

That experience is what really taught me why, in order to get the experience I look for in an RPG, players absolutely must only have a single character each. It doesn't matter how few players I have they are always limited to a single character. I simply tailor encounters to the smaller party rather than have the players play multiple characters. It's super easy because as DM I can make up whatever I want.

In fact one of the best campaigns I ever ran in AD&D 2e was for a single player with a single character. There were never any DMPCs or long term NPCs that travelled with the PC either. The single PC took on the world all alone, and it was one of the best campaigns I ever ran!

 

[commandercrud]

I've been in groups that have done it occasionally for various reasons, but it's not ideal. It definitely limits roleplay when you have more than 1 character per player.