Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="klofft" data-source="post: 5880583" data-attributes="member: 40326">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.</blockquote>

Verification