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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4738897" data-attributes="member: 710">I like it and I don't like it.We occasionally have one player running two characters these days, since some of our regulars are no longer regulars. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />It started in 3E, when many players picked up the Leadership feat to get a cohort.In 4E, we usually have someone to fill the fourth role/slot (if we only have 3 players and one DM). I like it because it gives me the opportunity to test out more characters and be more active at the game table. That is fun.But I don't like it because I can't focus as much on a specific character. We are not that "deep" into the acting/story-telling part of RPGs and more on the "beating challenges" stuff, but this reduces my opportunity to characterize or play out "my" character more, since I have two characters that I have to characterize and play out, and I don't get the extra actions for that that I get in combat.Overall, I think it's something you have to be aware of the drawbacks and advantages. I won't miss the opportunity to get the honor/duty of playing the extra character in the group. I think the ideal approach would probably be if everyone had the same number of characters he could run, that would feel "fairer" overall. You get the same number of combat actions, and the same time as everyone else to play out your characters quirks.</blockquote>

Verification