D&D 5E NPC Allies?

[Shiroiken]

I don't like the poll, because of the limited choices. NPCs with the party should always have a story reason to exist and the players should be good with it. Some people are going to like or dislike the concept, however, no matter how implemented. IMO it's best to define some terms here, because the devil's in the details.

1. DMNPC - an NPC who is equal to the party, and likely to be with the party for an extended duration. Mechanically they're usually built in the exact way the PCs are, and because of this they may outshine the PCs in certain situations. There is a serious negative connotation to these, however, as there's a long history of DMs using them as a Mary Sue for them to be a PC. If this trap is avoided, it works extremely well so long as the players (and DM) treat them no differently than another member of the party.
2. Ally - an NPC who is equal to the party, but probably only for a limited duration. Mechanically they're usually just an NPC statblack, so while they might start out strong than the PCs, they will be outclassed as the PCs gain levels. These are seldom problematic, because while they may be powerful, they're also much more limited in abilities, as the statblocks are pared down from normal character creation. The DM should be careful to roleplay them based on their knowledge and personality, rather than a tool to manipulate the adventure to a desired outcome.
3. Henchmen/hirelings - NPCs who are meant to be weaker and/or subservient to the PCs. They can either be NPC statblocks (short to mid-term duration) or use the new Sidekick rules (long term duration). These are almost never a problem, except for the DM who might have to do a lot during combat. This can be alleviated by delegating their use in combat to a willing player. Out of combat, they mostly just do what they're told, so unless they have a specific reason to speak up, they're often part of the background during decision-making.

 

[robus]

NPCs definitely part of the game. DMPCs are the devil’s playthings and should be banned. DMNPC is some hybrid of the two and sounds like a bad idea. Probably should be banned too.

The most unfun I’ve had as a DM was running a combat between an ally and my monsters whilst the players sat and watched. Horrible! After that experience I’d have a player run the ally in combat if they wanted it to participate.

 

[Lanefan]

Henchmen/hirelings - NPCs who are meant to be weaker and/or subservient to the PCs. They can either be NPC statblocks (short to mid-term duration) or use the new Sidekick rules (long term duration). These are almost never a problem, except for the DM who might have to do a lot during combat. This can be alleviated by delegating their use in combat to a willing player. Out of combat, they mostly just do what they're told, so unless they have a specific reason to speak up, they're often part of the background during decision-making.

The most unfun I’ve had as a DM was running a combat between an ally and my monsters whilst the players sat and watched. Horrible! After that experience I’d have a player run the ally in combat if they wanted it to participate.

I can't for a second understand why a DM wouldn't have a player do the combat rolling for a hench; specifically, the player of the PC whose hench it is.

Henches still get rolled up/generated just like PCs, however, only to a lower level.

 

[Shiroiken]

I can't for a second understand why a DM wouldn't have a player do the combat rolling for a hench; specifically, the player of the PC whose hench it is.

Depends on the exact situation. My current campaign had 3 NPCs for a while, but at the time I didn't know how to give control to the players without letting them see all the NPC information. One of them was a traitor, and obviously I didn't want the players to see all of his information. I couldn't treat that one differently without singling him out, so I kept control of all three. It wasn't absolutely awful since I had macros to click for actions, but it wasn't fun either.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends how big the party is. Larger party I don't even want them to have pets let alone while NPCs or multiple characters per player.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, I wish this was a multiple vote poll--because I would have voted for everything except "Don't like the idea."

I like it, sometimes because I need one for the story,
other times because I feel we need another PC to round out the party,
other times because I just want to play a PC myself but I am DMing.

And since it was mentioned, if players are fewer, I am ok with multiple PCs per player, but don't insist on it. I'd rather adjust the adventures or round out the party with an NPC if I need to.

 

[Helldritch]

Could not vote as my stance on this is
I don't like it but it also depends on story and background.

But if an NPC becomes a full member of a group. I will not play that NPC. In combat, I treat these NPCs as straight forward as possible. They are almost reactionary only whenever they are in combat. Out of combat, they will offer advice which may or may not be good. They will have their personnality but, again, as soon as a combat starts they become dumbest. The players must play them so that they are more than combat bots.

 

[Istbor]

If by Ally this means an NPC the party calls a friend, and can rely on if the chips are down? Then yes.

I think it is totally acceptable to have an NPC that is friendly to the group in a campaign. How involved or important they are depends on the campaign/story, and the level with which the party wants to involve said NPC.

Seen it where one is only ever 'the guide' through some unknown area or treacherous swamp/forest/mountain pass, or they hire them on completely as the manager of their side business, or mercenary company, or whatever organization, if the party has that.

Key is really to A) show that while willing to help out his friends, this NPC does have a life outside the parties adventures, and B) rarely, if ever, have that NPC have the spotlight or swoop in to save the party (unless of course, and I have seen this, the party thrusts said NPC into the spotlight intentionally. Ahh... good old Steve-Dave Derekson.).

On the flip side. As a DM, having created a cool slew of NPCs for the party to interact with, you have to be able to understand that the coolest NPC to you, may not be the one the group globs onto. It could be that minor player who was the stable boy taking care of the horses at the tavern, or they could gravitate towards none of them (poor Grompsh Greensong...).

 

[Lanefan]

Depends on the exact situation. My current campaign had 3 NPCs for a while, but at the time I didn't know how to give control to the players without letting them see all the NPC information. One of them was a traitor, and obviously I didn't want the players to see all of his information. I couldn't treat that one differently without singling him out, so I kept control of all three. It wasn't absolutely awful since I had macros to click for actions, but it wasn't fun either.

Fair enough. I've had that situation as well, even including someone's hench in fact being a traitor, and I just let the player(s) run it as normal until the opportune moment, on which I took it over.

Also, depending on the particular NPC, sometimes I'll farm it out to a player and other times I won't; often dependent on how simple/complex the NPC is to play. Sometimes the players don't want to worry about running another caster, for example, and thus they leave it to me to worry about, but are happy to take over running a simple fighter. Other times, particularly if there's several NPCs all at once (it happens), I'll actively try to farm out the casters while keeping the simple characters for myself, to reduce my overhead.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Thanks Everyone, my language was not meant to be ambiguous. I was referring to characters that help the party directly including combat in an ongoing way. I think I have an answer though from the results and comments. I had heard some folk put forth the opinion that this was an invariably bad, (read dumb) Idea and that no one should do it. The feedback from the community though is much more mixed.

To share my own experience, I did this with a recurring character and one player brought up that it perhaps should not be done. As DM at the beginning of the next 3 sessions, I had that character not be there. Three times, the party agreed unanimously including that player to go get him. They went out of their way in character to make it happen even though I made clear it was up to them and that it would not affect the plot or the rewards to players.