NPCs as Party Members

[Skade]

Just a quick response: I hate it when I play with a DM that gives the players a tag-along of any kind. It never turns out good with me playing, since I'm tough on all of the other players (most of the time) about "getting into shape" and "think through the problem" and other quick quip-like suggestions. When I do it to the NPC, the DM tends to have the most trouble looking at it as IC interaction.

I think that is more of an issue with the DM than a problem inherent to an NPC tag-along. Though I can understand the DM maybe feeling a little self conscious when his NPC who obviously knows everything cannot "think" of everything, that kind of inetraction in a party is to be expected, and within reason, encouraged.

 

[Davelozzi]

I have mixed feelings about full time NPCs. My first long running campaign (2e) started with only 2 PCs so I put two NPCs in to round off the party. Over several years of play, more players joined until I had 5 full time PCs and a couple of other PCs who ran with the party for a few adventures here and there. The two NPCs stayed with the party long after they were no longer needed. One (a thief) was more well-liked as he was a roguish charming sort. The other (a priest) was a stuffy gold elf and was pretty much univerally disliked as soon as we got a PC cleric. Sometime I had him sit out on an adventure with another absent PC (taking care of the "sick" character) but mostly I kept him around hoping for a good chance for a heroic death to give him a little meaning. Unfortunately it never happened.

In all of my subsequent campaigns there's been more than enough players (too many, maybe) so I haven't bothered with any full time NPCs. I prefer it this way but would probably go back to using one if I ever found myself in a situation with just a couple of players again.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I only have Party NPCs if the PC specifically ask for them.

There's been times where the players realised they really need a Cleric in the group, so they asked around and convinced an NPC Cleric to help them. I asked each of the players to make up a cleric of the appropriate level and chose the most interesting one.

Same when they needed a couple of Fighter-types to round out the group when the PC-Fighter's player went to Ireland. Everyone made up some fighter-types, and the PCs went to a place where they could hire adventurers, and roleplayed their way into hiring some. Some interesting rivalries were started here, along with some running jokes.

The NPCs were with the group temporarily, for one adventure, or until the PCs decided they didn't need them (or for the Cleric, was killed in a non-ressurectable manner).

Geoff.

 

[Painfully]

Currently, I have a group of players whose party does not include a cleric or arcane caster of any kind (okay, one is a ranger, but he isn't high enough to cast anything).

Personally, I'm against having an NPC hang out with the party beyond a single objective/adventure, but if I leave them without a cleric it feels like they are going to be crippled.

So I have an NPC cleric that currently travels with them, but it won't last long.

Do other DMs think I should let the party, "suffer the consequences," of having an unbalanced party? Or should I be making up for their deficit with magic items or NPCs? I'm inclined to the former myself.

 

[Fenes 2]

IMHO, no player should ever suffer for building an unbalanced party. The goal of the game is to have fun. If no one wants to play a healer, then it is the DM's duty to accomodate the players, not force one of them to play some PC he does not have fun with.

 

[Painfully]

It's hard to balance a party of barbarians, rogues, and rangers. I certainly didn't force anyone to do anything. But magic is a part of the world, and I don't feel like I should have to pull punches "just for them."

If they go down as just another unsuccessful adventurer group, my hope is that they will learn their weakness and find a way to compensate for it, and not to ask the DM to go soft on them because of X, Y, or Z.

Balancing for class levels is one thing, but to ask to balance for THEIR PARTICULAR CLASSES too? I'm no babysitter DM. They should have anticipated that they will have strengths and weaknesses just like any group, but in their case it is extremely so.

To ask the DM to make up for it by adding an NPC cleric and wizard is rather obtrusive IMO, since the DM has other things to do besides run NPC "helpers" in the party. And handing out the magic items is not the best way to handle game balance either.

--edit--

One of my players will be hosting his own campaign in which he intends to bring an NPC fighter along for the ride...the whole ride. This to me is a setup for abuse by the DM. If our group needs another fighter, we should hire one, or multiclass one of our members, but the DM is new to 3rd ed, and I'll have to see how things go.

 

[Fenes 2]

I play with friends. If they want to play particular PCs, I won't force them to play an "effective" party - I will adjust the campaign by either adding NPCs, or tailoring the encounters.

It is about having fun, not about minmaxing an entire party.

For me it is only common sense to tailor my adventures to the PCs. If I have a bunch of players that like to roleplay diplomatic intrigues I won't run a mega-dungeoncrawl just to "teach them". If I play with people that like swashbuckling campaigns I won't start a wilderness campaign. If my players want to have epic adventures I won't start a grim and gritty mercenary adventure.

And if no one of my players wants to play a healer, then I will not TPK them until one player relents and sacrifices his fun.

As I said, I play with friends, and I will tailor my adventures to their wishes, in order to let everyone have fun in the game.

 

[Sanackranib]

unbalanced party

Currently, I have a group of players whose party does not include a cleric or arcane caster of any kind (okay, one is a ranger, but he isn't high enough to cast anything).

Personally, I'm against having an NPC hang out with the party beyond a single objective/adventure, but if I leave them without a cleric it feels like they are going to be crippled.

So I have an NPC cleric that currently travels with them, but it won't last long.

Do other DMs think I should let the party, "suffer the consequences," of having an unbalanced party? Or should I be making up for their deficit with magic items or NPCs? I'm inclined to the former myself.

consider that one of the players is running a ranger. Even if he isn't high enough to cast cure lt. wounds it is ON his spell list, so either have the part buy a cure lt. wand or find one as part of a treasure if the can't afford one. when you consider that bards, druids, rangers, witches and the odd mage (if you use non-core feats) can cast healing spells, a cleric is the easiest "hole" in the party to fill. It just means that they will be fighting the undead they encounter rather then turning or controling them.

 

[Gossamerblade]

I've never had a problem with NPCs being regular characters, but I think that says more about the DM than anything else. When I first started playing 3e, the DM felt that we needed a wizard and cleric, which he supplied as NPCs. Since then, another character has a (different) cleric as a follower, so the NPC stays at the temple now. The wizard NPC, however, has married a PC and become a more or less permanent fixture. The DM plays her as a member of the party, albeit one with a minor role.

 

[sellars]

In our gaming group it we are accustomed to the fact that the DM plays an NPC. We had instances in which this was good, but usually I dislike it mainly for three reasons:

1. On several occasions, the DM's NPC was the most flamboyant and outcomming character of the whole group, this put some PCs to the background

2. Similar to (1) we also had occasions in which the NPC was for instance a very good fighter, which got used by the rest of the group as cannonfodder, degrading their own inventiveness.

3. quite the opposite, we also had occasions where the DM played an NPC which said nothing, and did nothing except roll a D20 every combat round. in that way it was not the most present character, but just 1 die roll/turn more

So I dislike it, and will not use an NPC myself anymore.

gr sellars