delete me, my poster can't format spoilers in one try.
I'd like to start by saying that I know DMPCs are generally a big no-no around here but because my group is smaller than average (three people), an extra hand was deemed welcome by the group as a whole.
That being said, what would be a good example for a DMPC? At the moment I have a Catfolk bard set up with the PCs, travelling with them because he's paying his caravan a favor. The general idea was to give the players a source of knowledge they could reasonably access for questing and the like, while also filling the role of party buffer so they can spend their time doing "cool things." Also, I took the chance to do an Irish accent.
Am I on the right path here? Any alternate ideas that might be better?
Guys, no peeking. you know who you are.
:A replacement might be mandatory since he's only got so much time left after all.
khajiit has wares, if you have coin...
there's things like the cloistered cleric "pokedex", more bards (because bardic knowledge and JoaT are tasty), inquisitors (a bounty hunter hitching a ride to the next big city?), or even a regular wizard (all knowledges as class skills, runs off of INT). there's also lore oracles (with the Lore Master revelation for synergy).
Dang, you caught that reference fast. Best part is we're in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings.
Interesting, I've never heard of the cloistered cleric.
The whole "DMPC-hate" thing is reserved for GMs who are trying to play in their own games.
There is nothing wrong with a GM allowing players to recruit an NPC for backup, or even an NPC with a plot reason to join the party for a while. As long as the GM doesn't lose sight of the fact that you can't be a player in your own game, you're fine.
I tend to reserve the term DMPC or GMPC for GMs who forget this important fact (because it contains both "Game Master" and "Player"). Try to get a player experience in your own game and you will ruin it for everyone.
From your post it sounds like you are innocent of all that.
*If you're wondering who appointed me the King of Abbreviation Definitions, I did.
To answer the OP question, a cleric. Play them as a heal-bot, or play them well instead. Either way, the players will become appreciate them.
The whole "DMPC-hate" thing is reserved for GMs who are trying to play in their own games.
There is nothing wrong with a GM allowing players to recruit an NPC for backup, or even an NPC with a plot reason to join the party for a while. As long as the GM doesn't lose sight of the fact that you can't be a player in your own game, you're fine.
Sure- and then hand that NPC over to the players and let them run him. Step in once in a while if they start mistreating him or for a little RPing flavor.
|
I'd say go with an Adept with a one-level dip into Fighter for Armor Prof and a bonus feat. Adepts have very few spells, but the spells they have can be very versatile in both healing, utility, and blasting, and they don't have Arcane Spell Failure being a divine class. It can help the party's success without ever having a chance of overshadowing them.
The whole "DMPC-hate" thing is reserved for GMs who are trying to play in their own games.
There is nothing wrong with a GM allowing players to recruit an NPC for backup, or even an NPC with a plot reason to join the party for a while. As long as the GM doesn't lose sight of the fact that you can't be a player in your own game, you're fine.
I tend to reserve the term DMPC or GMPC for GMs who forget this important fact. Try to get a player experience in your own game and you will ruin it for everyone.
From your post it sounds like you are innocent of all that.
*If you're wondering who appointed me the King of Abbreviation Definitions, I did.
Good to hear. Though I do have a question about the "players recruiting an NPC" thing.
If it helps I don't exactly have any attachment to uruk, but the players do.
It's actually OK to steal the spotlight from the PCs once in a while, just as long as you're not putting the spotlight on yourself.
GMing is a mindset where you aim to create a player experience. You need to be impartial, you need to feign sadism, you need to feign pity, you need to worry about the player experience. You focus on what the players think is awesome, not what you would play if someone else were GMing.
If the orc gets the spotlight because you think he's cool and you want to play the orc, then you are making an error. If the orc steals the spotlight because that's just what happens, and you can honestly comment alongside the players on this development and decide how to handle it, that's 100% legitimate GMing. It's the intent that matters most.
Lots of good advice here. So, Evil Lincoln, do you have a class you'd recommend for DMPCs?
Who plays Uruk? Who is going to run the new NPC?
Who plays Uruk? Who is going to run the new NPC?
Well, that's the part I'm stuck on myself. Everyone has a PC, so I've been controlling him. of course this has the downsides of me taking 2 or more turns myself. every once in a while, we get other people hanging out, so I'm going to see if I can convince one of them to portray Uruk when they're there. course, even this is only a part time solution.
Why not have one of the players run him?
Why not have one of the players run him?
Only reason is that we're pretty new at pathfinder and mismanage our own characters when there is only one of them. Worth a shot though. at least Uruk doesn't have a complicated class.
Bard makes an excellent NPC companion for the party.
They know things and make the PCs better at what they do. Just don't let the party use the bard NPC as the party face.
Bard makes an excellent NPC companion for the party.
They know things and make the PCs better at what they do. Just don't let the party use the bard NPC as the party face.
not really concerned on this part. they don't even let each other be the face.
You should tailor the challenges to the capabilities of the party, not the party to meet your challenges.
|
I wouldn't worry about your players really. If they don't have the appropriate knowledge, it's fine. I recall running parties sometime and we had nobody with trapfinding...so yeah we took the traps to the face hard but it was a fun experience.
Plus you say that they are new players to pathfinder, it's a good occasion for them to learn about monsters , their various tactics and ability by trial and error if they don't have the right kind of knowledge. Nothing quite as exciting as realizing that when you use fire, it hurts the troll and he doesn't heal back.
You should tailor the challenges to the capabilities of the party, not the party to meet your challenges.
I'd like to think I've been doing that. Recently, they've had a battle in a hallway, so AM CAVALIER had his fun, and next, someone is retraining to ranger, which just so happens
+1 to bard- good buffs/support and knowledges, make PCs better rather than stealing the spotlight... i especially like a halfling with the helpful trait for this.
that said, as long as there is an NPC that's a regular with the party (like Uruk) i would consider that your DMPC for now and look at potentially introducing a more personal/permanent one after he's gone.
ps- i strongly disagree with the idea that PCs should control an NPC in combat... its a NON-player character: the players don't know his motives, his personal code of conduct, they may not even know all of his abilities... if you want them to have a battle-bot they can remote control have them buy/hire a lawful-neutral warrior-slave (one raised from birth to be completely loyal to its master), or have one of them take leadership.