So, I need some advice. My sister, brother, his friend and I are getting ready to start a game together. We all get along really well, and we'd really like to have a constant cohesive party, and play at least a couple different adventures with the same party. Now, my sister and I are taking turns as GMs. So, what we'd like to do is play characters that are best suited for the role of GMPCs, even though only one of us will be playing a GMPC at a time. I know some people will say that an NPC controlled by the GM - or by the players, better yet - is the solution, but we don't want that. We want a party. I was introduced to Pathfinder with GMPCs, so I'm not uncomfortable with them. The other three are open to it, but are overall inexperienced.
So basically, what I'm asking is:
1. Which classes/roles (e.g., Cleric, Fighter; Tank, Buffer) are best for two people who will be GMPCs 50% of the time, one of whom is fairly experienced?
-AND-
2. Which classes are best for 2 people who will be dedicated PCs, but will probably have a tough time with the finer points of the system, i.e., need less complicated classes?
Thanks in advance for the help, understanding, and patience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric and bard both make good GMPCs. Though the out of combat challenges become basically formalities if the bard ends up as the only member with decent skills.
Maybe something useful, but not as powerful.
I had a wizard / druid / mystic theurge.....
diviner could give Pc's a buff
Druid storm domain...storm burst is a nice de-buff
and the selection of spells makes an always useful addition to the party....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My recommendation: keep the GMPC as far away from the NPCs as possible. A dumb martial would be ideal so you can let the others shine. Don't talk to yourself (NPCs), minimize any risk of metagaming as much as humanly possible. Your goal is to not exist. Serve your role in combat, and stay away from anything else.
As mentioned, the dumb martial works, but you could also try something like a reach cleric and focus on primarily healing the party, while also being able to fend for yourself a bit. This all really depends on what the other players are though.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually - my buddy and I once took turns being GM. However - we avoided making either character a GMPC (almost never turns out well).
Instead - the two of us played a single character with multiplicity personality disorder with similar stats but entirely different classes. So when GM-ing our character wasn't left behind.
A ranger could be useful. Tank, archery, skills galore, easy to run, can heal in a pinch. Traditionally pretty gruff, so you won't end up talking to yourself.
Barbarian or fighter or cavalier might be good. Barbarians and Cavaliers have decent skills and are easy to run.
We ran a campaign with 3 PCs and 3 NPC henchmen. The NPC henchmen were warriors, so REALLY easy to run.
You can have 2 PCs and a henchman or 2 and then just have each GM's PC be unavailable or whatever.
Why do you need a GMPC? I've been running a campaign with 3 players for a few years now and never had any issues in terms of party balance or encounter difficulty. There's 0 reason to need one especially if you are going to be taking turns GMing anyway. Just come up with a compelling IC reason why only you or your sister's character can be present for a particular adventure at a time. Maybe they have some shared responsibilities elsewhere.
Contributor
|
While I hold that GMPCs can be a good thing if used well, having a part-time PC, part-time GMPC is extremely hard to do properly. You basically have to treat your personal character as an NPC, without any of the self-importance that many PCs (justifiably) have.
While I don't agree that GMPCs are always a bad thing, I think Blakmane's solution is worth considering. Unless both you and your co-GM feel able to treat your personal player characters as NPCs during your time behind the screen, having them phase out might be a better idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe go with this party of 4:
PC1
PC2
GM1's PC or GM2's PC
DMPC shared by GM1 & GM2.
Maybe GM1's PC and GM2's PC could share a mentor or something, and have to trade off adventuring endeavors with mentor-guarding & gophering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a GMPC then filling a role absent in the party while not pulling focus is important. But so is consistent characterisation.
It may be worth discussing or even writing a backstory and listing character traits and how they'd react in certain circumstances. This way you end up with the same character every session despite 2 different GMs.
As has been said before, a support character GMPC can work well. Something like a healer, knowledge specialist (allowing you to inject exposition at will) or rogue-type niche skill-monkey might be appropriate. They get to remove obstacles or shout advice/warnings, allowing the PCs to do the real Adventuring. Having them in a subservient role to the PCs also reinforces that they are a sidekick not the hero. Perhaps a squire, chronicler, hired scout or guide or even an observer sent along by the party's employer to ensure a task is completed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a GMPC in one of my campaigns, we started off with three players; Paladin, Rouge and a Wizard. They wanted a healer so I offered to play a wildshape focused druid, she spends most her time as a beast so rarely speaks. Mostly following what the others decide.
I would also recommend playing a support or tank role. And not something that has the face role as that would lead to some strange interactions.
I really appreciate all the advice. Thanks a bunch!
So, I actually have run an adventure (homebrewed) while playing an archer bard with some friends, and none of the (4) other players complained about how I did it, and my friends were much more critical (just in general) than the group I'd be playing with now. So, since I have more experience, would be using a less complicated class, and would be playing with more relaxed people, I don't think it will be (that) problematic.
Now, most people seem to be indicating that Tank and Healer would be good roles for GMPCs. With Cleric and Fighter as good classes.
My question now is, what classes/roles would be best for the two people who will consistently use PCs?
Wizard? Ninja? Druid? Bard? Investigator?
DPR? Scout? Skill-Monkey? Arcane Caster? Debuffer?
Also, please keep in mind that these players are somewhat inexperienced too, so their classes should not be overly complicated either...
Also to everyone who offers alternative solutions, I appreciate them, but we're talking about a family and a kid who we've all known for over ten years. We all want to play together as characters, and everyone wants everyone else to do so.
This proposition can work, on one condition: when you are DMing, you give your character sheet to one of the other players, and *they* make all relevant decisions, die rolls and rollplay calls. You as DM never get to make a call as for what your character is going to do, say or even think.
NEVER.
If you cross that line, you open yourself up to problems. And the other folks will see you playing with yourself... and you don't want that. <g>
I did exactly the same thing for a 5-year DD3.5 campaign that ended 3 years ago, and some of the rotating DMs did OK and kept their hands off their character during the sessions they were DMing, and others didn't. There were even some highly questionable treasure drops - the DM dropping loot tailor-made for their own character. We just smiled and rolled with it, but I'm sure you'd agree that it wasn't their most stellar moment. On the other end of the scale, one of the rotating DMs actually killed off his own character, at a low level before we had the dosh for raise dead. That's the kind of hard call that a DM has to make, and we respected the hell out of him for not pulling his punches.
I once played in a party with my druid, a fighter, and an arcane trickster, so pretty balanced. Then the DM made a DMPC eldritch knight evoker, and was sloppy with it. Like, sloppy with AoE "friendly" fire. (And acid, cold, electricity...yuck yuck yuck) Anyways, that was really annoying. This was in 3.5, and druids could heal, but weren't the best at in-combat healing. I mostly "healed" by counterspelling AoE stuff after level 9 or 12 (campaign lasted until 16).
I don't think the DM was hurting us on purpose, either, which made it kind of awkward.
Then his "power-gamer" bro-in-law joined the campaign with a different eldritch knight, but a lot less sloppy. Just very gung-ho and new to everything.
I appreciate the advice, but I think some people are missing the point (perhaps it's my fault for not being clear enough) that we're all friends/family, and would like to feel that we're adventuring together. So, for example, my sister handing off her character for my brother to control, is likely to both overwhelm and annoy him, because he wants to be playing himself as an adventurer, not himself and someone else too. It's not going to be as immersive for him that way. Or for anyone.
So, what I'm looking for is how to come up with characters that can easily take a backseat to the other 2 in the party, while still being PCs, since 50% of the time one or the other will be exactly that, a regular PC. My friends and I did it, multiple times, so I know it can be done. I've done it, and I've been in groups that have done it. No one had complaints.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but all the people telling me not to do it are neither helping, nor answering the questions in my posts.
What I'm essentially asking is
1. how to make two characters that contribute meaningfully to the group, but in less noisy and flashy ways than the other two, and
2. how to make those two characters able to handle the flashier noisier stuff.
Thanks.
If you're going to only have one of your/your sister's PCs present, then maybe making them the same role would make it work. You can differentiate them in many other ways.
For example you could have a Witch and a debuff/control focused Wizard. Both can do similar things using slightly different means, and the party won't be at a disadvantage whichever is being played that day.
its going to make things more complex but ... two gestalt PC's and one single class
GMPC might work.
Okay, I'm sorry I'm not being clear. I'm new to the community, so bear with me. Thanks.
Basically, the advice I'm looking for is essentially along the lines of:
"Buffers, Healers, Tanks are alright GMPCs. Full arcane casters, Scouts, Skill-Monkeys, Party-Faces are bad ones.
Clerics, Fighters, Druids and Slayers are good GMPC classes. Wizards, Ninjas, Bards, and Paladins are bad ones."
Hopefully, it's obvious that I'm not looking for that advice verbatim, but advice in that same vein.
Does this make sense?
GMPCs, just say no. At best they are as good as an NPC, at worst they ruin the game.
Better to give players more characters than to give the GM even one.
Make separate characters for each game. Having characters cross over between DMs is not the best idea either.
@GM Tribute
I'm not sure you read the entire thread; otherwise you would have noticed that the primary players are inexperienced, and will have enough going on with their own characters. So no, that solution is not better.
Furthermore, I've been in games that have carried characters over, and we preferred it that way.
I'm sorry if I seem rude, but this thread is asking for help on "how" to do "x" most effectively, not "whether" to do "x" at all.
Now, one of the dedicated players wants to be a halfling with a sling staff (not sure of class), and the other an Oracle with the Volcano Revelation. I'm thinking Ranger or Slayer for the halfling, so that he could take care of scouting/skills. The Oracle will focus on casting and social interactions.
So, for the GMPCs, what do people think about an Empyreal Sorcerer (spontaneous instead of prepared like wizard, and high Wisdom instead of charisma) focused on buffing, and a melee Fighter of some sort?
Thanks again everyone.
|
Contributor
|
Do you have alignments figured out? I had great success with a GMPC paladin with the oath of loyalty and the oath of charity. I'd do something like that over a melee fighter, since the PCs should be the stars, and that usually means damage-dealing. A siegebreaker fighter might be good too, but I have less personal experience with that. (If you think your group will be fine letting an NPC do the beatdown, then go ahead.)
The empyreal sorcerer sounds good. No complaints there. ^_^
Okay, thanks. As for a paladin... I just don't think I have it in me to play lawful... kidding. Well, sorta. Ha.
So, does that party composition sound okay? A caster Oracle (maybe Seeker archetype for traps), some kind of switch-hitting Ranger or Slayer, a buffer Empyreal Sorcerer, and some kind of Melee Fighter? Are we missing anything substantial or integral?
@Grey Lensman
I was thinking that one, but do you think that it might be difficult to be both the one doing the knowledge checks, and answering them? Since the sorcerer would be a GMPC when I'm not the GM and she is. If that's not problematic, then that's cool!
Okay, but will a GMPC that's a Sage Sorcerer focusing on buffing and knowledge checks be more problematic, less problematic, or about equivalent than/to a Sage Sorcerer who focuses on buffing, and happens to be good at Wisdom based skills, without focusing on them, AS A GMPC (reiterating)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is a great intro class for new PCs. Probably the best. I think the Slayer is real good too.
Oracles have lots of built-in role-play potential, and since they are spontaneous casters, the player only needs to learn a few new spells at a time...and should probably be given guidance by the more experienced players about what spells they should pick.
Have you totally ruled out having the sharing DMs share a PC when not DMing?
I'm not sure how that's all that different than having a PC for myself when I'm playing, who then becomes a GMPC, and having a PC for my sister who becomes a GMPC when she's GM. Neither one would be a PC that could steal the show, whether we're playing or GMing. Which we're fine with.
Plus, everyone wants everyone else (and themselves) to be a member of the party...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't let folks that say that GM-NPC are always bad win the argument. It is a "depends on the group" situation. In my home group, before it disbanded after 25 years, there was almost always a GM-NPC when there were only four players. Usually the 5th character (the GM-NPC) was an archer cleric, with basic spells and basic archery skills.
The best suggestion that I have seen above was:
PC1
PC2
PC3 or PC4 that is the PC of the GM that is playing and not the current GM.
GM-NPC - either an archer cleric or a fighter.
Arcane or Skill class is too dang complicated to be a GM-NPC.
-- david
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're sure you want two demi-GMPCs, just play what you want to play. Half the time, they'll be your PCs, so make sure they're something fun you want to play. And the other half, they'll be your GMPCs, so make sure they're something fun you want to play.
You might even want to expand your character options and try playing a monster or something.
@SmiloDan
Thanks! I appreciate what you wrote. Encouraging, and cool of you. I think we'll probably stick to regular classes though.
So, it turns out my sister doesn't want to play a buffer, or rather, not someone who (almost) solely buffs. I think she'd prefer to partake in combat (not ranged), at least a bit, so maybe a reach cleric is good?
Anyway, we rolled stats, and these are them (before racial modifiers):
Oracle focusing on casting (PC):
18, 16, 13, 13, 12, 11
Ranger or Slayer Switch Hitter (PC): 17, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12
Unsure, possibly reach Cleric (50% GMPC):
17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 11
Fighter who will Tank, 2 handed, possibly Initimidate (50% GMPC):
18, 16, 15, 12, 12, 12
How should these be distributed, so as to make a good party, and also having GMPCs that don't steal the show?
Also, how does the party composition seem?
Do you know what kind of oracle? Flames? Do they get that Volcano revelation you were talking about?
11, 13, 16, 13, 12, 18 for the oracle. Can also act as a bit skill monkey.
Will the ranger/slayer mostly do melee or ranged?
16, 17, 14, 13, 14, 12.
Reach Cleric with what domains?
16, 15, 12, 11, 17, 13 if going for Combat Reflexes, otherwise switch Dex and Cha or Con.
For the fighter:
18 15 16 12 12 12, possibly switching Dex and Cha is you are focusing on Intimidate and/or will be wearing heavy armor.