DMPC Help

[Koury]

I am preparing to DM for a group of three who will be tackling Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat.

My problem is that I feel that the campaign is overall squarely on the difficult side and don't think that they could overcome the handicap of only three players. I've decided that running a DMPC is probably the best way to fix this in our particular situation (the other usual player we have isn't up for it and my new place, where we will be playing, doesn't really have much room for a 5th person in it anyway).

Now, I am well aware of the standard objections to DMPCs and want to make sure my character fills out the party while also projecting as much glory as possible onto the three other players. I'm here looking for suggestions of what kind of character to make to achieve that goal. I'm not here to be talked out of a DMPC.

So, to that end, the current party:

Dwarven Sorcerer, Black Dragon ancestor. Charlatan background. Player is new to D&D (and tabletop gaming in general). He is going for a greedy dwarf, whose greed is pushed even further by his dragony tendencies. Will likely go very blasty. Probably Chaotic Neutral with evil leanings. Not the kind of person who will use alignment as an excuse to be crazy, luckily.

Halfling Rogue, Thief. Noble background. Will be going 2 Rogue, 5 Fighter, rest Rogue. Dex based. Concept is a disowned/black sheep of the family noble. He hides his noble heritage when possible. Wants to be seen as having earned his way through life, not have had it handed to him, though he will use his name if it is important he secures an audience with an official. Would assume he goes for a Chaotic Good type character, based on past campaigns.

Dragonborn (White Dragon) Druid, Circle of the Moon. Folk Hero background. Has ambitions of ruling over the lands as a tyrant, but also a deep desire to be seen as a hero. Lawful Evil. Will likely do the right thing for the wrong reason with some degree of frequency.

So, based on all that I'm thinking Cleric or Bard. Maybe Paladin. If I went Cleric (Knowledge Domain) or Bard (College of Lore) I could use the character to deliver background and lore they may otherwise miss. Cleric and Paladin (and maybe College of Valor Bard?) could help shore up the front line since both the Druid and Rogue will have only middling AC (Well, I guess the Rogue would be decent if he took a shield). All three could help with healing to various degrees. Cleric and Bard can give out lots of buffs.

Thoughts? Opinions? I'm also open to any tips and suggestions to running the campaign in general. This is our first 5th ed. game, after many years of running 3.5.

[Rallicus]

I'd suggest either running your own campaign or adjusting the encounters for 3 people by using the encounter building rules in the basic DM guide pdf.

DMPCs are a slippery slope and best avoided in my opinion.

[Koury]

Now, I am well aware of the standard objections to DMPCs

Let's try this again.

[Rallicus]

Sorry, that sort of thing happens before my morning coffee.

That said, I still stand by my previous post. Though if you do decide to go down this road, the versatility of a moon druid would be a good choice.

[RealCheese]

I would make something simple and avoid them needing the character for information ever. Something without spells for you to keep track of too. Open hand monk with a vow of silence? Champion fighter mercenary with low int/wis/cha who just attacks who they ask him to attack and takes 10% of loot as his pay?

[TypoNinja]

So, based on all that I'm thinking Cleric or Bard. Maybe Paladin. If I went Cleric (Knowledge Domain) or Bard (College of Lore) I could use the character to deliver background and lore they may otherwise miss. Cleric and Paladin (and maybe College of Valor Bard?) could help shore up the front line since both the Druid and Rogue will have only middling AC (Well, I guess the Rogue would be decent if he took a shield). All three could help with healing to various degrees. Cleric and Bard can give out lots of buffs.

Thoughts? Opinions? I'm also open to any tips and suggestions to running the campaign in general. This is our first 5th ed. game, after many years of running 3.5.

I'd say no to a Paladin, if you are serious about not stealing any spotlight from your players. Paladins are by their nature not very passive, a Paladin will want to take charge, be heard, these are not traits you want in a DMPC, if you insist on running one.

Now that I've given you actual advice, I'll throw in a vote for DMPC = Bad Idea. :D

[Longcat]

Moving away from all the patronizing "no DMPC" advice, I'd suggest either pure life cleric or life cleric 1/lore Bard rest. You've got damage and tanking aplenty in your party, so a dedicated healer/support character might work best.

[Rallicus]

Moving away from all the patronizing "no DMPC" advice, I'd suggest either pure life cleric or life cleric 1/lore Bard rest. You've got damage and tanking aplenty in your party, so a dedicated healer/support character might work best.

Patronizing? Might want to find a less dramatic (and more accurate) adjective, because thus far no posts I've seen have been "patronizing."

Bards rest is virtually useless in hotq's first chapter though, as there's little time for rest. Unless the DM rules for 15 minute short rests.

[Serpentine]

Looking at it, I think something healy would be best. The risk with a Bard is if they're assigned the party face, and you end up talking to yourself a lot.
You might consider attaching the character to one of the others. The Rogue, for example - maybe the character knows he's a noble, maybe works for their family and is in the party to try and keep an eye on the halfling, with or without his knowledge and/or consent.

To make it work, I recommend treating your character exactly like any other PC - don't allow it to have anything you wouldn't allow any other character, for instance, and give it as well fleshed-out a background and personality as you'd give any other character you create. It should be useful, but geared towards helping others to succeed rather than shining itself - this doesn't necessarily mean being a healer or Bard, so for example my DMPC was a Knight whose job was to get hit so all the squishy spellcasters who mostly made up the party wouldn't, but in this case it looks like that's a good place to start.
Mostly, you need to be able to compartmentalise your thinking, separate what you know as a DM from what you would know if you were a PC and/or from what your character knows. If in doubt, roll it randomly.
And always be conscious of how your players are feeling. In fact, it might be an idea to discuss what sort of character your DMPC with them, unless you have some specific surprise in mind. They might have an idea for a character they'd like to interact with, or something they think would be helpful that you haven't heard of.

Good luck :smallsmile:

[Felvion]

IMO your DMPC doesn't have to fill a specific role as your party seems to have everything covered.
The sorcerer will blast, the rogue will do his stuff, druid is pretty much everything. Someone should do the social part but they're all capable according to their background.

If i were you i'd be more concerned about the roleplaying part of this DMPC. I generally like them to be pretty straightforward characters so you don't get too messed playing their part.
Take the barbarian for example.
1)He's easy for you to play him rp-wise plus very little paperwork needed.
2)Although his rp is simple he can be really thematic (especially with spirit totem path)
3)Can easily be attached to "another" party member in order to avoid giving him complex personal motives. The Druid could act as a "nature-mentor" using him as his destruction machine. Maybe one of the other 2 could have saved him from a tragic fate (slavery, death etc) and now he feels it's his duty to protect the party.
4)He is what i call a "reliable" class. His tankiness is granted, he can be the survival-tracking guy (*plot-hooks), ok damage. In social cases he won't do much but in battle (where the true gap of 4rth player shows) he stand on his own. He won't beg for heals or buffs nor will he cast any of this to create unexpected advantage to the party.
5)He can synergise well with any of his allies. He can proc OA for the rogue or grapple/pin (sentinel maybe?) anything that reaches the sorcerer.
6)Easy-going when it comes to equipment. Just give him a shield and a +1 maul and he's ok. (real men don't wear armor:smallcool:).

Having said these I feel no other class offers such advantages.

On the other hand i can see that you may not like to play a barbarian. Just keep in mind to keep the dmpc simple (both in motivation, playstyle and rp) and you'll be cool.
Some ideas that could work:
-Blade-pact warlock. His patron sent him to accompany the party for his own reasons that could serve for plot twists after you end those campaigns and probably the 4rth guy becomes unnecessary. Then this warlock could turn to be the party's arch-enemy. High charisma could be painfull. Leave a bit low (16 maximum) and make him focus on physical stats. Maybe 2 lvl dip into fighter.
-Cleric. Clearly a supportive one. Prepare standard spell-lists depending on what he knows every morning. Don't mess with Heavy casting, avoid game-breaking spells at all cost. A hero cleric can easily be dump but ultra faithfull. If levels rise dangerously try multiclassing.
-Ranger. Hunter. You will never worry he may outshine anyone! Archer damage support, could possibly dip 3 levels of rogue for assasin. Offers pure ranged dpr (and few spells to support it) in case the sorcerer doesn't really wanna blast. Favored enemy is a thing in these campaigns.
-Fighter. Champion or EK. Same as ranger but in melle.

Finally i'd advice you to avoid at all costs both bard and paladin. Even if their high charisma is not a problem for you, they are really special classes. If you fell your players lack healing just go cleric.
The bard is skill-monkey which is bad. You could end up rolling dice just for yourself. Picking which spell to cast and when is crucial much like granting inspiration.
The paladin is highly rp-based class. I mean do you want his ethics-oth get in the way of the party's plans?

Ps: No monk mention. I guess it's my 3.5 habbit that will die last.

[Yorrin]

I've run numerous DMPCs over the years, and there's basically two ways to do it.

One way is to basically turn your DMPC into a plot device to push/pull the party into all kinds of shenanigans. This works best when you write the plot around said character, and requires very precise balancing so as to not make the party feel insignificant. I do not advise this for anyone who is new to DMPCs and especially not for a pre-written module.

The other way, and the way I recommend in general, is to play "the quiet guy." Roll up a big dumb brute who has very little volitional initiative and is just there to make sure nobody ends up dead. Clerics can fill this role well, especially if you go with, something like a War Cleric, as you can pull off a high Str/Wis low Int/Cha pretty well, and basically be a "me smash you" warrior who heals up the party afterwards. This playstyle works especially well at low levels in 5e.

[Serpentine]

The other way, and the way I recommend in general, is to play "the quiet guy." Roll up a big dumb brute who has very little volitional initiative and is just there to make sure nobody ends up dead. Clerics can fill this role well, especially if you go with, something like a War Cleric, as you can pull off a high Str/Wis low Int/Cha pretty well, and basically be a "me smash you" warrior who heals up the party afterwards. This playstyle works especially well at low levels in 5e.I agree that DMPCs should usually have "wallflower" type personalities, but I caution against giving them no personality at all. If you don't have an actual character there, you may as well just give the party a mindless golem to follow them around or a few extra wands. When I tried to get rid of my DMPC, the main reason given for why the party wanted her to stay was because they enjoyed interacting with her. I think that's still important.

[Human Paragon 3]

How about a Life Domain cleric with the Hermit background? She cloistered herself away to live simply. She has the wisdom to only speak up when it's necessary. She has the ability to dispense advice and have it taken when the PCs are lost, but is uncomfortable taking a leadership role, so will let the rest of the party be active.

For what it's worth, I do not share every else's skepticism of DMPCs. They work fine if you are a good DM. Plus since you are taking the system for a spin, it will be useful to see how four characters work together - that's how it was designed to work, after all.

Last word of advice: 5e is VERY deadly. A healer is not optional.

[Valefor Rathan]

Oath of Vengeance Paladin could provide some healing for the squishies and still bash skulls.

Maybe?

My brother and I started tabletop RPGs with just us so DMPCs have a special place in my heart. :smallcool:

[Koury]

Ok, I see and understand the cautioning against Paladin. Consider that crossed off the list.

I have already talked to the party about my DMPC existing in the party and about how he won't be heavily involved in major decisions. They understand I would just be filling out the group.

To that end, I think someone with healing is really the major thing they need, followed by (potentially) a dedicated frontliner. I'm not sure how squishy to expect the Rogue to be, nor am I sure how quickly I should expect the Druid to wear through his wild shape HP buffer with the low AC that comes with it. Especially for the first two or three levels.

This, plus the posts above discouraging Bard in general, makes me lean toward Cleric (War) for the heavy armor, healing and buffing. Plus I can use my Channeled Divinity at level 6 to help make their big attacks hit. He can be a stoic no-nonsense bodyguard type pretty easily. He'd actually work well (going with Serpentine's idea) as the guy the noble family sent to watch over their son. To make sure he didn't do anything that could bring disgrace to their name. He could know about it and resent it, or he could not know and we could have a fun reveal later on. Or maybe thats favoring that PC a bit too much.

tl;dr I think I'll go with Cleric (War). This isn't set in stone however, and I'm open to other ideas. Also still open to any tips about running either HotDQ specifically or a 5th Ed. campaign in general.

[Yagyujubei]

this doesnt really have anything to do with the thread, but do halfling societies even HAVE nobles?

[Human Paragon 3]

tl;dr I think I'll go with Cleric (War). This isn't set in stone however, and I'm open to other ideas. Also still open to any tips about running either HotDQ specifically or a 5th Ed. campaign in general.

This sounds perfectly serviceable. Sounds like you know your group well and this character should fit right in. War cleric can frontline, but won't overshadow martial classes for damage. Rogue and sorcerer will be great damage dealers (better than your cleric) and the druid will be more versatile. The cleric will also free up the druid to be more aggressive instead of having to act as a heal-bot. Good choice.

[Safety Sword]

On another front, when it comes to combat you can always hand the sheet over to your players.

No need to do any extra work as a DM that you don't have to do.

[Shining Wrath]

You want a low Charisma character and probably low Intelligence as well. You do not solve puzzles, you do not talk to people.

Wisdom is OK so long as you only turn on Active Perception and Insight when asked to do so by the others. If they say "DMPC, search the room" you roll your D20.

Put me down for a War Cleric. You smack things, you cast blasty spells, you heal a little.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

How about a Life Domain cleric with the Hermit background? She cloistered herself away to live simply. She has the wisdom to only speak up when it's necessary. She has the ability to dispense advice and have it taken when the PCs are lost, but is uncomfortable taking a leadership role, so will let the rest of the party be active.

For what it's worth, I do not share every else's skepticism of DMPCs. They work fine if you are a good DM. Plus since you are taking the system for a spin, it will be useful to see how four characters work together - that's how it was designed to work, after all.

Last word of advice: 5e is VERY deadly. A healer is not optional.Seconded, though you could also do a Knowledge Domain Cleric with the Acolyte background so you can cast Summon Exposition at will with your knowledge proficiencies. And if the group missed a skill proficiency that is needed in the module, the DMPC can do it in a pinch with that bard-like channel divinity feature.

The key is to have low charisma though. A DMPC who doesn't take a leadership role and doesn't speak much is more a mechanical crutch if anything, which can work.

[unwise]

What about a creature instead? In the party's first fight they rescue a young wyrmling, it them bonds with them and will fight for them. It can't talk much yet and is not all that bright, but has great armor and can fight well.

Players are more OK with creature outdoing them in combat sometimes than another person showing them up. It also ticks the boxes of not being the party face, having some interesting abilities, sureing up the front line and being something likeable.

You have two PCs with strong draconic links and a strong draconic flavour to the campaign.
Adding in a small dragon that they can mentor sounds good to me. He could even be kidnapped by kobolds or cultists at some point.

Who doesn't want a dragon on their side. This would allow him/her to grow into a young dragon when the Pcs hit high level, keeping pace as a useful ally the whole way to the end.

I really think that some kind of creature or animal is a great way to sure up combat without stepping on PCs toes.

[Ursus the Grim]

Normally I would agree with the whole 'no DMPC thing,' but you're right. HotD is deadly, even for a full party. I think it may help if your players find/recruit him with their own agency. How many times do PCs ask the quest-giver for help with their given quest, only to be told "I'm sorry, there's not a single guard/soldier/mook that I can spare to help you?"

Players don't generally like DMPCs, no matter how much you do. However, everyone likes to have a hireling.

[Serpentine]

Ok, I see and understand the cautioning against Paladin. Consider that crossed off the list.

I have already talked to the party about my DMPC existing in the party and about how he won't be heavily involved in major decisions. They understand I would just be filling out the group.

To that end, I think someone with healing is really the major thing they need, followed by (potentially) a dedicated frontliner. I'm not sure how squishy to expect the Rogue to be, nor am I sure how quickly I should expect the Druid to wear through his wild shape HP buffer with the low AC that comes with it. Especially for the first two or three levels.

This, plus the posts above discouraging Bard in general, makes me lean toward Cleric (War) for the heavy armor, healing and buffing. Plus I can use my Channeled Divinity at level 6 to help make their big attacks hit. He can be a stoic no-nonsense bodyguard type pretty easily. He'd actually work well (going with Serpentine's idea) as the guy the noble family sent to watch over their son. To make sure he didn't do anything that could bring disgrace to their name. He could know about it and resent it, or he could not know and we could have a fun reveal later on. Or maybe thats favoring that PC a bit too much.

tl;dr I think I'll go with Cleric (War). This isn't set in stone however, and I'm open to other ideas. Also still open to any tips about running either HotDQ specifically or a 5th Ed. campaign in general.
This all looks pretty good to me :smallsmile: I suggest talking to the Rogue about what sort of interaction they'd like to have with the DMPC. You're right about not forgetting about the other players, too, so don't be afraid to talk to them about it - they might have some ideas for the sort of personality they could have fun with.
Remember, while making it effectively a blank slate can be a viable way of going about it, you can also make this a feature in its own right. I personally would more try for a real personality, not one that will dominate, obviously, but one that complements, or interestingly conflicts with, the PCs. You can make it complex, too, without it overshadowing.
Basically, don't be afraid to make a real character, a real person with a real personality. It should not be a dominating personality, not a leader or the face, but there's plenty of other perfectly interesting characters outside of those roles. You can have a character that's just a tool, but I prefer to make a character that's still a character, one the PCs can care about (or enjoy disliking, if it comes to that).


On another front, when it comes to combat you can always hand the sheet over to your players.

No need to do any extra work as a DM that you don't have to do.I don't think that's necessarily necessary, but it is something to think about. Try to keep your actions simple, have all the information you need immediately on hand, and more than anyone else you need to know exactly what your DMPC will do each round before it comes up.
I had this problem with my Knight. She wasn't especially effective in combat, but she had a lot of attacks, and it took uncomfortably long to complete each turn. I had to keep her actions very simple, and tried to roll all the attacks at once where possible. Imperfect, but worked okay.

[Valefor Rathan]

This thread is now causing me to examine a War Cleric vs a Vengeance Paladin.

Also, I really dig the body guard idea and handing the stats over the players during combat.

[Lappy9001]

I'd suggest thinking of the character as less of a DMPC and more of a cohort to the party. I'd suggest a buff-y character with a focus on healing, that way even if your group has issues with someone tagging along, they're less likely to object if they're getting lots of buffs. Give the cohort some knowledges and skill sets that the party doesn't possess and roleplay them as a genuinely helpful person.

[Devils_Advocate]

Depending on just how hard the campaign is -- and how hard you want it to be for your players -- it might be better to have each of them run two characters instead. Basically, if it seem like even four PCs might not be enough, then maybe it would be better to go with six. That hardly seems like an unmanageably large party, and would mean that you don't have to worry about a DMPC on top of everything else.

Of course, many players would prefer to only play a single character, I assume, but if even one of your players would like to have an additional character, then that's an alternate possible method of increasing the party's size. Or something you might want to do in addition to a DMPC, even. Anyway, I thought it seemed worth mentioning.

I also like the idea of the party hiring one or more additional characters, partly because that way you could present them with multiple possible allies and let them choose who they want to work with, and let them choose in-character too, with roleplaying and whatnot. This approach has obvious appeal if you enjoy designing PCs and would like an excuse to make a lot of them.

"Interview montage!"

[SowZ]

I've run numerous DMPCs over the years, and there's basically two ways to do it.

One way is to basically turn your DMPC into a plot device to push/pull the party into all kinds of shenanigans. This works best when you write the plot around said character, and requires very precise balancing so as to not make the party feel insignificant. I do not advise this for anyone who is new to DMPCs and especially not for a pre-written module.

The other way, and the way I recommend in general, is to play "the quiet guy." Roll up a big dumb brute who has very little volitional initiative and is just there to make sure nobody ends up dead. Clerics can fill this role well, especially if you go with, something like a War Cleric, as you can pull off a high Str/Wis low Int/Cha pretty well, and basically be a "me smash you" warrior who heals up the party afterwards. This playstyle works especially well at low levels in 5e.

A DMPC who the plot revolves around and pushes the party into the adventure sounds to me like a bad idea basically always. Not to mention the fact that you'll probably have to pull strings and cheat rules to keep him alive sometimes.

[MaxWilson]

Depending on just how hard the campaign is -- and how hard you want it to be for your players -- it might be better to have each of them run two characters instead. Basically, if it seem like even four PCs might not be enough, then maybe it would be better to go with six. That hardly seems like an unmanageably large party, and would mean that you don't have to worry about a DMPC on top of everything else.

Watch out if you do this--unless the player is skilled at acting, it can become hard to distinguish between the two PCs, which makes role-playing confusing. "Did Elvarron just say that, or was it Drexis?"