First time DM here wondering what the better decision is: including a tank or healer (Druid has stated she does not want to play a primary healer, which is fine) NPC who mostly acts as a combat asset & does not role play much, or tailoring combat to the existing party by maybe not including many melee opponents or having enemies with lower health. I'm familiar with the pitfalls of having a party NPC and I'm confident I won't overshadow the existing party, but I'm still wondering if it's a good idea at all for a first time DM. However, I'm having trouble designing combat encounters for the second scenario.
If I do include multiple party NPCs, I was thinking of implementing a Bioware-style system where I include three ish NPCs that the party can then pick from IF they want some extra help on an encounter, since they will start most sessions from a base.
Nothing wrong with giving them some options if it really looks like the group needs an NPC. From both sides of the DM screen I feel like the best way to use them is as mild support that keeps themselves out of harms way as much as possible. It can be very frustrating if the team has to stop every combat to save a stupid NPC. On the other side of that particular coin allow them to do a "showstopper" type action only every once in a while, you don't need that NPC wizard to cast Fireball at the beginning of every battle. If you want to add some more factors to mix up the NPC as a consistent ally perhaps when really crazy shit happens with your group they have to take some time off to recuperate, perhaps physically or perhaps mentally. So they cannot always have the same npc riding their coattails.
For the healing side, you can say that healing potions are more common in this part of the world (perhaps someone found a more efficient way to manufacture them) so they are readily available. Which would reduce the need for an NPC healer buddy but not eliminate. Also as an offset you can mildly reduce the amount of damage monsters deal out, probably just decrease the damage modifier by one on every enemy and see how it goes.
As a last idea, if you do the caster npc with the group, you can always pick their spell list to be a bit wacky and off the wall or very narrow in its scope (only fire magic nothing else). Integrate it into their backstory or some such and play around with it. No matter what you offer your players don't feel too bad if it doesn't work out well and then try something else.
Maybe the group is auditioning for team members and it like Mystery Men where they have awful options to choose from (The Waffler comes to mind). Make it a spectacle for them finding their new team mate, trialing potential people and maybe hiring a few.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
IMO this is one of those session zero questions that needs to be hashed out as a group before the adventure begins.
I personally do not like NPC vs NPC encounters very much. To me, it's like playing chess with myself, so I wouldn't play a dragonage type system. If I were going to do this, I would make them mercenaries, so as to avoid abusing the system. As a DM and a player, I respect the choice to not want to metagame to fill in game niches and mechanics holes, if that isn't the character I'm playing. OTOH, playing a 2 player ( assasin/druid) as if it were a 5 player (assasin/druid/cleric/bard/barbarian) party and expecting the DM to make up the slack is just... the only word that comes to mind is "yuck." There is no rule in D&D that says you NEED to have a healer, and a tank, and a ____________... but you need to be cognizant of the fact that lacking access to those tools means limiting your options in terms of how you will approach problems. Honestly, I like that puzzle.
Option 2 is to level your PCs up relative to the rest of the world. Do some quick one-shots that you think are do-able, and get them a little over-leveled relative to the world. This should naturally balance out the need for a meat shield. FWIW druids make terrific tanks, so I think a druid+rogue scenario is good enough. They'll be able to take a few hits before going down, and they'll be able to approach problems from unique angles. They won't have access to much healing, but it is what it is.
Option 3 is to design something assassins creedy or mystery-esque rather than doing your typical dungeon crawl. Up the danger level, send them on tasks that they shouldn't even have a chance of completing, and then help them to succeed anyway... despite the odds.
I'd say there's the obvious option 1 - don't "tailor" the encounters, just make them appropriate difficulty. If they/you think druid+rogue is somehow a suboptimal pairing, then underlevel the encounters relative to the two of them. That's all the adjustment that needs to be done.
That said, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with druid+rogue. Any two-character combination is going to be pretty limited, and is going to make the characters play multiple roles - I don't see druid+rogue as any different. They can ABSOLUTELY make it work as a 2-player combo if they feel like. Here's some ideas:
1) Rogue is probably pretty stealthy! In most parties this doesn't matter because some idiot in heavy armor makes it pointless to try to sneak up on enemies all the time. But with only one other player... if Druid just plays a bit stealthy, that two-player party can sneak up and get surprise rounds on everything. And rogue sneaking up on things can deal MASSIVE damage pretty quickly. If they really don't want to take damage at all, they can take the hit and run to an extreme - sneak, hit, hide. The appropriate beast form for the druid can totally make either one of those work, either the shock-and-awe or hit-and-run approaches.
2) Another answer - tank druid. By transforming into beast form, Druid actually gets quite a lot of HP to go through. Druid and Rogue both fight at range, when enemies close the Druid becomes the highest HP beast available. (Starting at level 2, that is.) But in 5e druid is quite a good tank if built that way.
As many people have said, ask your group. I personally don't like having party npc's but that's just because of my style as a DM and the players I tend to play with feel like I'm helping them too much.
I think 2 players can be a good number. I recently ran LMoP with a fighter and a sorcerer, both first time players, and it went really well. They were forced to be a bit more creative with their problem solving instead of running around killing everything in sight
I don't really like playing a "permanent" party NPC. I already have to be all of the other NPC's. If it were me I might just have them each roll up a support character and play 2 characters each, they could have the support just hang around during social interactions. If I had to play a party NPC that dude's name would be Leroy Jenkins.
If anyone's curious, I did end up using a party NPC after I playtested her in the first session and realised the rogue was looking more to her as an example than the Druid, since they're both brand new players (one has never had any experience with DND at all and the other was exclusively DMing for a long time and is having trouble adjusting). The NPC I'm using mainly helps in combat and helps to move the plot forward- she's part of an organisation that prevents otherworldly forces from overtaking the material plane. I'm working on weaning my players off of relying on her for too much now that they've levelled up, since I do plan on having them do sessions where she either can't partake (they're about to do some trials that require dedicating their service temporarily to a patron god, which the NPC can't do) or goes off to do her own thing/maybe bring back relevant plot info. The party has a good rapport with her too, so I think in my case, it works. Plus I really do enjoy playing NPCs, so in my case having to be 6 different people in under an hour doesn't bother me. I also usually have a "star NPC" type character in each of my sessions- someone I've put a little more effort into and who has specialised plot information. They sometimes engage in combat but have been designed to be hilariously incompetent- an Orc bard with a charisma of 8, a wizard who's own spell backfired on him so he's constantly under his own Charm Person effect and can't get anything done without looking in a mirror, a level 10 dwarven fighter who has taken a vow of non-violence, etc.
First time DM here wondering what the better decision is: including a tank or healer (Druid has stated she does not want to play a primary healer, which is fine) NPC who mostly acts as a combat asset & does not role play much, or tailoring combat to the existing party by maybe not including many melee opponents or having enemies with lower health. I'm familiar with the pitfalls of having a party NPC and I'm confident I won't overshadow the existing party, but I'm still wondering if it's a good idea at all for a first time DM. However, I'm having trouble designing combat encounters for the second scenario.
If I do include multiple party NPCs, I was thinking of implementing a Bioware-style system where I include three ish NPCs that the party can then pick from IF they want some extra help on an encounter, since they will start most sessions from a base.
Do whichever one works for you and your players.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Nothing wrong with giving them some options if it really looks like the group needs an NPC. From both sides of the DM screen I feel like the best way to use them is as mild support that keeps themselves out of harms way as much as possible. It can be very frustrating if the team has to stop every combat to save a stupid NPC. On the other side of that particular coin allow them to do a "showstopper" type action only every once in a while, you don't need that NPC wizard to cast Fireball at the beginning of every battle. If you want to add some more factors to mix up the NPC as a consistent ally perhaps when really crazy shit happens with your group they have to take some time off to recuperate, perhaps physically or perhaps mentally. So they cannot always have the same npc riding their coattails.
For the healing side, you can say that healing potions are more common in this part of the world (perhaps someone found a more efficient way to manufacture them) so they are readily available. Which would reduce the need for an NPC healer buddy but not eliminate. Also as an offset you can mildly reduce the amount of damage monsters deal out, probably just decrease the damage modifier by one on every enemy and see how it goes.
As a last idea, if you do the caster npc with the group, you can always pick their spell list to be a bit wacky and off the wall or very narrow in its scope (only fire magic nothing else). Integrate it into their backstory or some such and play around with it. No matter what you offer your players don't feel too bad if it doesn't work out well and then try something else.
Maybe the group is auditioning for team members and it like Mystery Men where they have awful options to choose from (The Waffler comes to mind). Make it a spectacle for them finding their new team mate, trialing potential people and maybe hiring a few.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
IMO this is one of those session zero questions that needs to be hashed out as a group before the adventure begins.
I personally do not like NPC vs NPC encounters very much. To me, it's like playing chess with myself, so I wouldn't play a dragonage type system. If I were going to do this, I would make them mercenaries, so as to avoid abusing the system. As a DM and a player, I respect the choice to not want to metagame to fill in game niches and mechanics holes, if that isn't the character I'm playing. OTOH, playing a 2 player ( assasin/druid) as if it were a 5 player (assasin/druid/cleric/bard/barbarian) party and expecting the DM to make up the slack is just... the only word that comes to mind is "yuck." There is no rule in D&D that says you NEED to have a healer, and a tank, and a ____________... but you need to be cognizant of the fact that lacking access to those tools means limiting your options in terms of how you will approach problems. Honestly, I like that puzzle.
Option 2 is to level your PCs up relative to the rest of the world. Do some quick one-shots that you think are do-able, and get them a little over-leveled relative to the world. This should naturally balance out the need for a meat shield. FWIW druids make terrific tanks, so I think a druid+rogue scenario is good enough. They'll be able to take a few hits before going down, and they'll be able to approach problems from unique angles. They won't have access to much healing, but it is what it is.
Option 3 is to design something assassins creedy or mystery-esque rather than doing your typical dungeon crawl. Up the danger level, send them on tasks that they shouldn't even have a chance of completing, and then help them to succeed anyway... despite the odds.
I'd say there's the obvious option 1 - don't "tailor" the encounters, just make them appropriate difficulty. If they/you think druid+rogue is somehow a suboptimal pairing, then underlevel the encounters relative to the two of them. That's all the adjustment that needs to be done.
That said, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with druid+rogue. Any two-character combination is going to be pretty limited, and is going to make the characters play multiple roles - I don't see druid+rogue as any different. They can ABSOLUTELY make it work as a 2-player combo if they feel like. Here's some ideas:
1) Rogue is probably pretty stealthy! In most parties this doesn't matter because some idiot in heavy armor makes it pointless to try to sneak up on enemies all the time. But with only one other player... if Druid just plays a bit stealthy, that two-player party can sneak up and get surprise rounds on everything. And rogue sneaking up on things can deal MASSIVE damage pretty quickly. If they really don't want to take damage at all, they can take the hit and run to an extreme - sneak, hit, hide. The appropriate beast form for the druid can totally make either one of those work, either the shock-and-awe or hit-and-run approaches.
2) Another answer - tank druid. By transforming into beast form, Druid actually gets quite a lot of HP to go through. Druid and Rogue both fight at range, when enemies close the Druid becomes the highest HP beast available. (Starting at level 2, that is.) But in 5e druid is quite a good tank if built that way.
As many people have said, ask your group. I personally don't like having party npc's but that's just because of my style as a DM and the players I tend to play with feel like I'm helping them too much.
I think 2 players can be a good number. I recently ran LMoP with a fighter and a sorcerer, both first time players, and it went really well. They were forced to be a bit more creative with their problem solving instead of running around killing everything in sight
I don't really like playing a "permanent" party NPC. I already have to be all of the other NPC's. If it were me I might just have them each roll up a support character and play 2 characters each, they could have the support just hang around during social interactions. If I had to play a party NPC that dude's name would be Leroy Jenkins.
If anyone's curious, I did end up using a party NPC after I playtested her in the first session and realised the rogue was looking more to her as an example than the Druid, since they're both brand new players (one has never had any experience with DND at all and the other was exclusively DMing for a long time and is having trouble adjusting). The NPC I'm using mainly helps in combat and helps to move the plot forward- she's part of an organisation that prevents otherworldly forces from overtaking the material plane. I'm working on weaning my players off of relying on her for too much now that they've levelled up, since I do plan on having them do sessions where she either can't partake (they're about to do some trials that require dedicating their service temporarily to a patron god, which the NPC can't do) or goes off to do her own thing/maybe bring back relevant plot info. The party has a good rapport with her too, so I think in my case, it works. Plus I really do enjoy playing NPCs, so in my case having to be 6 different people in under an hour doesn't bother me. I also usually have a "star NPC" type character in each of my sessions- someone I've put a little more effort into and who has specialised plot information. They sometimes engage in combat but have been designed to be hilariously incompetent- an Orc bard with a charisma of 8, a wizard who's own spell backfired on him so he's constantly under his own Charm Person effect and can't get anything done without looking in a mirror, a level 10 dwarven fighter who has taken a vow of non-violence, etc.