Built-in Alchemist's Fire (since I had to give him some built-in tool)
50 XP behind the party
Personality & Role:
The players are unfamiliar with the setting, so he is an amateur cartographer and historian who provides context for things NPCs say; they'll mention quori and he'll tell them that they're malicious dream spirits.
He carries most of the plot hooks for the adventure. I’m running the “Forgotten Relics” adventure from Rising from the Last War, and he’s the character the sergeant reaches out to.
He was a tactician during the Last War and serves as an advisor to the party on combat strategies, using my own strategy books (one for monsters and one for players). He communicates these strategies to the players, so they don’t need to read the whole book. I do ask them to read the PHB and a bit of the Eberron book to familiarize themselves with the setting.
He has a personal belief that the only way to find the optimal path is to wait for everyone else to make their moves first, so he always moves last in combat. I wrote "negative infinity" for initiative.
He can’t receive Inspiration; I’ve scribbled out the box on his sheet.
I’m considering whether to give him the ability to track or cast Augury to make him more useful as a “road sign with legs.” These abilities would help him guide the party, but by RAW and RAI, he shouldn't have them without multiclassing.
Two of the players have already given me permission to use him as a DMPC, but one more player is joining for the first time next session. I plan to ask for their consent as well.
Is there anything objectionable about this character or his role in the game? Overshadowing is possible, I know, but I'm trying to avoid that already. We currently have a cleric and a wizard, so I made him an attacker, and we might have a rogue joining.
No, I would seriously discourage you from including this in your game.
Overshadowing is an issue but so is just resentment about being told what to do all the time. If your players don't want to read strategy books the solution is not to tell them what to do strategy wise, because at that point what's the point of there being other people at the table? D&D is not a strategy game, it is a social story telling game.
"The players are unfamiliar with the setting" - that shouldn't matter, what matters is if their characters are familiar with the setting, if their characters are familiar with the setting then you can just tell them what their characters would know. You DO NOT need a DMPC to be a know-it-all to spout exposition at the players.
"give him the ability to track or cast Augury to make him more useful as a “road sign with legs." - No, do not do that, if the players want something like that the wizard can pick up Augury and cast it as a ritual.
I looks like your party is lacking a front-liner so consider giving the players an NPC that they can take turns controlling that is a front liner - a Barbarian is usually a the best choice here since they are super easy to play, but honestly make that character kind of dumb so that outside of combat they just follow along with the party supplying muscle when needed but not interrupting their planning or solving anything on their own. Something like Grawp from Harry Potter would be perfect.
I don't think such DMPC is a very good solution to what should be done to address the party's needs. Overshadowing and heavyhanded strategy is not favorable to create positive D&D experience in my opinion. I would instead try to empower your players and if they aren't familiar with EBERRON, give them even more adventure informations and give them room to take charge.
If i may offer you a few suggestions:
Sergeant Vilroy should reach to your player characters ad the adventure suggest.
If you absolutely want the party to have early access to Augury, give them a magic item to cast it themselves.
Avoid advising the party on combat strategies. A DM should let his party come up with their own strategies as much as possible.
If the party need extra body, offer them the chance to play an additional character. If this isn't an option, use an NPC statblock or sheet and do everything not take the spotlight but let the player characters be at the center of the action.
These are things that already exist in the game for good reason. There's also great info on customising NPCs to your needs and liking.
The key thing to remember with any NPC that you as the GM place on the board - the players are free to do exactly what they what with that NPC. If they want to have that NPC put in harm's way - they'll do it. If they want the NPC to be blamed for a PCs theft, they'll manage it. An NPC, especially a DM's NPC is incredibly disposable. Wanting a character to become a signpost on legs suggests to me a concern that your players won't always go the 'correct' way. Well, that's part and parcel of the game. We've all had parties that have decided to go completely the opposite direction to the main objective. Having an NPC so say 'hey it's over here' will not change that - I promise you.
So I would suggest asking yourself again why is it that you want a DMPC. If its that you don't trust the players to 'go the right way' you might well be indicating to yourself that you want to railroad them a little. The motivation here is key. There are some good reasons to include a DMPC - there are a LOT of bad reasons to include them though.
I’m considering whether to give him the ability to track or cast Augury to make him more useful as a “road sign with legs.” These abilities would help him guide the party, but by RAW and RAI, he shouldn't have them without multiclassing.
Two of the players have already given me permission to use him as a DMPC, but one more player is joining for the first time next session. I plan to ask for their consent as well.
No, I would seriously discourage you from including this in your game.
Overshadowing is an issue but so is just resentment about being told what to do all the time. If your players don't want to read strategy books the solution is not to tell them what to do strategy wise, because at that point what's the point of there being other people at the table? D&D is not a strategy game, it is a social story telling game.
"The players are unfamiliar with the setting" - that shouldn't matter, what matters is if their characters are familiar with the setting, if their characters are familiar with the setting then you can just tell them what their characters would know. You DO NOT need a DMPC to be a know-it-all to spout exposition at the players.
"give him the ability to track or cast Augury to make him more useful as a “road sign with legs." - No, do not do that, if the players want something like that the wizard can pick up Augury and cast it as a ritual.
I looks like your party is lacking a front-liner so consider giving the players an NPC that they can take turns controlling that is a front liner - a Barbarian is usually a the best choice here since they are super easy to play, but honestly make that character kind of dumb so that outside of combat they just follow along with the party supplying muscle when needed but not interrupting their planning or solving anything on their own. Something like Grawp from Harry Potter would be perfect.
I don't think such DMPC is a very good solution to what should be done to address the party's needs. Overshadowing and heavyhanded strategy is not favorable to create positive D&D experience in my opinion. I would instead try to empower your players and if they aren't familiar with EBERRON, give them even more adventure informations and give them room to take charge.
If i may offer you a few suggestions:
Sidekicks are a thing in D&D - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/doip/sidekicks
as are NPC Stat Blocks - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/mm-2014/nonplayer-characters
These are things that already exist in the game for good reason. There's also great info on customising NPCs to your needs and liking.
The key thing to remember with any NPC that you as the GM place on the board - the players are free to do exactly what they what with that NPC. If they want to have that NPC put in harm's way - they'll do it. If they want the NPC to be blamed for a PCs theft, they'll manage it. An NPC, especially a DM's NPC is incredibly disposable. Wanting a character to become a signpost on legs suggests to me a concern that your players won't always go the 'correct' way. Well, that's part and parcel of the game. We've all had parties that have decided to go completely the opposite direction to the main objective. Having an NPC so say 'hey it's over here' will not change that - I promise you.
So I would suggest asking yourself again why is it that you want a DMPC. If its that you don't trust the players to 'go the right way' you might well be indicating to yourself that you want to railroad them a little. The motivation here is key. There are some good reasons to include a DMPC - there are a LOT of bad reasons to include them though.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
All this makes sense. Thanks! I'll save him for when I can join a campaign as a player. Regarding Augury and stuff, I think I'll let that go.