It was just a thought that I had. The Druid from my community group has a pet wolf, and throughout the exploration of her expanded backstory, I planned on awaking it.
So the wolf would be like a new character, with thoughts and desires and actions of its own.
I was planning on letting her play both her main Druid character, and the wolf.
Just wondering if you guys had any experience of a single player, with multiple characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I ran a campaign with three players playing six characters for a while pros: + larger numbers means a lot more tactical options and less dependency on the "specialist" in the team. A small group of players isn't forced to pick "essential" options (unless they want to play that way; a reduced healing group will do combat a very differently than a group that can rely on healing) + the "second in line" with skills and abilities often had their place to shine (e.g. when healing is on the shoulders of a Life Cleric, other healers rarely get their "I saved everyone" moment; more action means more things for the second healer; again "essential roles are not a must to be picked) + splitting the party is easy, because there is very little downtime for the player (e.g. he has an character in Team 1 and Team 2) + players losing interest in one character can focus on the other for a while (e.g. if they fell out of love with one and want to retire him, you don't have to get rid of him, he can be on the sideline or a while, can be transformed into an NPC etc.... and the player still has another one he likes to play)
cons: - events last longer (e.g. because so many people need to roll their dice in combat, for skill check etc.) - you need to keep track of more stats and stuff (more charcaters, more numbers) - role play suffers a bit (you have to manage two personalities, so you can't be 100% one guy)
If you want to have the wolf as a fully player controlled character, ask the other players if they are fine with it (they might want a sidekick too, are opposed to the idea, because they think it benefits the player with the wolf more etc.) Keeping the wolf an NPC and sharing control (e.g. give control over the wolf for combat to the player), but keep major decisions to you asa DM works too.
I think it would be really cool, especialy with a smaller group. I would oersonally only do this if I only had 1 or 2 players, probably a maximum of 3 players.
I've had this happen a number of times - although only as temporary situations: Players were transitioning between characters and/or the current temporary character of a Player was helping the party rescue her main character who had been kidnapped by the BBEG ( my, and the Players, means of dealing with her needing to take 5-6 weeks off of play due to real-life concerns ); when they succeeded there were 2 of her for a short while.
It's possible to do, although with some issues and additional overhead - I think DMGorani touched on most of them.
It can be done, but I'm not sure I'd want this to be a permanent situation in the party.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Only temporarily. When players play multiple characters, it tends to distance them from one or the other. That wolf will become a side kick to the druid, and the druid's needs will always come first
Thanks for all your replies guys. I think I might stick to the way things are.
Seems that you have all been pretty consistent. Letting her play two full characters would be a bad idea.
That's put a bit of a dampnr on what I had planned. I was going to awaking her pet, so it became more like a character than just a pet, but I don't have anyone to play his character.
I could.play him as an NPC I suppose, so that I make his battle decisions and any actions he does on his own, and then let her keep playing with him while travelling, resting and during downtime or something - when it doesn't really effect the game what she has him do.
Really though it seems that I need a new player, to play an awakened wolf character
Earlier editions of D&D allowed PCs to have henchmen. They were loyal to the PC and would do what the PC asked unless it was obviously very dangerous. If the DM thought the henchman would refuse an order, then the DM could take control of that NPC. If the PC wasn’t careful and got a henchman killed, it was very difficult to get another one. Henchmen could also be used hold down the fort while the PC was out adventuring.
Squires, bodyguards, pets, apprentices could all be henchmen. They wouldn’t be the same level as the PCs so they would be more fragile and less capable but they could be helpful support troops. For a small party of PCs, a couple of henchmen could use the dodge action and provide half cover for PCs and still threaten with opportunity attacks. That would cut down on extra dice rolls and still give the party a boost. They also wouldn’t overshadow the PCs that way.
Having a player play 2 or 3 characters is just not done in my opinion. However, if the characters are simple enough, like fighters for example, they could control a few in combat at the same time. It can even be used as a tool to reduce workload of the DM if you're having multiple NPC's assist the group for example. I for one had the cleric take control over 2 squads of 3 kobolds each during a tactical move. He, with the kobolds, were flanking the hobgoblins. While the other 3-4 party members were going for a frontal assault.
For roleplay purposes I would not let people play more then 1 character, ever. In case of the wolf I'd let the player control it during combat. The roleplay of its personality is for the DM just as any other NPC. Pets have their own mind and personality. If the player RP's that as well they'll just play it in their own favor and how they wish it would be. If your group doesn't care about it. Then I suppose the player could RP the wolf as well.
I wouldn't let players play multiple characters in combat either when characters are "complex". For example running a sorceror with tons of micro-management alongside other characters like that would just slow down combat too much. A lot of players can barely make decisions in time with just one character.
Recently, in a 1shot, I played multiple characters to fill out the group. You indeed distance yourself from most of them and pick the 1 "favorite". The sorceror took most of my time and effort. Also because it has more tactical aspects and interesting ways to control the battlefield. While the barbarian and such just move to x, rage, hit. Same for the cleric which is relatively simple and straightforward to play. It can work in a straight up dungeoncrawl, but a more fleshed out RP setting...no way.
It was just a thought that I had. The Druid from my community group has a pet wolf, and throughout the exploration of her expanded backstory, I planned on awaking it.
So the wolf would be like a new character, with thoughts and desires and actions of its own.
I was planning on letting her play both her main Druid character, and the wolf.
Just wondering if you guys had any experience of a single player, with multiple characters.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
That is up to you (the DM). The DM technically controls all non-player creatures including pets, summons, and familiars.
I ran a campaign with three players playing six characters for a while
pros:
+ larger numbers means a lot more tactical options and less dependency on the "specialist" in the team. A small group of players isn't forced to pick "essential" options (unless they want to play that way; a reduced healing group will do combat a very differently than a group that can rely on healing)
+ the "second in line" with skills and abilities often had their place to shine (e.g. when healing is on the shoulders of a Life Cleric, other healers rarely get their "I saved everyone" moment; more action means more things for the second healer; again "essential roles are not a must to be picked)
+ splitting the party is easy, because there is very little downtime for the player (e.g. he has an character in Team 1 and Team 2)
+ players losing interest in one character can focus on the other for a while (e.g. if they fell out of love with one and want to retire him, you don't have to get rid of him, he can be on the sideline or a while, can be transformed into an NPC etc.... and the player still has another one he likes to play)
cons:
- events last longer (e.g. because so many people need to roll their dice in combat, for skill check etc.)
- you need to keep track of more stats and stuff (more charcaters, more numbers)
- role play suffers a bit (you have to manage two personalities, so you can't be 100% one guy)
If you want to have the wolf as a fully player controlled character, ask the other players if they are fine with it (they might want a sidekick too, are opposed to the idea, because they think it benefits the player with the wolf more etc.)
Keeping the wolf an NPC and sharing control (e.g. give control over the wolf for combat to the player), but keep major decisions to you asa DM works too.
I think it would be really cool, especialy with a smaller group. I would oersonally only do this if I only had 1 or 2 players, probably a maximum of 3 players.
Published Subclasses
I've had this happen a number of times - although only as temporary situations: Players were transitioning between characters and/or the current temporary character of a Player was helping the party rescue her main character who had been kidnapped by the BBEG ( my, and the Players, means of dealing with her needing to take 5-6 weeks off of play due to real-life concerns ); when they succeeded there were 2 of her for a short while.
It's possible to do, although with some issues and additional overhead - I think DMGorani touched on most of them.
It can be done, but I'm not sure I'd want this to be a permanent situation in the party.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Only temporarily. When players play multiple characters, it tends to distance them from one or the other. That wolf will become a side kick to the druid, and the druid's needs will always come first
Thanks for all your replies guys. I think I might stick to the way things are.
Seems that you have all been pretty consistent. Letting her play two full characters would be a bad idea.
That's put a bit of a dampnr on what I had planned. I was going to awaking her pet, so it became more like a character than just a pet, but I don't have anyone to play his character.
I could.play him as an NPC I suppose, so that I make his battle decisions and any actions he does on his own, and then let her keep playing with him while travelling, resting and during downtime or something - when it doesn't really effect the game what she has him do.
Really though it seems that I need a new player, to play an awakened wolf character
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Earlier editions of D&D allowed PCs to have henchmen. They were loyal to the PC and would do what the PC asked unless it was obviously very dangerous. If the DM thought the henchman would refuse an order, then the DM could take control of that NPC. If the PC wasn’t careful and got a henchman killed, it was very difficult to get another one. Henchmen could also be used hold down the fort while the PC was out adventuring.
Squires, bodyguards, pets, apprentices could all be henchmen. They wouldn’t be the same level as the PCs so they would be more fragile and less capable but they could be helpful support troops. For a small party of PCs, a couple of henchmen could use the dodge action and provide half cover for PCs and still threaten with opportunity attacks. That would cut down on extra dice rolls and still give the party a boost. They also wouldn’t overshadow the PCs that way.
To me it depends on a few things.
Having a player play 2 or 3 characters is just not done in my opinion. However, if the characters are simple enough, like fighters for example, they could control a few in combat at the same time. It can even be used as a tool to reduce workload of the DM if you're having multiple NPC's assist the group for example. I for one had the cleric take control over 2 squads of 3 kobolds each during a tactical move. He, with the kobolds, were flanking the hobgoblins. While the other 3-4 party members were going for a frontal assault.
For roleplay purposes I would not let people play more then 1 character, ever. In case of the wolf I'd let the player control it during combat. The roleplay of its personality is for the DM just as any other NPC. Pets have their own mind and personality. If the player RP's that as well they'll just play it in their own favor and how they wish it would be. If your group doesn't care about it. Then I suppose the player could RP the wolf as well.
I wouldn't let players play multiple characters in combat either when characters are "complex". For example running a sorceror with tons of micro-management alongside other characters like that would just slow down combat too much. A lot of players can barely make decisions in time with just one character.
Recently, in a 1shot, I played multiple characters to fill out the group. You indeed distance yourself from most of them and pick the 1 "favorite". The sorceror took most of my time and effort. Also because it has more tactical aspects and interesting ways to control the battlefield. While the barbarian and such just move to x, rage, hit. Same for the cleric which is relatively simple and straightforward to play. It can work in a straight up dungeoncrawl, but a more fleshed out RP setting...no way.