Two Characters better than One? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Two Characters better than One?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
dnd_blasphemy
Aug 25, 2008 3:47:02 Hello 4th Edition players! I'm a DM, and I'm after player opinions on playing two or more characters. I have had several experiences playing multiple characters and all have been even more fun than playing a single character.

Since combat is played out in turns: Nobody is ever truly playing two characters at the exact same time. I'm referring to playing two characters in the same campaign, during the same session.

I also understand dungeons & dragons originated from a tactical war game. This might be why I find it so fun to play multiple characters. Some people like to argue that playing more than one character ruins the immersion and role-playing elements. What are your opinions?
#2
bloodweeper
Aug 25, 2008 5:23:40 I would normally avoid it, unless the party is temporarily short a few players. If the party is always short a few members the DM should be designing his encounters with that in mind and the players should have little difficulty adjusting to the smaller party. With that said, me and a good friend of mine will occasionally play the game as if it were nothing more than a tactical board game. One player designs and controls an entire party and the other takes the role of the DM. The DM designs the dungeon using encounters and traps of the same level as the party and places the appropriate treasure throughout the dungeon. It's a different kind of game for sure, but I have plenty of fun with it.
#3
kouk
Aug 25, 2008 8:12:54 In general it is more of a burden to me than fun. I have to keep track of twice the amount of things, and try to think about making the characters behave the way I think they would (which is hopefully not conflicting, but not necessarily always the same).

It's something you should ask your players about, because people will have different opinions by what they get enjoyment from.
#4
ravenouspuma
Aug 25, 2008 17:41:05 Two Characters or more per player should only be done when you're short players in IMO.

In my group the consensus is players are less attached to their characters and it's start feeling more like a miniature game them a true RPG. You also get hivemind happening. Another thing we've found in the past is one character becomes the packhorse who always gets the short end of everything which he only puts up with because he's under the control of the same player giving everything to the other character....
#5
morior
Aug 25, 2008 19:14:52 I run a solo campaign where one player controls five characters, and it's been a lot of fun. It really depends on the person- some enjoy the more minis-feel of controlling an entire party, some don't.
#6
dnd_blasphemy
Aug 25, 2008 22:11:29
Two Characters or more per player should only be done when you're short players in IMO.

In my group the consensus is players are less attached to their characters and it's start feeling more like a miniature game them a true RPG. You also get hivemind happening. Another thing we've found in the past is one character becomes the packhorse who always gets the short end of everything which he only puts up with because he's under the control of the same player giving everything to the other character....

Generally I wouldn't consider that an issue in 4th Edition with the aid of magical carrying devices, and new carrying capacity rules, including treasure parcels which are designed to suit particular players. Unless of course: Your playing with a group that likes to carry every short sword and suit of leather armor from kills. But I tend to use monsters who don't wield such gear and I discourage hoarding.

The real thing I'm interested in is the connection between the role-playing element of each character and the player.

With that said: There are several obvious advantages such as player death in early heroic tier. If a player's character dies he/she isn't sitting around going; "Well, what now?" until you can fit a new character into the story. Another advantage would have to be variety of different powers, and faster game play.

About the 'Hive Mind' thing happening. It must be no different for the DM who controls many different monsters and NPCs of various alignments and personalities. I imagine it would be like a mini-dm of two characters. Before taking a PCs turn: a player could think; "what would this character do?" instead of carrying personality elements from one character to the next...

But the true question is how a player would feel about it, which is why I posted here.

I have to admit: Much of the D&D experience of fun for me comes from narrating combat and character deaths.

thanks for the replies guys. Anyone else care to add anything?
#7
dnd_blasphemy
Aug 25, 2008 22:17:09
I run a solo campaign where one player controls five characters, and it's been a lot of fun. It really depends on the person- some enjoy the more minis-feel of controlling an entire party, some don't.

Funny isn't it? I would say about half of all my players would mind, and half would not...

I've played 5 PCs and I found it fun. However: I was referring to only two characters. I think 5 would be too much for most players. Due to the fact you have many little class features to remember.

One thing I find is that the game actually speeds up, it's very simple to effectively control two characters if the player is decisive and skilled.
#8
tequila_sunrise
Aug 26, 2008 6:12:17 I find it difficult to [seriously] role play two characters at once and I suspect most players feel the same, but I don't think that doing so is inherently wrong or detrimental.

TS
#9
gargs454
Aug 27, 2008 15:02:41 Well, playing two characters at the same time will almost certainly limit the RP aspect of the game -- though that is not a big issue with many players. If nothing else, a player is unlikely to want to carry on a conversation with himself.

However, I am in favor of letting the players play two characters if the group is small. My current group consists of only 2 players and myself. For us, it was easier to simply have each player play two characters. This also gets around the issue of the DM having a character in the party (even if it is just an NPC).

If you already have 4 players though, I really wouldn't worry about it, and playing two characters could just make things too complicated.
#10
Kaganfindel
Aug 27, 2008 16:12:05 It's loads of fun in combat, but I find it hard to enjoy the parts of the game that aren't fighting when I've got to play two people at once. It's also really exhausting to have a conversation in character(s) when everyone at the table is talking for two people.

I prefer to be just one person at a time, unless I'm the DM or one of them is the strong, silent type.
#11
yamishinobi
Aug 28, 2008 21:11:51 i love having two characters, talking to myself is fun, i do the relatives theme, not the boyfriend girlfriend, my dm won't let me play 2 characters in one session. but how else will we get a cleric and a rogue in the party? (nobody wants to be the rogue or the cleric, i gladly take up the rogue, the cleric or the sorcerer. the only time i would ever be the tank is if party was below 5th level. my saturday party has too many meat shields, out of 7 people, we have 3, (4 if you count a monk) we have 3 arcanists, one of which also dabbles as a skill monkey, and we have one monk who is a walking mess of abilities. the only half optimal characters are two of the arcanists, (drow conjurer who banned illusion and ? school, not evocation though, not me, elf sorcerer played by me) and one tank (polearm wielding trip machine) the party is built around DPR. wizard summons celestial animal, usually a panther or a badger, sorcereress hastes the party, bard plays his horn, tanks rush in and full attack trying not to roll a 1, (the only number they miss on) monk blinds with stream of water as he flurries with his free hand. for 4 attacks (haste included) for 4d10+8 average 30, fighter deals average 53 (with flame) (49 without flame) triple base class knight deals average 45-80 (depending on whether or not he power attacks with his Guisarme) and last week critted for 200 something at 8th level, duskblade uses spells to lure till foe gets close enough for full attack, dealing 27.5 or 38 with blade of blood, (she needed an angelic elixir to deal 39.5 or 50 with blade of blood,) the bard raises by damage 3 per attack, knight, 54-89, fighter, 62 (58) duskblade 36.5 (47) (last week w/ elixir, 48.5, 59.5) monk 42 these are hasted numbers.

drow wizard acidic splatters for 23.5, elf sorcereress AoEs for 29 average or rays for 30.

party tactics are flatout dpr. and ways to improve it.

i wish i could play 2 characters. we ned a rogure and a cleric, bad.
#12
daknit_bard_of_tarot
Aug 28, 2008 22:31:41 If you have 4 players or more, don't go 2 PCs each. Your head will hurt and you will tend to try to kill more PCs than normal. Plus it slows the game down.

3? Maybe.

2? yes. Maybe even 3. Depend how much everyone can handle.

1? get more friends, try again.
#13
hunterprime
Aug 28, 2008 23:23:42 Alright.... For my group Dungeons and Dragons is almost purely a combat game with minimal roleplaying. Once in a while, we will have some going on, but its not what the players want from this game. They want to kill the bad guys, take their stuff and get more powerful. They want to be heroes. Plain and simple.... so they play 2 characters and have a ball. They feel more involved and each one of their characters are radically different then one another. I have a player who is playing a Dragonborn Paladin and a Eladrin Rogue. She is having a wonderful time. Another is playing a Tiefling Ranger and a Dwarven Cleric. He is having a ball. With 4 players, that's 8 characters and there is nothing I can't put them up against. It's simply great.

But we get alot of our roleplaying done with World of Darkness. Here they play one character a piece. I have been running a Hunters chronicle for a few months. Yes, I know the books been out for a week or so, but I have been getting the characters set up with Innocents set. Its been great. Out of 4 sessions, there has been one fight. The school bully went to far with one of the player characters and he snapped. We are concluding the Innocents part of the story on Saturday night and the real hunter chronicle beings.

I am a firm believer that you can have your cake and eat it too.... Just have fun.
#14
yamishinobi
Aug 29, 2008 13:14:39 would you rather have more than 4 people play two characters, (assuming two completely different but similar roles, such as flanker and archer, or healer and blaster) or 2 DMPC spotlight hogs? i would go for everyone playing 2 characters. especially if a module was tailored to 10 suboptimal pc's, or 7 optimal ones such as shackled city.

Characters in party (all 8th level)

Female dwarven duskblade (close to weekly)
Male drow conjurer wizard (every 2 weeks)
Female Elf sorceress (weekly)
Male dwarf fighter (close to weekly)
Human bard (newbie, weekly so far)
Human monk (missed a few more games than i)
Human paladin/fighter/knight/future hellreaver (comes a few weeks, leaves a few weeks, inconsistent. conveniently comes in party's dire need.)

the party is almost all suboptimal, as it is too focused on dpr and too dependant on the sorceress, (me) i have to haste the party, so duskblade, monk, fighter, and triple (soon to be quadruple) class pally can full attack everything on sight. or at least everything malevolent or savage. after the 8 or less round dpr slaughter with may cleaves and AoE's and things knocked onto our prey, (such as trees) pally, uses wands of any of cure spells levels 1-4, he can't cast on his own, and he definitely cannot turn undead efectively, he can lay on hands for either 6 or 9 points.

every weekly player does need a second character. either we need a cleric, or to swap the duskblade with a druid, (not an anthro bat) a rogue would be nice too. how does a dwarf figther have only 14 constitution (after mods) and a 10 charisma? shouldn't it be 16 constitution and 6 charisma, reduce dex from 14-12, now he can have 18 con (too late for 18 though)
with an effective 22 str, he could raise his attack/damage bonus by 3 via 2hand wielding, but he's gotta be axe and board, (+18 to hit, and with certian feats and enahncements, +11 to damage as well as 1d6 fire damage, 1handed, but he is on the waraxe mastery path)

so 2 characters isn't all that bad, i'm sorry for venting my party's lack of role optimization.

the party's weakness is reliance on the sorcereress.
#15
cannaith
Aug 29, 2008 14:46:53 I've done it a fair few times, mostly I find it a bit of a pain but there's nothing wrong with it.

Give it a try and see if you like it. That's all I can recommend.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 dnd_blasphemy Aug 25, 2008 3:47:02	Hello 4th Edition players! I'm a DM, and I'm after player opinions on playing two or more characters. I have had several experiences playing multiple characters and all have been even more fun than playing a single character. Since combat is played out in turns: Nobody is ever truly playing two characters at the exact same time. I'm referring to playing two characters in the same campaign, during the same session. I also understand dungeons & dragons originated from a tactical war game. This might be why I find it so fun to play multiple characters. Some people like to argue that playing more than one character ruins the immersion and role-playing elements. What are your opinions?
#2 bloodweeper Aug 25, 2008 5:23:40	I would normally avoid it, unless the party is temporarily short a few players. If the party is always short a few members the DM should be designing his encounters with that in mind and the players should have little difficulty adjusting to the smaller party. With that said, me and a good friend of mine will occasionally play the game as if it were nothing more than a tactical board game. One player designs and controls an entire party and the other takes the role of the DM. The DM designs the dungeon using encounters and traps of the same level as the party and places the appropriate treasure throughout the dungeon. It's a different kind of game for sure, but I have plenty of fun with it.
#3 kouk Aug 25, 2008 8:12:54	In general it is more of a burden to me than fun. I have to keep track of twice the amount of things, and try to think about making the characters behave the way I think they would (which is hopefully not conflicting, but not necessarily always the same). It's something you should ask your players about, because people will have different opinions by what they get enjoyment from.
#4 ravenouspuma Aug 25, 2008 17:41:05	Two Characters or more per player should only be done when you're short players in IMO. In my group the consensus is players are less attached to their characters and it's start feeling more like a miniature game them a true RPG. You also get hivemind happening. Another thing we've found in the past is one character becomes the packhorse who always gets the short end of everything which he only puts up with because he's under the control of the same player giving everything to the other character....
#5 morior Aug 25, 2008 19:14:52	I run a solo campaign where one player controls five characters, and it's been a lot of fun. It really depends on the person- some enjoy the more minis-feel of controlling an entire party, some don't.
#6 dnd_blasphemy Aug 25, 2008 22:11:29	Two Characters or more per player should only be done when you're short players in IMO. In my group the consensus is players are less attached to their characters and it's start feeling more like a miniature game them a true RPG. You also get hivemind happening. Another thing we've found in the past is one character becomes the packhorse who always gets the short end of everything which he only puts up with because he's under the control of the same player giving everything to the other character.... Generally I wouldn't consider that an issue in 4th Edition with the aid of magical carrying devices, and new carrying capacity rules, including treasure parcels which are designed to suit particular players. Unless of course: Your playing with a group that likes to carry every short sword and suit of leather armor from kills. But I tend to use monsters who don't wield such gear and I discourage hoarding. The real thing I'm interested in is the connection between the role-playing element of each character and the player. With that said: There are several obvious advantages such as player death in early heroic tier. If a player's character dies he/she isn't sitting around going; "Well, what now?" until you can fit a new character into the story. Another advantage would have to be variety of different powers, and faster game play. About the 'Hive Mind' thing happening. It must be no different for the DM who controls many different monsters and NPCs of various alignments and personalities. I imagine it would be like a mini-dm of two characters. Before taking a PCs turn: a player could think; "what would this character do?" instead of carrying personality elements from one character to the next... But the true question is how a player would feel about it, which is why I posted here. I have to admit: Much of the D&D experience of fun for me comes from narrating combat and character deaths. thanks for the replies guys. Anyone else care to add anything?
#7 dnd_blasphemy Aug 25, 2008 22:17:09	I run a solo campaign where one player controls five characters, and it's been a lot of fun. It really depends on the person- some enjoy the more minis-feel of controlling an entire party, some don't. Funny isn't it? I would say about half of all my players would mind, and half would not... I've played 5 PCs and I found it fun. However: I was referring to only two characters. I think 5 would be too much for most players. Due to the fact you have many little class features to remember. One thing I find is that the game actually speeds up, it's very simple to effectively control two characters if the player is decisive and skilled.
#8 tequila_sunrise Aug 26, 2008 6:12:17	I find it difficult to [seriously] role play two characters at once and I suspect most players feel the same, but I don't think that doing so is inherently wrong or detrimental. TS
#9 gargs454 Aug 27, 2008 15:02:41	Well, playing two characters at the same time will almost certainly limit the RP aspect of the game -- though that is not a big issue with many players. If nothing else, a player is unlikely to want to carry on a conversation with himself. However, I am in favor of letting the players play two characters if the group is small. My current group consists of only 2 players and myself. For us, it was easier to simply have each player play two characters. This also gets around the issue of the DM having a character in the party (even if it is just an NPC). If you already have 4 players though, I really wouldn't worry about it, and playing two characters could just make things too complicated.
#10 Kaganfindel Aug 27, 2008 16:12:05	It's loads of fun in combat, but I find it hard to enjoy the parts of the game that aren't fighting when I've got to play two people at once. It's also really exhausting to have a conversation in character(s) when everyone at the table is talking for two people. I prefer to be just one person at a time, unless I'm the DM or one of them is the strong, silent type.
#11 yamishinobi Aug 28, 2008 21:11:51	i love having two characters, talking to myself is fun, i do the relatives theme, not the boyfriend girlfriend, my dm won't let me play 2 characters in one session. but how else will we get a cleric and a rogue in the party? (nobody wants to be the rogue or the cleric, i gladly take up the rogue, the cleric or the sorcerer. the only time i would ever be the tank is if party was below 5th level. my saturday party has too many meat shields, out of 7 people, we have 3, (4 if you count a monk) we have 3 arcanists, one of which also dabbles as a skill monkey, and we have one monk who is a walking mess of abilities. the only half optimal characters are two of the arcanists, (drow conjurer who banned illusion and ? school, not evocation though, not me, elf sorcerer played by me) and one tank (polearm wielding trip machine) the party is built around DPR. wizard summons celestial animal, usually a panther or a badger, sorcereress hastes the party, bard plays his horn, tanks rush in and full attack trying not to roll a 1, (the only number they miss on) monk blinds with stream of water as he flurries with his free hand. for 4 attacks (haste included) for 4d10+8 average 30, fighter deals average 53 (with flame) (49 without flame) triple base class knight deals average 45-80 (depending on whether or not he power attacks with his Guisarme) and last week critted for 200 something at 8th level, duskblade uses spells to lure till foe gets close enough for full attack, dealing 27.5 or 38 with blade of blood, (she needed an angelic elixir to deal 39.5 or 50 with blade of blood,) the bard raises by damage 3 per attack, knight, 54-89, fighter, 62 (58) duskblade 36.5 (47) (last week w/ elixir, 48.5, 59.5) monk 42 these are hasted numbers. drow wizard acidic splatters for 23.5, elf sorcereress AoEs for 29 average or rays for 30. party tactics are flatout dpr. and ways to improve it. i wish i could play 2 characters. we ned a rogure and a cleric, bad.
#12 daknit_bard_of_tarot Aug 28, 2008 22:31:41	If you have 4 players or more, don't go 2 PCs each. Your head will hurt and you will tend to try to kill more PCs than normal. Plus it slows the game down. 3? Maybe. 2? yes. Maybe even 3. Depend how much everyone can handle. 1? get more friends, try again.
#13 hunterprime Aug 28, 2008 23:23:42	Alright.... For my group Dungeons and Dragons is almost purely a combat game with minimal roleplaying. Once in a while, we will have some going on, but its not what the players want from this game. They want to kill the bad guys, take their stuff and get more powerful. They want to be heroes. Plain and simple.... so they play 2 characters and have a ball. They feel more involved and each one of their characters are radically different then one another. I have a player who is playing a Dragonborn Paladin and a Eladrin Rogue. She is having a wonderful time. Another is playing a Tiefling Ranger and a Dwarven Cleric. He is having a ball. With 4 players, that's 8 characters and there is nothing I can't put them up against. It's simply great. But we get alot of our roleplaying done with World of Darkness. Here they play one character a piece. I have been running a Hunters chronicle for a few months. Yes, I know the books been out for a week or so, but I have been getting the characters set up with Innocents set. Its been great. Out of 4 sessions, there has been one fight. The school bully went to far with one of the player characters and he snapped. We are concluding the Innocents part of the story on Saturday night and the real hunter chronicle beings. I am a firm believer that you can have your cake and eat it too.... Just have fun.
#14 yamishinobi Aug 29, 2008 13:14:39	would you rather have more than 4 people play two characters, (assuming two completely different but similar roles, such as flanker and archer, or healer and blaster) or 2 DMPC spotlight hogs? i would go for everyone playing 2 characters. especially if a module was tailored to 10 suboptimal pc's, or 7 optimal ones such as shackled city. Characters in party (all 8th level) Female dwarven duskblade (close to weekly) Male drow conjurer wizard (every 2 weeks) Female Elf sorceress (weekly) Male dwarf fighter (close to weekly) Human bard (newbie, weekly so far) Human monk (missed a few more games than i) Human paladin/fighter/knight/future hellreaver (comes a few weeks, leaves a few weeks, inconsistent. conveniently comes in party's dire need.) the party is almost all suboptimal, as it is too focused on dpr and too dependant on the sorceress, (me) i have to haste the party, so duskblade, monk, fighter, and triple (soon to be quadruple) class pally can full attack everything on sight. or at least everything malevolent or savage. after the 8 or less round dpr slaughter with may cleaves and AoE's and things knocked onto our prey, (such as trees) pally, uses wands of any of cure spells levels 1-4, he can't cast on his own, and he definitely cannot turn undead efectively, he can lay on hands for either 6 or 9 points. every weekly player does need a second character. either we need a cleric, or to swap the duskblade with a druid, (not an anthro bat) a rogue would be nice too. how does a dwarf figther have only 14 constitution (after mods) and a 10 charisma? shouldn't it be 16 constitution and 6 charisma, reduce dex from 14-12, now he can have 18 con (too late for 18 though) with an effective 22 str, he could raise his attack/damage bonus by 3 via 2hand wielding, but he's gotta be axe and board, (+18 to hit, and with certian feats and enahncements, +11 to damage as well as 1d6 fire damage, 1handed, but he is on the waraxe mastery path) so 2 characters isn't all that bad, i'm sorry for venting my party's lack of role optimization. the party's weakness is reliance on the sorcereress.
#15 cannaith Aug 29, 2008 14:46:53	I've done it a fair few times, mostly I find it a bit of a pain but there's nothing wrong with it. Give it a try and see if you like it. That's all I can recommend.