The DMG2 presents rules for companion characters, which are good. They turn a companion character into a monster, mechanically, with the same simplicity and presentation of information. This makes it easy to run a companion as a second character, and keeps the companion complex and powerful enough to make a difference in the fight. In my campaign, I’m going to be one player short a lot for a while; Sredni’s player will be unable to make it to games on a regular basis. Because of this, I plan on making up a companion version of Sredni, so that one of the other players can run him as well as their own character; that way, the party isn’t without a leader.

Over at In the Eye of the Beholder, they have a different take. I must say, I like these rules quite a bit. They’re simple and streamlined, don’t require a lot of book-keeping, and allow allies to be important (but not too important) in a fight.

Is one method better than the other? I don’t think so. I think that each lends itself to different uses. I think that the DMG2 rules a great for replacing a PC, making a companion that’s going to be a full-fledged member of the party with an equal share of the XP. If you want allies for your PCs in a fight, but don’t want to cut into the party’s XP, the Beholder method is very good.

I might make a few modifications to the rules presented, though. For example, rather than giving each ally its own standard and move action, I’d have each ally be controlled by one of the players. When that player takes a move action, the ally can also do so, and the ally’s special ability would cost the player’s character a minor action to perform.

In my own campaign, I plan on using both methods. I’m going to stat Sredni out as a full companion character, and he’ll get a share of the XP just like everyone else. However, a lot of the walk-on companions in the adventure will use these other rules.

No related posts.