So, I am knocking around a sill idea, and need a little advice. Even though I usually have no one to play it with, I'm a big fan of Star Wars: the Old Republic, the current SW MMORPG. I was sitting there, playing it, reminiscing how much I tend to enjoy having Kira, Elara, or M1 around, to round out my character shortcomings, and I thought of it; could a player have something akin to a Companion in this game? In some, it didn't really matter, but in F&D, you have the expectation of force-users, and they have an expectation, to some degree, to possibly later get an apprentice, if you will; for instance, in SWTOR, the Hero of Tython is given Kira Carsen as their official apprentice, once your responsibilities grow to the level, and her former master, Jedi Master Kiwiks. For people who aren't that Jedi, or playing something radically different, there are any number of hirelings, or assigned "squad mates" you could have. If such an event were to happen to you, in game, you could end up with an NPC follower who the GM controls, but whom you have some input on how they develop, if they choose to follow your will. Blah, blah, blah. For people who have also played SWTOR, would you build them as a Rival-level, keeping them that bit more minor than your own character, like a Nemesis, to give them the full range of what they can do, when you need them to, or what?

Right now, for "balance" sake, I'm thinking I'll work on them as Rival-caliber, though maybe each with a small, special bonus ability, to make them "unique", and I might post them here, if I finish one soon. It's going to hurt a bit, since it seems Rival Force-users, being incapable of suffering strain, are designed to fail a bit, but I suppose plenty of other character builds call for strain in myriad other activities, and those Rivals work. If the majority of people seem to support Nemesis class, they can be fixed, easily enough. Thoughts would be great. I'll start with Kira, obviously, as she is my favorite.

Yeah, Rival caliber level seems appropriate to me. I would have them scale up every so often if you want them to stay on par with the hero. Nothing major, but maybe another skill here or there, another rank in a skill here or there. Maybe a new talent every 3-4 sessions, etc etc.

I might have to take the book's optional thing on Rivals and Strain, though. In my limited view, half of the fun of a lightsaber is using it to negate other attacks, and the idea that, in a Rival, they'd have to give up wounds to decrease the damage, but then have to have it be enough to still be a gain. I know lightsabers are more than attack-cancellers, but if I'm building someone who is a predominantly lightsaber-wielding batttler (if you've seen Kira in TOR), the idea that she can't really build to be harder to hit (not how defenses work, in this game, as I see it), nor spend expendable strain to mitigate it, she'd go down pretty quick against a number of enemies. On the other hand, Rivals do seem to work, in the system, so perhaps I'm missing some simple aspect of their mechanics, and just don't realize it.

The problem I can see with this idea is who controls the companions?

If it's the Player then you're basically giving them an additional attack each round per companion and the chance to min-max by making sure their own companion can do the things their main character can't do. Whilst not really adding any extra role play as the Player is both roles.

If its the GM then you're handling yourself a huge amount of additional work, plus you're then probably handling about 2/3 of combat whilst the players observe.

There is a middle ground of course where the players control the actions and the GM controls the role play but you're then giving the disadvantage of both.

Their a fantastic part of SW:TOR but I've never liked player 'minions' for table tops as the party are supposed to work together as a team as such they make up for each other's short comings

One of the players in my game lives on the other side of the world, and so can't attend tabletop sessions and often can't do the play online ones. So he tends to play alone, by email, which suits the character anyway as an Explorer. The adventures the PC undertakes tend to involve ancient tomb traps, wild animals and hazardous environments, so having an NPC tag along gives the player something to interact with.

I created a GM-ran sidekick character, partly to provide a foil for the PC and also to have some fun 'playing' myself. It can be handy having an NPC around who can advise and offer support. The GMPC was deliberately built to have complimentary skills and round out the PC's weaknesses, and I was careful not to overshadow the PC (especially in combat). She's mostly there to be a foil, a cheerleader, and a romance option. I kept her backstory pretty simple for just this reason.

I can attest this works very well - but only in a one-player/one-GM environment like the KotOR MMO. I don't know if it would work well in a normal situation where you had half-a-dozen PCs at the table.

The only really good instance of player companions that I've ever seen in an RPG was in Warhammer 40K: Only War. Basically, your class determines who your companion is, giving them some minor ability. Like the Sniper class got a companion who had a Spotter ability that gave you better bonuses on aiming, I think. Otherwise they had no statistics, and simply died if you would take a hit that inflicted critical damage (I think - it's been a while), letting you survive a little longer. They were basically Red Shirts with some little perk to give you while they yet lived.

They didn't have skills but contributed nonetheless.

On the 'who runs the character' side of things, something I've played with in other systems (and seen suggested else system) is simply give it to another player. Not the PC who is 'owns' the companion (so to speak), but someone else at the table. I've done this before with some NPC heavy scenes, and while it wouldn't work at every table or with every player, it has been vastly entertaining the times I've done it.

Another possible suggestion I might have is to run them as PCs at a significantly lower XP value (say Knight Level for players proper vs Starting PC for companion) and possibly a reduced XP gain rate, not NPCs. I say this mostly because companions wouldn't follow the standard assumptions of NPCs, in that their meant to interact sporadically with the group in a specific role. Instead, they're probably going to grow and develop as the game goes, and the PC character advancement framework gives more structure then 'I need to make **** up as I go along' the GM side NPC approach would entail. It might be a bit more work GM side though, but assigning XP isn't too onerous, and this is again something you could offload to a player (if you trust them).

My two cents, spend them how you will.

The following all give some guidance on having NOC companions:

Beast Riding and Astromec Droids in Stay on Target

Squad&Squadron rules from AoR GM screen

Bonded Animal from FaD core (possibly relevant if your a leader with a com cybernetic implant)

Droid section in Special Modifications.

Between all of them the most relevant is probably the Astromec section in SoT. Generally the rules require the PC to use at least a maneuver and often an Action for the NPC to do anything more than assist too.

Battle Meditation is of course the Force Power to use for this as well, especially if you have more than 1 companion.

I can attest this works very well - but only in a one-player/one-GM environment like the KotOR MMO. I don't know if it would work well in a normal situation where you had half-a-dozen PCs at the table.

In the olden days of AD&D (1st edition, but we didn't need to mention that at the time), 4-6 PCs with another half dozen henchmen and up to a dozen more hirelings wasn't considered to be too unusual. Of course, back then character deaths were common and only fools went into danger in groups as small as we see today.

Between all of them the most relevant is probably the Astromec section in SoT. Generally the rules require the PC to use at least a maneuver and often an Action for the NPC to do anything more than assist too.

I'd be in on this too. Star Wars D20 Saga had the option in one of its books to take feats which gave you a follower. Basically you could get a combat follower (slightly more hitpoints, one or two extra weapon proficiencies, etc), or one of several support types (less hitpoints, but one or two useful skills and/or a non-combat feat). In Saga, those followers moved when the governing character moved, unless specifically ordered to hold position. The character had to give up a move equivalent action or even a standard action (call them maneuvers and actions respectively in FFG SW) to order the followers to do equivalent stuff, such as making an attack of their own, instead of just standing there, or offering up minor support roles.

The moment a follower (assuming we count them as NPC's) stops being a secondary resource for additional skills and attacks, because said follower can make its own decissions about when and where to apply skills, talents and attacks, it stops being an NPC in my opinion.

I can understand how some campaigns seem to slow down or even grind to a halt because of a lack of players, and adding an additional 'support' character may seem like a good idea to fill in the blanks with regards to skills, talents, and maybe even firepower. But regardless of whether this is an NPC or a Demi-PC, it always involves the extra work. Even if it is toned down to the point where the actions of the companion replace those of the PC, there is an extra NPC sheet or stat block, an extra target to choose, an extra mouth to feed, an extra wound to bind, etc.

Tbh from a constructive point of view.

As a GM I'd probably only allow the party as a whole to have 1.companion to save book keeping.

And I'd probably only allow a droid like R2 if the players severely lacked any Astrogation/Mechanic/Slicing capabilities, like R2 it'd squirrel itself away somewhere and slice the system or stay on the ship and keep the engines ready.

Players would roll for the Astromech as an action something like Command Astromech.

So the "NPC Astromec" side bar on p73 of Stay on Target actually gives a solid idea. In that case the NPC has no initiative slot of its own, it acts when the PC acts. It is always considered to be performing the Assist maneuver, granting a single Boost die to each action the PC performs. Then after the dice are rolled (read: on success or failure) spend 3 Advantage or a Triumph to gain the benefits of a single Maneuver or Action of that NPC. If that would have required a dice roll for the NPC treat it as if the NPC succeeded with a single success and nothing else.

Seems like a balanced way to get help to me, not sure I would let the NPC succeeded on a combat check if the PC failed, but 3A/1T is a lot.

If a GM can handle multiple NPCs, is it really that hard to have a player control one extra Rival-level NPC in addition to a PC? Is it really that hard for the GM to take one extra Rival-level character on the PCs' side into account when creating encounters?

The thing is it things like this usually don't end up as 1 extra.

Every player will want one which is then 3-5 extra NPCs.

And whilst it's not really any more difficult for the PC to control an extra character it's basically a free set of upgraded skills for them with no cost of EXP

The thing is it things like this usually don't end up as 1 extra.

Every player will want one which is then 3-5 extra NPCs.

And whilst it's not really any more difficult for the PC to control an extra character it's basically a free set of upgraded skills for them with no cost of EXP

Well if your players only see the npc's as "as bag of spare skills" then there's not much you can do about it. But if they actually try and roleplay a relationship with the npc's (not necessarily romance), then there are plenty of downsides to having the npc around, to offset the bonus skills.

1. They've got their own set of Obligations andDuty, and the party might end up having to deal with their baggage for a few sessions instead of their own.....actually, you could maybe make these NPC's an Obligation of their own. Create a small backstory, with some plot hook/hangups for the companions, and work them into the regular list of Obligations as well. Then if they roll that session, the party has to deal with their problems.

2. They can be captured, and can give up information about the PC's under coercion/torture, making life harder for the players.

3. If the players treat them like crap, and just see them as "walking skill bags" (like meatbags, but less tasty), then the npc's might get fed up with working for these assholes they've been hanging out with, and leave, hobbling your players with a set of skills now missing, that they never bothered to invest in. This is mostly in case your players have zero ability to roleplay, and treat everyone who isn't a PC as a walking vendor or plot device, and not as an actual character. Sort of like the player of Qui-Gon's character in Darth's and Droids.

For me, my thinking is more along the lines of party size and composition, especially in relation to the game/setting. Smaller groups might be more specialized and might need help. More importantly, single and dual player groups need all the help they can get.

In addition, the role needs to be divided into the "classic" companion classification: Cohort and Follower. Cohorts would be the companions from SWTOR, while followers are more like minions and such.

To me, its not so much the shortcomings being addressed but the situations being addressed. How often does a player find themselves in a combat situation? Are there times when they could really use a diplomat to assist them? These are the circumstances where a GMPC might be over powering, while having the players roll through it could be an unpleasant experience for everyone involved.

Using SWTOR as a reference point, why do the NPCs want to join the player? Is it out of loyalty, orders, or personal preference? Likewise, are their limits to their abilities, or do certain situations stress themselves out?

In addition, this can also be a source of additional and potentially conflicting missions, quests, and adventures that the NPCs need to have completed. Heck, this might also be a good time to introduce "loyalty", in order to represent how much a companion grows.

This just some random thoughts going on. Maybe it will help potential GMs decide what to do.

Blech! Phooey! No sir, I don't like it. If under GM control, that's one more thing I have to deal with on an already overcrowded plate. If under Player control, I don't like two attacks (or two actions) a turn in fights.

Blech! Phooey! No sir, I don't like it. If under GM control, that's one more thing I have to deal with on an already overcrowded plate. If under Player control, I don't like two attacks (or two actions) a turn in fights.

Hence the player limit for the second part. If it is already a small group (1-3) to begin with, it won't be as big of a challenge. It when it gets larger that it can really become a problem.

Also, it depends on the players. Give this to some new players or ones with some restraint and it shouldn't be too bad. The ones to worry about are the min maxers and power gamers.

In your case, it sounds like you have the unideal situation: large group of experienced players who don't operate with restraint.