|
I've just begun GM after many years since last playing tabletop RPGs (last played with D&D 2ed). A friend introduced me to Pathfinder and I've been hooked since.
I have only been able to find two players willing to play weekly sessions with me. Any recommendations for a Pathfinder adventure path that would work with only two players?
I already have the Rise of the Runelords but that looks like it would be pretty brutal for just two players. How about Legacy of Fire? Or Kingmaker?
I'd dare say Rise of the Runelords would be lighter for 2 people than Legacy of Fire. Curse of the Crimson Throne might give you a chance if those 2 characters are made properly (going for stealth and trickery rather than brute vs-single-target firepower)..but you'd probably have to spoil yourselves some to achieve that.
With less people nonlinearity and encounters with more weaker enemies rather than single tough stuff are your friends. LoF unfortunately locks you up at some points.
My two cents for it would be to let the two players make whatever they like as long as they can fill a role in the party and just make an NPC or two to fill in the spots that haven't been taken. Sure its a little more weight on the GM, but it's an option. Or another option is have both players make two characters to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If those players are not too inexperienced, you might want to consider the idea of letting each of them control 2 characters, instead of one. That should balance things out.
Maybe have each one control a martial class and a caster class. Martial classes tend to be simpler to use, so they usually don't require too much bookkeeping.
I've played and GM'ed games like that before. It's easier than it sounds.
The first encounter LEGACY OF FIRE requires each PC to be in a lot of places at once. From there, it gets much more straightforward/dungeon-crawly, but that opening encounter might put some pressure on two PCs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great idea about having the players control 2 characters. Either I would give that a try or opt for the controlling an NPC or two. But I enjoy giving control over to the players.
Looks like I'll be running LEGACY OF FIRE and saving Rise of the Runelords for a bigger groups once I can get enough people together.
Thank you all for the advice. Much appreciated.
If you're going with LEGACY, there are some really helpful conversions available here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kwu3?My-Legacy-of-Fire-Conversions
|
Great idea about having the players control 2 characters. Either I would give that a try or opt for the controlling an NPC or two. But I enjoy giving control over to the players.
Looks like I'll be running LEGACY OF FIRE and saving Rise of the Runelords for a bigger groups once I can get enough people together.
Thank you all for the advice. Much appreciated.
Gestalt is an option to consider. It slightly ups the power of each PC but not so much as doubling their power. They would be more like a PC and a half.
Also recommend the fast XP progression to let them gain levels faster and up their power level while fighting lower level opponents.
|
Instead of the players controlling two characters you could let the players make gestalt characters. I've let players run gestalt characters several times and they really let the party fill several roles at once with less characters in the party. I recommend letting the party remain a level or so ahead of the assumed APL for the adventure however to help compensate for fewer characters and thus fewer targets for the baddies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 to lemmy's suggestion let them each run two PCs.
+2.
Because I'm... not Lemmy The Handsome. At all. No Sir. That I'm not. Ignore the red-lettered name indicating me to be an alias. I am... Uh... Someone else... Who is not Lemmy.
Suggestion for Jade Regent because of the wealth of NPCs and the fun you can have with it, as outlined in here
|
You could do Serpent's Skull. They get shipwrecked with 4 NPCs. Some of those NPCs may become adventuring companions. When we were playing the Barbarian took became the new chief of the cannibal tribe and slay'd all but the women. These infernal speaking women with sharpened teeth became the "brides of Ulbek". He also picked up a goat and by the 3rd book changed his archetype to Mad Dog Barbarian so the goat became his animal companion.
Basically any... give +2 levels to your players and always keep them two levels above the suggested advancement.
I am currently DMing Rise of the Runelords (Just finished the second part of the AP) with two players and did this exact thing. So far it has worked. Although, I highly recommand having at least a frontline warrior and a healer. In the case of my players, there is a ranger and a witch. So far, it has worked pretty well (they haven't died, but have come close a twice).
I've just begun GM after many years since last playing tabletop RPGs (last played with D&D 2ed). A friend introduced me to Pathfinder and I've been hooked since.
I have only been able to find two players willing to play weekly sessions with me. Any recommendations for a Pathfinder adventure path that would work with only two players?
I already have the Rise of the Runelords but that looks like it would be pretty brutal for just two players. How about Legacy of Fire? Or Kingmaker?
Skull n Shackles was our favorite AP, and with the occasions of single-encounter days and access to a crew full of potential NPC's, it seems to me to be ideally suited, provided the players like the theme.
Also recommend you consider gestalt rules for your two PC's. If you're anything like me you hate the disconnect that inevitably seems to come with playing multiple PC's. This ain't a video game, its a character-driven, story-driven experience and splitting your focus two-ways metagames a lot of that suspension of disbelief away. Just me, but I'd spend the time re-writing an entire AP before I'd ask or even allow multiple PC's per player.
Great idea about having the players control 2 characters. Either I would give that a try or opt for the controlling an NPC or two. But I enjoy giving control over to the players.
Looks like I'll be running LEGACY OF FIRE and saving Rise of the Runelords for a bigger groups once I can get enough people together.
Thank you all for the advice. Much appreciated.
I have run more then a few games with just 2 players, and participated in one. The best solution i have found is 2 fold.
1. Gestalt characters. If you dont know what gestalt is, it was in 3.5 unearthed arcana i believe. Basically each character has 2 classes. They get all the class abilities, and class skills from each, and take the best from each in terms of hit points, skill points, saves and base attack bonus. So if you are a rogue/fighter, at first level you have +1 bab, 10 hit points, and a strong reflex and fortitude save, along with rogue skill points (8+int per level). You also have all the class features from both classes.
This will make a somewhat more poweful character potentially, but its best use is to make more versatile character. For instance you could be a fighter/barbarian and be an all powerful meleer but thats not whats going to help here. What will help is covering 2 or more of each traditional role (fighter,rogue, cleric, wizard) with each character. This helps tremendously in small parties.
2. Encourage the multi role and especially the 'pet' classes. THe best classes for a 2 person game are druid and summoner. The reason is both these classes cover more hten one role and they come with a powerful pet. Action economy is very important in the game, and if you have less then 4 sets of actions per round, you are at a disadvantage even if individual characters are more powerful. In particular, in a normal party, if 1 of 4 character are disabled or knocked unconcious, only 1/4 of the party's abilities are lost. In a two person party, its half their ability. Pets mitigate this by adding actions, and adding competant front line fighters to the party.
In addition to those two, other classes that mix specialities are very good, the paladin, bard, witch, inquisitor, alchemist, and magus are all a good idea in these kinds of small party games. The more versatile the characters the better off the party will be. And with just 2 players niche protection is alot less important, both players will have lots of time in the spotlight.
I like these methods more then having each player run 2 characters because it keeps the roleplaying focused (even the best roleplayer wont be as able to roleplay 2 separate characters as well as he can 1) and still makes up for mechanical issues that show up in small parties.
To reinforce Kolokotroni's point, we've only had one opportunity to run Gestalt characters, a pair of PC's similar to your situation and their power level / capabilities were very appropriate to what a traditional 4-man party might look like. One was a Paladin/Summoner who fought astride his eidolon which was built as a divine mount and the other was a Bard/Master Summoner who summoned creatures and then buffed them with his Bardic Performance. They were very effective both in and out of combat, even in scouting or trap-finding situations due to the Master Summoner's eidolon
|
|
It's a much better option to have them each making two characters. The AP's after all, are built with an expectation of four to six players.
Meh.
Not all groups want to control multiple PCs...Not all DMs want to control DMPCs/NPCs.
Gestalt is an option. That is all I presented.
Either way, this group does not have 4-6 players, they have 2 players.
Every AP is balanced out of the box around having a party of 4 PCs, using 15-point-buy for stats, but they also build in a lot of flexibility. Every one I can think of introduces a few friendly NPCs real early on who can pretty easily be beefed up and leaned on more. Local sheriffs, clerics, scholarly mages, etc.
If you do some combination of beefing up their stats some, toning encounters down a bit, and making the friendly NPCs who show up now and then play a more active part in things, you can make any AP work with an undersized party.
Running two PCs each would save you a lot of work though.
|
|
It's a much better option to have them each making two characters. The AP's after all, are built with an expectation of four to six players.
Meh.
Not all groups want to control multiple PCs...Not all DMs want to control DMPCs/NPCs.
Gestalt is an option. That is all I presented.
Either way, this group does not have 4-6 players, they have 2 players.
Here is the big problem with gestalts vs 2 characters
Lets say one character gets hit with a disabling effect.
With two gestalt characters that's half the party taken down with one shot, as opposed to one quarter.
Here is the pro...your saves are better so you get disabled less often. Your HP is, on avg, better and your BAB is better. Especially if you have Melee/Caster Gestalts.
You seem to want to go hard against Gestalt.
If the 2 players are not keen on playing 2 PCs each, and I do not blame them, and the DM is not keen on having to run NPCs in the party AND NPCs against the party, and I don't blame him either, there is still the option of boosting the power of the PCs that are made by Gestalting them.
It is an option, pure and simple. Just like multiple PCs per player.
|
|
Instead of the players controlling two characters you could let the players make gestalt characters. I've let players run gestalt characters several times and they really let the party fill several roles at once with less characters in the party. I recommend letting the party remain a level or so ahead of the assumed APL for the adventure however to help compensate for fewer characters and thus fewer targets for the baddies.
I've never heard of 'gestalt characters' but I do like the idea since one of the problems with two characters is the effects on the Role Playing aspect of the game. Obviously there are some downsides but I can more easily control whether or not they fight creatures that will try to take one party member out with disabling spells.
One of my players is using Hero Lab, do you know if it can handle Gestalt characters?
You seem to want to go hard against Gestalt.
I go hard against the assumption that Gestalt is as good as having two separate characters.
Also keep in mind that not all Gestalts mean a boost in saves or durability. Sorcerer/Wizard is one example.
Perhaps not 'as good' from a purely mechanical perspective. Perhaps much better from a role-playing perspective. Sometimes we have to pull back from the mentality of trying to somehow 'win' the game and just have fun experiencing it...
You seem to want to go hard against Gestalt.
I go hard against the assumption that Gestalt is as good as having two separate characters.
Also keep in mind that not all Gestalts mean a boost in saves or durability. Sorcerer/Wizard is one example.
This is why I emphasize not just gestalt but the pet classes. A Gestalt Druid/Barbarian and Ninja/Summoner probably is just about as capable as a 4 player party.
And yes you do have to choose classes that compliment eachother if you want to cover up weaknesses with gestalt. Its not a guarante there has to be relatively careful consideration of party composition in small parties.
|
|
You seem to want to go hard against Gestalt.
I go hard against the assumption that Gestalt is as good as having two separate characters.
Also keep in mind that not all Gestalts mean a boost in saves or durability. Sorcerer/Wizard is one example.
Never said it would be. Said that a Gestalted PC is basically 1.5 PCs power wise.
The big reason that they are not much more powerful is that they do not have the actions that more PCs have.
Most Gestalts do have greater durability. Melee/caster will get you higher HPs and 2 good saves minimum to go with a full BAB and full spell progression.
The big reason they are more powerful is the versatility of available actions.