Advice for running with two PCs


Hell's Rebels


Hello Everybody, I'm considering giving Hell's Rebels a go but I only have two players. I could ask them to play two characters each, which might be doable, but I would prefer to modify the encounters slightly instead. Has anybody done something similar, or have any advice for lowering the CR of encounters?


Cut all the encounters in half. Half the opponents and the like.

Also give them both the Leadership Feat for free at level 7.

Or you could create a GMPC to fill any obvious void (like needing a healer or a front-line melee type (or an additional melee type)). The extra XPs will have them leveling up faster and the extra levels will let them take on more foes as a result.

Or you could let them have one Mythic Tier at 1st level. The extra attack from Mythic helps alleviate some of the action economy issues.

Sovereign Court

Currently GMing Iron Gods with two newish players. Each runs two PCs. One of them gets confused at times between which abilities belong to her paladin and which belong to her cleric. You definitely lose out on fleshing out PC personalities by running two (or more) PCs.

They still haven't gotten the hang of some tactics (eg. setting up flanking), so for now I'm also running a GMPC (a silent tag-along who makes no decisions) to flesh out the party to help make it a little easier on them. Next campaign I'll probably not GMPC and have 4 PCs total instead.

I see this situation as a trade-off balancing the work-load. Either your players do the extra work of running two PCs, or you (assuming you're the GM) do more work tweaking the majority of encounters. Considering it's the GM who generally does more work I don't feel bad about shifting some onto the players. Too much added work for the GM can lead to burnout.

Silver Crusade

Might also consider using gestalt. It's pretty much made for this situation. I would also reduce encounters slightly even with it, probably -1CR.
gestalt


I do not recommend gestalt. For all the flaws of Mythic, it is a far better system than gestalt. And really, the problem is not a "well-rounded" party seeing you can run a campaign with four Fighters and it would still succeed in all likelihood (especially with Hell's Rebels where healing is readily available). It's Action Economy.

The three ways of dealing with Action Economy are Mythic (which adds in a Swift action for extra attacks), multiple characters (including cohorts) (which has its own issues), or cutting encounters in half.

Sorry. Four - you can add a GMPC.

There is something else to consider. Games tend to grow players over time. If the first few players are gestalt, then it's unfair for new players not to be gestalt and then you have a vastly overpowered game. Mythic has problems but if you keep them at one or two Mythic tiers, most of the problems with Mythic don't happen (it's Tier 3 and up where things get messy, and that's usually at higher levels at that) - and it too can fade in time as the "blessings" of whatever made them Mythic goes away. And Cohorts or GMPCs can always be retired when you get a fourth new player in time.

So I strongly recommend against gestalt. The alternatives are far better.

(As a side note, in Book 6 there is an opportunity for players to gain one Mythic Tier if the GM decides he wants to go that route. It's not essential for the game and the alternative is an XP reward, so I don't see the point of adding a Spoiler tag.)

Silver Crusade

Gestalt does have its issues, as does mythic, and honestly every other solution to the problem of "Pathfinder is built for a balanced party of 4 PCs". As you point out, it's better if the issue is the well-roundedness of the party. For action economy issues, I'd actually recommend just giving an extra standard action or something else straightforward instead of bringing in mythic. Another resource pool and a myriad of other bonuses seems a bit much. Also, the ridiculous for martials kicks in at mythic 3, but casters are greatly powered right from 1 (wild arcana/inspired spell).

Overall the worst method I've seen used has been multiple PCs. As Nightdrifter noted, the personality of the characters gets lost. It's not that it won't work, just that it seems to have the biggest flaw. GMPC can end up just as bad if implemented poorly, so you'll always be treading on think ice with that route.


Personally, and I speak as someone who has long advocated doing WotR using Hero Points instead of Mythic and also was a part of the GM group discussing needed fixes to Mythic, Mythic only goes off the rails when you go over 2 Mythic Tiers and have higher levels. I added Mythic to my RotRL campaign and it has not destroyed that campaign. But I also don't allow things like Mythic Power Attack, or Swift spells using the Archmage abilities.

Remember. This isn't a four-person group that becomes overpowered with Mythic added. This is a two-person group that lacks action economy - it is in these situations where Mythic actually comes into its own.

-----------

GMPCs only are a bad idea if the GM is unable to keep their ego in check. I've long used GMPCs to interact with the group and fill voids within their group, and only in one instance did I realize there was a problem (2nd ed. Night Below campaign), at which point I killed off the GMPC (and so scared the group that they retreated from the battle - perhaps the first time they ever ran from a fight they were in).

If the GM doesn't try to compete with the players through the GMPC, then it can play a vital role - often as group medic, but also as a trap-finder (with the first Rogue Talent being used for the auto-trap detection talent) or even as the front line if the players aren't into melee types.

---------

BTW, there is one other possibility instead of Mythic: start each game with 3 Hero Points and let the players use them for extra actions and the like. This "Mythic Lite" helps avoid some problems with Mythic Feats and the like. But again, two players isn't the big problem when it comes to Mythic, and it can be phased out by reducing the number of Mythic Points that come back after a night's rest. Gestalt cannot be phased out without redoing the characters.

And I still recommend the GMPC in this situation.


Thanks guys! I like the idea of using Hero Points and/or sprinkling just a little mythic into the game to give an edge back to the PCs.

Another idea is to just start the players with level 2 or 3 PCs. Although that doesn't help with action economy and I'm guessing it might break the AP given some of the later encounters.

How about allowing two initiative slots per PC?


My advice would be that each player runs two PCs each. If the players are good roleplayers, then their characters' personalities will be fine. If your players aren't big on roleplay then their PCs will never have had strong personalities either way and it wouldn't have mattered.

I find this route entails the least amount of fiddling with the system and extra work for the GM, and as a primary GM, it would be my recommendation.

Silver Crusade

Two initiative slots works well for mundane characters, but casters and anyone else who uses a limited resource will just burn through it twice as fast. Might have to increase spells per day, channel energy per day, etc. Additionally, not having extra bodies gives them lower group HP, and any amount of CC will be devastating (taking at least half the party out).

Hero points that can be spent on actions is a solid idea all around, and specifically for the action economy. It also gives a way around devastating CC mechanics

Bumping them up by 1 level could help with the resources, both in giving them more and requiring them to use fewer, but doesn't solve action economy in any meaningful way. Could probably just add this to another method though.

A support GMPC (cleric, bard, wizard, or mystic theurge) will fill them out if you can find a way to give it personality without overtaking the game. You're ideally looking for something that is a great force multiplier, and effects like haste and summons do a great job of filling action economy gap. If you produce summons with a GMPC, let one of the players control it.

An alternate take on 2 PCs each: give them a guardian spirit or something that takes it's own turn, has it's own class features, etc. but acts from the main character's body. That way they realistically have 1 character each, but with an added entity that could create some extra roleplay opportunities. Just an idea off the top of my head, don't really have a great idea for this mechanically.


Hero Points CAN be spent on actions.

Have you ever taken a good look at Hero Points? They are the basis from which Mythic was built. They include a variation of "cast any spell," "free move or standard action," "bonus to any roll," and more. And if anything? They can be more broken than Mythic if the player is smart enough - +8 to any one die roll if declared before the roll is taken, for instance, or +4 to any die roll AFTER it was taken.

----------

ShieldBug, my Skype Runelords group started at level 2. For a while I was increasing the AP of all foes by +1 (hit dice, character levels, and the like) but eventually found even doing that, they were leveling up around when recommended in the AP.

The extra 1,300 XPs will be absorbed in fairly short order. So don't worry about starting the players at level 2 (and I've had players quite grateful they don't have to start at level 1!).


Thread you might be interested in that has links to other relevant threads (and thread necromancy welcome).


Thanks again. I think I'll try starting them at level 2 with hero points, and if it looks like they are having too hard a time of it, I'll throw in some extra help from an NPC or two.

@UnArcaneElection - that is a really interesting thread, some great ideas for party composition.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Hell's Rebels / Advice for running with two PCs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Hell's Rebels