Looking for advice! Thanks
Well you could try to increase the PC's class level with slightly more powerful PC races (i.e. assimiar, teifling) in the 1 PC option,
or what you could do is simple, have 1 player play 1 PC and one play 2 PCs with minor level increase or slightly more power race options.
With experienced roleplayers it can be really fun to have them switch between their various roles as long as they keep it straight.. If you're looking more for module based play and simply want to get a feel for the system.. also a good plan. Otherwise I'd suggest not doing it. It can be hard for new players to get used to playing their own character let alone switching between several. If you do have multiple people play, try not to load up one person with a ton of spellcasting as it can overwork them with book-keeping. Also, keep in mind to enforce limits on metagaming.
I'd suggest reading the Gamemaster's Guide if you're new to it. It's a good book and provides lots of random tables to use. :)
If you have seasoned players than running two pcs is easy. I played a brother sister Mage monk combo to great effect. However I would recommend at least one of them be unable or unwilling to speak. It makes life easier.
Or you could try gestalt with just one character per player. That works pretty well.
Or you could try gestalt with just one character per player. That works pretty well.
Oh yah, the 3.5 "Unearth Arcana" gestalt rules, sweet idea
I would suggest ditching modules which allows you to personalize the adventures.
gestalt rules? What is that? I don't own UE.Or you could try gestalt with just one character per player. That works pretty well.Oh yah, the 3.5 "Unearth Arcana" gestalt rules, sweet idea
gestalt rules:
You take 2 classes at the same time, but you only get the better of the 2 class' Hit die, alloted skill points, BAB, and each save. You get all of the specials from both classes per level, as well as the class skills, and weapon and armour profiencies.If you have to wiki it in dndwikia or torrent it.
|
I'm currently in a game with 1 DM & 2 Players. All three are running two PCs. (6 PCs total)
But we're all expereienced gamers!
I don't recommend ever having a new gamer run two PCs. It's just too much to try to learn the ins and outs of two PCs at the same time. (Like learning two languages at the same time instead of one -- the two get mixed up -- "My Cleric Rages"; ... "My Barbarian has a great Diplomacy")
HOWEVER, if you decide to go with 2 PCs each --
So, Initiative should work where PC 1:A goes, PC 2:A goes, PC 1:B goes, PC 2:B goes. Roll out the initiatives, of course, but when it happens that PC1:A and PC1:B go consecutively, switch one of those PCs with PC 2 (A or B).
Also, make sure that the the 2 PCs for each Player are very different. One Player should make, for example, a Fighter and a Wizard. The other, for example, a Barbarian and a Cleric.
It is much harder to distinguish your 2 PCs when they are dramatically different.
Finally, have each Player use only 1 of his 2 PCs as his "speaker" PC. The one with personality. The other can be mute, or have CHA as a dump stat -- or something. That way one PC feels like a character and the other feels more like a helper during combat.
I started running D&D with basically that player setup, only we all didn't know how the game. Two players and two characters is just fine. I agree with the suggestion to move outside published adventures as they are designed for 4 to 5 characters.
Instead of giving them full PC classed characters perhaps consider NPC classed helpers. Warrior, Expert, and Adept classed NPCs will be easier to manange over the long run. Those NPCs can be handled by any 3 of you, likely the player with a bit of experience with 3.5
I would not use gestalt rules.
IMO take it easy with encounters. There is nothing wrong with soft pitching the first few levels for new players and GMs. It will get you used to encounter balance and setup, then players time to get used to character abilities and game rules.
|
gestalt rules? What is that? I don't own UE.Or you could try gestalt with just one character per player. That works pretty well.Oh yah, the 3.5 "Unearth Arcana" gestalt rules, sweet idea
Gestalt is a rule option where you advance in two classes simultaneously for each level you go up, gaining all class features, using the better of the two BAB, saves, hit dice, skills, etc. The full rules are in the d20srd.
Just remember, with gestalt, the characters are more powerful than normal, but not as powerful as two separate characters would be, due to the action economy.
This is just my personal taste, but I have NEVER liked my players running more than one character (or opposite sex characters, for that matter), but I'm also kind of an old-school role-playing traditionalist. Most of my groups have always been 3-4 guys total, including the GM. On the other hand if all you're going to be doing is dungeon-crawling (i.e. combat, traps, puzzle, rest -> repeat), then I don't see why each player couldn't run multiple characters.
What I would do is add a third NPC - basically the 'GM's character' - to help balance out whatever the party needed and to give them a nudge in the right direction when necessary, and then modify the module ahead of time to account for the diminished party strength.
Another option is henchmen. Perhaps two or three NPC men-at-arms or mercenaries and an NPC Cleric all of whom act on the same initiative in combat - basically a few crossbowmen to add firepower and a healer to patch people up between encounters. They would do what they were told, but the GM would run them in combat and none of them would add any appreciable benefit to things like Perception checks or have any specialized skills. This allows for you to pay homage to the time-honored tradition of 'red shirts' - in the stories, no hero ever returns with all of his companions alive... if he did, his quest couldn't have been that heroic anyway, right?
That should really be all the PC's need unless the module calls for some sort of specialist they lack (if it has a large number of traps and neither player is a Rogue, for instance). If that's the case, you might wish to combine both options - an NPC for the GM (the specialist) and a handful of henchmen.
Or you could try gestalt with just one character per player. That works pretty well.Oh yah, the 3.5 "Unearth Arcana" gestalt rules, sweet ideaMajor problem with that approach. One PC gets incapacitated in a 2 person party, that's two of your roles down for the count.
Also keep in mind that you still have half the action economy of a 4 person party.
Your third alternative...
Junk the idea of using conventional adventures and build your own suited for whatever 2 PC's they want to play.
No matter the solution, there is always a flaw.
|
I've run several 2-PC games before and never had a problem. Yes, if one of them goes down, the other has to worry for his life. But that's half the fun in any roleplaying game; if there's no danger of death, there's no death-defying heroics.
When running a 2-PC game, you just have to run monsters at 2 CR lower (so if your PCs are 5th-level, an "average" encounter is CR 3, and an "epic encounter is CR 6... etc).
I wouldn't suggest gestalting, based on my experience with the system. Your characters will either come up with terrible combos and get themselves killed, or the GM will overestimate the CR the players can handle, or someone will find a game-breaking combo.
As to 4-PC games with 2 players, this makes roleplay difficult, and confuses people when they have to shuffle a bunch of character sheets, familiars, and animal companions. My advice is to just stick to a 2-PC party, where the players can get really into the stats and personality of one character apiece.
|
|
Adjusting the CR seems the best choice. You could also work with the players on what to build. Some classes are going to work better in a two PC group than others. The cleric for instance can provide healing and be a strong frontline tank if built properly, but you might want to avoid the sorcerer and wizard, since they will probably not be able to stay out of melee without a full party to work with. Also, any class that gives you helpers could be good, ie the druid for his animal companion and summons on the summoner. Actually with a summoner using the master summoner archetype, you could field a pretty full frontline and keep the PCs themselves in the back, using ranged weapons or spellcasting.
I wouldn't want a player to play 2 characters, roleplaying gets crappy. In my experience one of the PCs will be like a familiar from non-combat actions.
the gestalt character option is awesome for this, 2 PCs give 4 classes which is exactly what's needed.
My suggestion: Wizard/Rogue Tiefling, and Fighter/Cleric Aasimar together :)
Makes an awesome party.
Two characters apiece is easy and fun. I've played it that way many times. I don't think that they lacked character or roleplay abilities. Good players can keep it all straight.
I'd recommend no more than one spellcaster each. In a typical Ftr/Clr/Rog/Wiz group, keeping track of spells and whatnot is a little more work than playing a non-caster. Playing two casters at once can be a lot of work.
I wouldn't want a player to play 2 characters, roleplaying gets crappy
Dick hits the nail critically on the head. The biggest problem with having 2 characters each is that it becomes too much of a strategy game where you have units. In the best case, one of the characters is switched off outside of combat. (Well, actually, the best case is having players who can pull it off). Worst case is that role playing goes to hell in a hand basket.
Powerful characters (with really great character generation rules and gestalt characters) is another option, of course.
The third option is a GMPC. That means in addition to the players, the GM himself runs a PC. That's what I'm doing - I have 3 players, and most of the time, only 2 can make it.
The trick is to keep the GMPC a bit in the background. Maybe play a support role - let the players do the flashy stuff and play the healer/buffer or something.
You can also play him normal, just don't put him into the spotlight.
You can also sometimes use him as your mouthpiece. Through that character, you can inform the players of some things, point things out they might have missed but you want them to know, and give them an in-game warning when they're crossing lines they should not cross for one reason or another.
I would suggest running 1 PC a piece, and plan on making relatively easy encounters, but with optional reinforcements if it's too much of a cakewalk.
For example, at level 1, put both PCs in a room with a couple of goblins. If the fight is relatively challenging, great. If it is WAY too easy, have a couple more join the fight from an adjacent room or something.
For a 2 PC campaign, you'll definitely want to customize the campaign around their capabilities. If they're both warriors, use a lot of combat. If they're both spellcasters, rival spellcasters and challenges that rely on magic to be overcome should be used. If they're skill monkeys, throw lots of skill challenges at them.
EDIT: After a few sessions or levels of play, then let each player try out 2 PCs at once. This exposes them to more options, and also makes the party more survivable if one of the characters gets incapacitated.
Paladin and Bard make a great 2 person combo for a party.. Just sayin. :)
So does Ranger and anything else.
The ranger really is a great introductory class. It has enough skill points to fill some different non-combat roles, it has a nice, non-overwhelmingly limited choice of combat feats, some nifty class features, and is a good introduction into spell casting.
|
Id say two man it. This marks an opportunity to get some decent growing, roleplaying wise. Often people have to swallow what they want to say because they dont want to 'hog all the action'. Growth for you as a GM because you can focus on details concentrate on your two players that most GMs dont get a chance to. Media and literature are abound with the 'buddy' adventures: Conan and Tsubodai, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Gotrex and Felix, Artemis Enteri and Jarlaxe and let us not forget Han Solo and Chewbacca. I really believe a fun time can be had with just 2 PCs.
Given the nature of the game and the players, one player = one character is my suggestion. If they were skilled players I would suggest gestalt characters, but otherwise just basic classes.
Which classes? I would suggest that bard, druid and ranger will cover more bases together than any other classes; cleric and monk would be close seconds to that list. After a few levels, they should have higher than normal WBL which will help counter their lack of numbers.
Yeah, I'd say go for a two-man party, and put them at two levels higher than the module recommends. They should still advance at roughly the same rate (since their experience and treasure is divided between two people rather than four)
If you are going with a 2 man party I would strongly recommend to your players to take some of the multi role characters that are available. Summoner, and Druid both provide big plusses in the action economy realm, and magus bard or inquisitor are great for flexibility in abilities.
Thanks everyone for the advice! Our first session is this coming Tuesday night.
We decided to go with 1 PC per player (no gestalt or anything). So we'll have a small party. I'm going to start them off with Crypt of the Everflame, which I'm modifying for 2 PC's.
I'm scaling down every encounter and every trap - and the treasure as well. In some cases, I'm reducing the number of monsters (e.g., 3 skeletons instead of 6). In other cases I'm reducing the power of monsters (there is one particular CR3 monster that I'm statting lower to be a CR1 monster).
To me, this still takes less time than producing my own stuff. After all, I get a nice town with the adventure. So that will become their home town. And I get a nicely done dungeon adventure. After Crypt, I may run them through Godsmouth Heresy.
If in doubt, I'm erring towards the side of easier encounters. I don't want to overwhelm them initially.
Sounds good, man. The modules are great fun. (The adventure paths even better!)
Keep in mind though, your two PCs should reasonably be able to handle a CR2 encounter quite easily as well, so long as one of them isnt incapacitated. In most cases... it's a matter of numbers (and by extension, the action economy) rather than killing power (which early monsters won't have, but that jerk barbarian that took power attack, cleave and a greatsword probably will.)
As for playing the more versatile (read, spellcasting) classes... I really wouldnt worry too much. At early levels, a specialist will be considerably more powerful. Druids dont come into their own for a few levels, and even then, a group of say, a fighter and rogue that play to their own strengths should be able to plow through most challenges thrown at them.
That said, I do like the idea of a Zapp Brannigan esque famous "advemturer" complete with an enormous ego, with his bard compatriot that b$#@@~$*'s all his accomplishments to the world.
With just two players there's a lot of potential for "two-man teams" and backstory links, so have your players sit down and try and coordinate what they want to roleplay... there's a lot of fun to be had here.
EDIT: Just realised it's nearly Tuesday morning. Good luck, have fun, and tell us how your game goes!
And the ranger can use Wands of Cure Light Wounds. 750gp for 50 cures is quite the deal. If you are worried about undead, don't have them fight undead--you're the GM and you decide what encounters are available to, er, encounter. (Unless the ranger's favored enemy is undead...)
A ranger and a rogue will be a really fun party!
Interesting that you state Fighter and Rogue. My players are taking a Ranger & Rogue. My concern there is the lack of healing ability and the lack of channel energy against undead. Then again, they can buy healing potions for 50gp each.
Not a hot damage-dealing combo, but very strong on stealth. Lack of magic is a big problem, but UMD can help with that. Their main weakness is a lack of Willpower, and that could hurt them a lot.
|
|
GLAD EVERYTHING WAS FUN!!!
Rookie Mistakes -- ayup -- that's why you start at 1st level or so. You get used to the options you have then add more each level.
Regarding healing: EASY SOLUTION choices,
Let one of the PCs max out Use Magic Device: Happy Sticks for free and let him use it as a Free Action, or...
Give the two PCs a non-combatant Cohort, levels in Adept, who spends all his time casting Cures and other Cleric stuff (but maybe not Bumps such as Bear's Strength or Haste. He can have a personality without giving advice or doing anything in encounters except healing the PCs.
Rangers can use wands of cure light wounds without Use Magic Device skill checks.
But not until 4th level (right???)
And the way the Players may want to run their PCs, the Ranger may not want to be the one that uses the Happy Stick.
But, yes, you're right.
Nope, right away.
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.
Best group I ever ran was a pair of two PC's - a burly Two-handed Human Fighter and a quick-witted and mobile Elven Rogue/Duelist. They were best friends and mercenaries in the 'Grey Mouser' vein. I added a third recurring NPC, a female elven Wizard/Cleric/Theurge who usually played the role of their employer and occaisional damsel in distress. There was a friendly rivalry for her affections between them, and she served equally well as a common adventure hook, a mouthpiece for the GM to help them out when they were 'stuck' and an option for healing, support and magical protection, either through minor magic items or direct participation.
Adventures went smoothly and relatively quickly - so much so that I basically doubled the xp requirements to advance so that we could slow down and enjoy the play. I tend to put just a touch less magic in my campaigns anyway to keep it 'magical' anyway, and it worked out great.