I'm sure this has been asked a hundred times before, and I took a quick look back, but obviously my search terms were stupid or I was stupid (which is basically a given) because I couldn't find much relevant data. But: assuming one inexperienced player, one up-and-down GM, little to no minmaxing (and a focus on 'feats/skills/powers that are cool or fit my character concept'), a friendly/negotiable GM presence, a low-level or even level 1 start, and about a 70% willingness to bend the rules...
1 - what classes are most viable for the one player? I'm assuming some basic things like "a warpriest is big and tough and can heal self", and "a summoner has a giant eidolon to be friends with", and "NO DON'T TAKE A TEAMWORK-FEAT FOCUSED ROGUE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU", but I've not done much experimentation and I'm sure I can be caught by surprise - also, I'd like my player to have some choice, it's not nearly as fun when you're told "make a character, make any character you want! as long as it's a dwarf warpriest. and you need to be lawful to take the following feats or you will die."
2 - what are some things that the GM should keep in mind when designing adventures and encounters?
3 - any other advice?
Pretty much you want a Inquisitor.
Pretty good in melee, can take hits. Nice saves.
Self healing.
decent skill points.
Hunter is another choice.
Paladin should be good (effective but yes also LG) self-heals good saves full armor easy to motivate etc.
master summoner can turn numbers back against enemies
Look at the One on One adventures in the modules section. They have appropriately written adventures for various classes. They are rather inexpensive, too, and at the very least, provide build ideas as well.
Thread for you with links to other related threads. Only you're proposing an even smaller party than most of them . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic problem is that an encounter where one PC gets knocked out by a failed saving throw or a lucky crit is all part of the fun in a four-PC party. In a one-PC party, it's game over. So the player and GM need to plan for this. Animal companions and NPC allies can help. Or the GM can come up with a reason why the hero won't die if defeated. (The bad guys are trying to capture him to use as a hostage, or the hero has a magic gizmo that teleports him out at the last second, or something like that.)
You should also consider whether the PC should start at level 1, since a single level 1 PC has a high chance of being killed by a basic orc, which restricts the types of encounters you can create.
I agree with the animal companion strategy, and the need for some healing. The obvious solution would be a druid, but I would also like to present, for the fine gentleman's consideration: The Lunar Oracle. Grab a Tiger or Wolf companion to handle your front-lines (or at least share the attention). Dump your dex, pump up Con and Str, little bit of Cha. Prophetic armor will give you Cha to reflex saves and armor instead of dex. Gift of Horn and Claw will grant you a bonus natural attack by level 3. 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, full spell progression, and an animal companion. It's like a druid, but neater! More neater.
As long as you are up to it, Investigator is a good choice. Lots of mysteries and non-combat encounters. I would suggest a higher point value, since the character is going to have to be able to do everything themselves.
I recommend giving him some mythic tiers. If you think mythic is too complicated for him, then you could just make all of the mythic decisions for him, because the abilities themselves aren't very complicated.
As long as you are up to it, Investigator is a good choice. Lots of mysteries and non-combat encounters. I would suggest a higher point value, since the character is going to have to be able to do everything themselves.
An investigator (empiricist) could do any of the rogue modules that I mentioned. In fact, he may even be superior to the rogue because of the addition of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give the PC a smart aleck familiar so he has someone to talk to.
Paladin should be good (effective but yes also LG) self-heals good saves full armor easy to motivate etc.
Honestly I've thought several times that Paladin would work best alone, no party conflict potential, complete liberty to operate within your self inflicted restraints
Except for traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're running a campaign for one player playing a Paladin and fill it full of traps you're being an ass.
True, but traps are a big part of the game, and this thread is about classes that are the most viable. The paladin is clearly not on the "most viable" list in that regard.
True, but traps are a big part of the game, and this thread is about classes that are the most viable. The paladin is clearly not on the "most viable" list in that regard.
They're not though .... you can easily run an entire campaign without having a single trap, the last campaign I was in ran for about 11 months (then sadly collapsed) and there were literally none.
I was also in a one shot around the same time that had 3. It's takes a particular kind of campaign to make traps relevant.
The basic problem is that an encounter where one PC gets knocked out by a failed saving throw or a lucky crit is all part of the fun in a four-PC party.
Using hero points could take out some random deathliness.
I haven't studied this carefully yet, but if you are a Master Summoner (or with more risk, non-Master Summoner or some archetype of something else that hybridizes it with Summoner), after a certain level you might be able to have some of your fights with something by your side that can bring you back up if you go down.
Before that, and actually all along, you're going to have to have NPC allies that you interact with frequently that will come looking for you if you go down.
It wouldn't hurt to have Leadership to have a Cohort who can bring you back up or do the Pathfinder equivalent of WarCraft III's Scroll of Town Portal (and I could have sworn to having seen an archetype, feat, or spell that does something like this in the last few days, and now I can't remember what it's called).
If it isn't for a total newbie, let the player run 2 characters. Even having an NPC Warrior-classed buddy can help with action economy and first aid. They can be designed to be really easy to run AND effective. We played in a campaign with 3 PCs and 3 nPC Henchmen, and it was really fun. It felt kind of Old School First Edition. I ran a warrior that used a heavy crossbow. Every other round, I was reloading, so my nPC didn't take up a lot of face time. I was going to give him Vital Strike so he wouldn't use iterative attacks.
Pet classes (druid, summoner, hunter, some rangers and paladins, shamans and oracles, maybe even witches and wizards) can also help with action economy.
Have you considered gestalt? Maybe even PC//NPC classes to shore up weaknesses. A warrior//Wizard gets good BAB, 1d10 HD, and good Fortitude saves. An expert//Fighter gets 6 skill points and good Will saves. An adept//Rogue gets some magical ability, good Will saves, and a fun familiar without overwhelming the main Rogue chassis.
True, but traps are a big part of the game, and this thread is about classes that are the most viable. The paladin is clearly not on the "most viable" list in that regard.They're not though .... you can easily run an entire campaign without having a single trap, the last campaign I was in ran for about 11 months (then sadly collapsed) and there were literally none.
I was also in a one shot around the same time that had 3. It's takes a particular kind of campaign to make traps relevant.
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.
I tend to forget to use traps in my dungeons from time to time. I don't think it hurts the game too much. If your running ti for one your already playing it pretty non standard.
Thanks for all the advice here! I genuinely hadn't seen anything about gestalt (as I said, I'm not always the smartest); is that in any of the rulebooks or is it pure open content? ...is it somewhere in the core rulebook and I didn't even notice 'cause I'm an idiot?
I'm thinking some NPC support would be the way to go, and I'm looking at either "one, equal power, talkative", or "two, stay a level lower, not talkative". She might also play two characters? We'll see how she feels.
Summoner or druid - something with a companion - definitely sounds the go to even the odds action-wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.
They were important in D&D, but are a small part of Pathfinder. It's rare I spend more than five minutes in a session dealing with traps. It's usually either:
Roll Perception. Roll Disable Device. You disarmed the trap.
Or:
Roll Perception. Not enough. You walk into a trap. You take some damage. You heal yourself.
Half the time they're only there to help rogues feel useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.
It is arguable, obviously, we're arguing it.
Traps aren't a big part of pathfinder, they're tied to one skill, which is used to prop up an otherwise under achieving class in search of a niche it no longer has.
Traps take up a grand total of 7 pages of the core book, which is over 500 pages long. Magic is an essential part of pathfinder, combat is an essential part of pathfinder. Traps aren't. Honestly one could even argue in certain campaigns that magic and combat become side shows. Although thats very niche.
Traps are a legacy carried over from early DnD going back to Gygax which made more sense when there were only about 4 classes in the game and one of them was largely interested in disarming traps. Now there are upwards of 30 classes in the game with hundreds of archetypes and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with traps at all.
Traps have been relegated to mostly something for the rogue to do, or out of combat damage which is mostly an inconvenience inflicted upon parties that didn't have anyone willing to play a rogue or rogue substitute. Or they made lethal and slow the entire game down to an extremely tedious crawl as one player makes slow progress through boring skills checks and everyone else walks behind them twiddling their thumbs. Or a more powerful class, like an arcane caster circumvents the issue entirely.
More often now if you do see something resembling a trap its attached to a puzzle the players themselves will solve outside of game mechanics, which is much more engaging and doesn't tie people to a small subset of classes.
I've started many, many newbies this way: (S)he would play 2 PCs, and I would play 2 "GMPCs" of the same level.
Some people on these boards have claimed that this is not a good idea for a new player. I have a great deal of experience that makes me disagree strongly; I've hooked many players and run many big campaigns this way.
I don't think its too bad an idea, its basically how the Divinity Video game works, which was a massive success.
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.It is arguable, obviously, we're arguing it.
Traps aren't a big part of pathfinder, they're tied to one skill, which is used to prop up an otherwise under achieving class in search of a niche it no longer has. Traps take up a grand total of 7 pages of the core book, which is over 500 pages long.
Nonsense. Nearly every published work, AP, module, and etc., from Paizo, has further rules for either making traps or dealing with traps. There are also other variations of traps. Your insistence on arguing that they are not a big part of Pathfinder does not make it so.
Traps are a legacy carried over from early DnD going back to Gygax which made more sense when there were only about 4 classes in the game and one of them was largely interested in disarming traps. Now there are upwards of 30 classes in the game with hundreds of archetypes and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with traps at all.
No kidding. An entire class exists almost solely (but not quite) to deal with traps.
Traps have been relegated to mostly something for the rogue to do,
You're making my point for me. That's why the class exists, to deal with traps.
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.They were important in D&D, but are a small part of Pathfinder. It's rare I spend more than five minutes in a session dealing with traps. It's usually either:
Roll Perception. Roll Disable Device. You disarmed the trap.
Or:
Roll Perception. Not enough. You walk into a trap. You take some damage. You heal yourself.Half the time they're only there to help rogues feel useful.
Indeed, anecdotal evidence based purely on your experience is somehow true for the entire game.
I'm thinking some NPC support would be the way to go, and I'm looking at either "one, equal power, talkative", or "two, stay a level lower, not talkative". She might also play two characters? We'll see how she feels.
That's how the 1-on-1 Adventures do it. Fill in any gaps with the requisite skill-set. Even the paladin example is moot if a rogue NPC is tagging along for the trapped dungeon.
My son and I ran through Gambler's Quest (I think) and he picked up a variety of NPCs through the module. Not all were along for the entire thing, but there if/when needed. The segue between that one and the next "rogue" module required infilling a level or two, so I had him head off to a haunted tomb that was mentioned in passing. On the way, he met a cleric that was searching for some lost relic from her family, rumored to be in the tomb. We never got past that point, however.
Nonsense.
Your flippancy is rude.
Nearly every published work, AP, module, and etc., from Paizo, has further rules for either making traps or dealing with traps.
Did you somehow equate core rule book to all APs? Or are you calling my argument nonesense and then not addressing it? Because that's appears to be what you've done.
Furthermore, you do not need an AP to run a game of pathfinder, to run a game of pathfinder you need a bestiary and the core rule book. Of which 7 pages are about traps.
Plenty of people play pathfinder without APs and without traps.
There are also other variations of traps. Your insistence on arguing that they are not a big part of Pathfinder does not make it so.
No the fact they're addressed by a tiny fractions of skills, classes and rules does. You're the one insisting inspite of evidence.
No kidding. An entire class exists almost solely (but not quite) to deal with traps.
No I said it was, back in the day, it is no longer. You don't even seem to be trying to address my post, just twist it to your needs, stubborn refusal to address what I'm actually saying doesn't make your point any stronger.
You're making my point for me. That's why the class exists, to deal with traps.
No I'm not, I'm saying that's what it was for in older additions, where as now it is something they can do. You're being disingenuous to the point of ridicule.
If rogues existed only for traps they would need
1 skill per level
They wouldn't need the vast majority of available rogue talents
They wouldn't need sneak attack dice
They wouldn't have made an unchained version with Dex to damage or the ability to debuffing in combat and they would only have one skill unlock, disable device.
Rogues do a lot of stuff (badly admittedly) one of them can be traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any class can be viable in a 1-on-1 campaign if it's run in such a way that makes it viable. No matter the choice made, you're looking at a very different game than the typical 4 characters of varying classes running through a generic adventure. You'll want to tailor the game to the PC's class and story and probably include a lot more role-playing than combat gameplay anyway.
And as others have mentioned, it's probably a good idea to have NPC support close at hand whatever the PC is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could always be a villain and play a necromancer of some sort, building your own undead horde.
I've started many, many newbies this way: (S)he would play 2 PCs, and I would play 2 "GMPCs" of the same level.
Some people on these boards have claimed that this is not a good idea for a new player. I have a great deal of experience that makes me disagree strongly; I've hooked many players and run many big campaigns this way.
I've also run/played in several campaigns this way and had a lot of fun with it, though I haven't done it with any newbies. If you think your player would have fun with this, then it can be a good way to introduce a couple different classes as well.
We have 2 PCs and 2 GMPCs when we run like this; they're all the same level, but the GM ones will take a backseat when it comes to making party decisions and figuring things out, to avoid spoilers.
Any class can be viable in a 1-on-1 campaign if it's run in such a way that makes it viable. No matter the choice made, you're looking at a very different game than the typical 4 characters of varying classes running through a generic adventure. You'll want to tailor the game to the PC's class and story and probably include a lot more role-playing than combat gameplay anyway.
And as others have mentioned, it's probably a good idea to have NPC support close at hand whatever the PC is.
Ultimately, this is the truth. Regardless of the class you choose, you'll either need an adventure tailored to your particular skill set, or a significant amount of help from GM PCs/NPCs.
With that, the "best" or "most viable" classes for such an adventure are obviously those that cover the most ground, i.e., the ones that require the least amount of help. High-level spellcasters facing off against martial characters with low will saves clearly won't be any fun. Nor a trap-laden dungeon with a paladin.
Even the ones in the 1-on-1 adventures are tailored to a few classes, btw.
True, but traps are a big part of the game, and this thread is about classes that are the most viable. The paladin is clearly not on the "most viable" list in that regard.They're not though .... you can easily run an entire campaign without having a single trap, the last campaign I was in ran for about 11 months (then sadly collapsed) and there were literally none.
I was also in a one shot around the same time that had 3. It's takes a particular kind of campaign to make traps relevant.
Sure, city and outdoors, but not dungeons.
But sadly the paladin doesnt have enuf Skill points to be fun as a solo. The Mount could add a lot, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.They were important in D&D, but are a small part of Pathfinder. It's rare I spend more than five minutes in a session dealing with traps. It's usually either:
Roll Perception. Roll Disable Device. You disarmed the trap.
Or:
Roll Perception. Not enough. You walk into a trap. You take some damage. You heal yourself.Half the time they're only there to help rogues feel useful.
Which is why the Rogue is weak.
AD&D was full of devious and deadly Gygaxian traps. They weren't even all deadly- You could be teleported naked one place, and your gear another. Or you could be blocked off or sent into the next level.
They take imagination and skill to set up.
Sure, most traps are of the poison needle in the lock r the pit trap in the corridor genre, which are not hard to bypass.
But just like not all combats should be a bog-standard monster, some traps should be devious.
That is part of why the Thief class was invented.
The biggest part. I agree that traps aren't as deadly as they used to be (Tomb of Horrors, I'm looking at you!), but that's partly because the rogue is so good at eliminating them now, and partly because traps have to obey rules now. Back in the AD&D days, there weren't really any rules, just the designer's imagination. Soloing one of those modules was a death sentence. It's worth noting that the BG video games are best soloed with the thief class, IIRC.
My advice would be "wait 'til you have another player," but if you want a class suggestion and you want another option besides what most people suggest, how about this:
A Spiritualist from Occult Adventures. 3/4 BAB, 6 levels of Wis-based spontaneous psychic casting (as well as 0-level Knacks) with an awesome selection of healing, harming, buffing, debuffing, and utility spells (including Lesser Animate Dead and Animate Dead as 2nd and 3rd level spells, respectively, as well as this invisible nightmare as a 4th level spell), 4+Int skills per level, all Knowledges as Class Skills, good Fort and Will saves, proficiency with Kukri and Scythes, and the coolest companion since the Eidolon (and like Eidolons, Phantoms are intelligent, so you get to control them rather than relying on animal instinct and teaching tricks).
I'm sure this has been asked a hundred times before, and I took a quick look back, but obviously my search terms were stupid or I was stupid (which is basically a given) because I couldn't find much relevant data. But: assuming one inexperienced player, one up-and-down GM, little to no minmaxing (and a focus on 'feats/skills/powers that are cool or fit my character concept'), a friendly/negotiable GM presence, a low-level or even level 1 start, and about a 70% willingness to bend the rules...
1 - what classes are most viable for the one player? I'm assuming some basic things like "a warpriest is big and tough and can heal self", and "a summoner has a giant eidolon to be friends with", and "NO DON'T TAKE A TEAMWORK-FEAT FOCUSED ROGUE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU", but I've not done much experimentation and I'm sure I can be caught by surprise - also, I'd like my player to have some choice, it's not nearly as fun when you're told "make a character, make any character you want! as long as it's a dwarf warpriest. and you need to be lawful to take the following feats or you will die."
2 - what are some things that the GM should keep in mind when designing adventures and encounters?
3 - any other advice?
Any class works if you use appropriate NPCs to support the player.
I've done this before and will probably be doing it again soon. Player makes their PC, GM makes/converts NPCs (built with PC rules) to fill out the rest of the party rolls.
Player controls their PC all the time, the GM runs the NPCs in terms of personality but lets the player direct/roll for them in combat and situations that call for skill checks.
You have 1 clear main character to build your story around and major supporting characters that they can build relationships with.
Since you're running a standard party the actual encounter design and such is the same as normal and you can use modules or APs.
Druid with companion is a good bet....
Master Summoner
Standard action one minute per level summons and you can make your weak eidolon into a decent skillmonkey. UMD a cure light wounds wand and you are basically a walking balanced party.
The archetype is considered OP, but should be fine for solo adventures.
Decide what the pc wants to play.
Create adventures to suit..if this means no traps used, no save or be doomed spells then so be it.
It's your twos game. Enjoy to the max
Hey, my wife and I play a lot of 1 on 1 so I have some feedback, although this is purely based on personal experience.
Note - we tend to play AP's.
1. We always run PC and DMPC. The DMPC is always quiet and generally very much a background character and their role is to support the PC. My paladin in CotCT has an Arcanist friend who helps him out with the pesky arcane magic bits. Her stalker vigilante in HR has a suite of friends including the avenger vigilante who she goes adventuring with and her mother, who is a low level cleric and patches her up when she comes home looking like death.
2. Either run the PC 1 level ahead, or allow gestalt. Previously we always ran lvl+1 (so lvl 2 PC where the AP said they should be 1). This works fine. Recently we changed to gestalt, which I like more. So my hunter is no longer level 3 and able to do fun things with his animal companion, but he;s now a lvl 2 hunter/lvl 2 fighter and can handle his bow like nobodies business, doing almost everything he could do before - but now better! My wife is taking a Slayer/Mesmerist through HV. She can do just about anything - the only thing she can't do is divine/healing, and the DMPC Oracle (not gestalt) covers that area nicely :)
So yeah - either gestalt, or allow the PC an extra level. Max HP at each level helps too. Run a supportive DMPC if needed.
Also as a GM - help the player enjoy. If they have no perception (looking at you Wis dumping paladin!) then don't throw Invisible Stalkers at them.
Main thing - always have fun! :D Hope I've helped at least a bit.
You're right, you CAN run them without traps. Just because you played in a campaign that didn't have any doesn't change the fact that they are a big part of Pathfinder (and originally D&D). This isn't even arguable.They were important in D&D, but are a small part of Pathfinder. It's rare I spend more than five minutes in a session dealing with traps. It's usually either:
Roll Perception. Roll Disable Device. You disarmed the trap.
Or:
Roll Perception. Not enough. You walk into a trap. You take some damage. You heal yourself.Half the time they're only there to help rogues feel useful.
I find this mindset so odd. I think, as written, Traps are pretty meh. But if you drop hints without requiring full perception, or you allow them to react to the trap, or other mild rules adjustments; then standard traps work as well as an encounter. People will dick around trying to figure out how to disable it or get around it, they'll be wary of it and try to figure out it's trigger (and it may not even be a trap!)
And that's just by the book. You can make traps that are simple "action tax" kinda things too. For instance, in an upcoming dungeon I have a hallway lined with DC 7 or so arrow traps. Why? So that the armored characters can attempt to dodge them with crappy acrobatics (or similar) and then there's a fight afterwards. If they take off their armor, all the better IMO.
The point of the game isn't saying, "Hey. you did a thing."
It's finding ways of making "doing a thing" interesting.
Again, as written, sure.. they're hot garbage. They're an HP tax that does little more than annoy players, or make them move slow. But if you make them part of the environment, part of a real encounter, allow players to "partially" see them, or react to a trap being activated; suddenly they're more entertaining.
I think the first real trap I used; a long pit trap; the party must've used a good half hour or more making checks, saving the ones who fell, and getting across the pit safely. I only expected it to last a couple minutes and it was there as encouragement to go a different direction; but as dedicated gamer types; they threw eachother over, pulled with ropes, climbed, etc.. to get across it.