Running an Adventure for 2 Players - Character Generation


Advice


I'm considering running an adventure with only 2 players and no NPCs or secondary PCs to act as the 3rd & 4th PCs. Encounters could be a lot more challenging due to numbers of bad guys and spells that could take one or more PCs out of commission, but I think that may be an acceptable risk. In addition, the action economy would be pretty low and would be another challenge that would need to be overcome.

In order to balance the game without adding or subtracting monsters from encounters, I'm considering giving each player a secondary class that levels up at the same rate. Essentially, multiclassing without losing any levels.

Here are my rules:
Abilities: 30 point buy, or roll 4d6 and cumulative reroll 1s for each stat.
Saves: If at least one of the classes has a Good Save, then the character has it as a Good Save. If both classes have a Bad Save, then the character has it as a Bad Save.
BAB: The class with the highest BAB uses it's BAB for the character.
HP: Combine HD of each class to roll (maximum value at 1st level) for the character. Apply Favored Class HP once and Constitution modifier once.
Skills: Combine base skill points of each class and add Favored Class Skill Point, Human Skill Point (if applicable), and Intelligence modifier once. All base skills for each class are class skills for the character.
Favored Class Bonuses: Each character gets both Favored Class HP and Favored Class Skill Point. May substitute one for Racial Favored Class Bonus.
Feats: No change
Ability Point: Gain 1 ability point every 2 levels.
Class Abilities: All class abilities gained at a particular level are gained at the same character level.

Let me know what you think! I think it can work, and is not exponentially powerful as they level up. I suppose the goal is to have one character fill multiple roles in the party without becoming overpowered or getting swamped by monsters.


Here's a stat block that uses the rules.

Sir Georgio
LG Aasimar Paladin/Monk 1
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60'; Perception +9
Aura good

----- Defense -----
AC 16, touch 16, flat-footed 13 (+2 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 Wis)
hp 21 (1d10+1d8+3)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +5
Resist acid 5, cold 5, electricity 5

----- Offense -----
Speed 30 ft.
Melee unarmed strike +4 (1d6+2)
Special Attacks flurry of blows (+3/+3), smite evil (1/day)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1; concentration +3)
1/day—daylight

----- Statistics -----
Str 15, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 17, Cha 15
Base Atk +1; CMB +3; CMD 19
Feats Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Dodge, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike)
Skills Diplomacy +8, Handle Animal +6, Knowledge (history) +5, Knowledge (religion) +5, Perception +9, Ride +6, Sense Motive +7, Use Magic Device +3; Racial Modifiers +2 Diplomacy, +2 Perception
Languages Common, Celestial, Dwarven
SQ detect evil


If it were me, I'd just give them one Mythic rank at 1st level, and very 4 levels after, and call it good. (Just ban mythic power attack and mythic vital strike, and make sure to review mythic spells carefully before allowing them)


Depending on how experienced the players are, those are seriously strong tools for character building. A pair of gestalt (class mixing) fighting/casting hybrid characters with colossal ability scores could roll a lot of opposition. Even one heavily juiced-up caster can dominate things, so potentially having two of them who are also heavy damage-dealers and tough as well...

I'm not sure I'd go with just 1/2levels ability bonuses. I'd maybe change that to allowing both a physical and a mental increase every 4.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

If you're seriously concerned about action economy, maybe let the PCs roll initiative twice. Especially if you're going super-gestalt (totaling hit dice and totaling skill points instead of using best or higher of the two), you're basically making each PC two characters in one body. Might as well let them do two actions a round.

Alternatively, give each PC an extra action per round. So they could move and do a full attack, cast two standard action spells per round (plus a possible third Quickened spell), triple move to be really good at running away, use quasi-Spring Attack (move, standard action, move), use an Immediate Action AND a Swift Action, a Full Attack + a Standard Action attack or spell, Full Defense + Spell or Attack, etc. etc. Very powerful, but you're already doing a supers campaign, so you might as well go with it.

Sovereign Court

Most campaigns I know of struggle to compensate for having more PCs than they're designed for; the game sort of assumes 4 PCs covering all food groups, but many groups are sized 5-6. So the GM has to adjust for action economy, often by adding monsters and crowd control.

A smaller party could work with standard rules, but some changes on PC and GM side:


  • Remove some lesser enemies from each encounter. You're not compensating for 4+ player parties anymore.
  • Be shy with enemies that have action-denying abilities, as these hit comparatively harder.
  • Players should probably choose more generalist classes, since they have to cover more tasks per character. Choose slayer or ranger over fighter for example; that's a lot more skills. Bards, investigators and inquisitors become very relevant because they can fight, do skills and magic.
  • Crowd control becomes more important to the PCs since they don't have advantage of numbers anymore.
  • It becomes easier to have an all-stealthy party. And playing more like a covert strike team than a rambo team may be a good move. Darkvision is important in this case.
  • Archery and ranged attack builds are trickier. On the one side it's preferable to find a high spot and shoot people rather than get mobbed in melee. On the other hand you probably have fewer bodies to keep people from closing in melee with the archer.
  • An NPC support network becomes more important. The party can't do everything themselves, so an alliance with friendly clerics/wizards becomes crucial.
  • It's probably a good idea to give the PCs a bit more build points (25 or so) so they can be more well-rounded. Discourage single-stat-focus.

    A bit more starting cash for good armor and gear also helps. Especially some trick items to help cover an escape if needed. (The logistics of escape are actually simpler with fewer PCs.)

With these adjustments I think experienced players could pull through typical adventure paths. But the playstyle would be different - much more cautious, picking battles and circumventing others, rather than brute-forcing through things.

Sczarni

I assume that you won't change CR Guidelines?
If so, you might might have flaky game honestly. Pumping PCs to start more powerful might seem okay at start, but they will receive double their level, meaning that your general CR Guidelines might turn into poop in just a few levels. Forget the game balance when that happens. Not even a rocket scientist could balance it 100%.

I suggest to keep PCs at regular level and with 20 pts buy instead and run encounters at CR -2 instead. Use a lot of weak enemies with low damage output and vary the combat scenes and types. That's pretty much recipe for good balance.

Adam


You could give them both Mythic Agile Template and Remove the +30 speed. But this gives them Dual initiatives (Acts twice in the round), A few more HP, +2 AC and Evasion.

Much of What Smilodan and Ascalaphus said will help tremendously.

Really the best bet is Balancing the CR rating and with 2 people the 1 big creature is not a bad way to go whereas verse 4 it is normally a bad Idea. You will be doing lots of adjusting at first to balance things out.


Thanks everyone for your input!

I like Smilodan's option of allowing an additional Standard Action. That could lower the need for decreasing the monster's action economy.

I don't want to lower the CR or reduce the number of monsters in these fights as I think that commonly reduces the amount of entertainment value and can add significantly more work on the GM side. Plus, having 2 characters ably fight against difficult odds is on the legendary heroic level.

I like the idea of Mythic heroes, and perhaps I can do something with that to give a flavor of legendary heroes. Perhaps the Mythic Agile Template can account for the lower action economy.

I also don't want to dictate a play style for the players. They should play it the way they want and then I can adjust to the style. If they don't choose a healer, they will have to figure out how to get healing and perhaps be more cautious in the approach of encounters. But if they do have a healer, perhaps they might push more recklessly on.


What you have done is quite similar to standard gestalt rules, with the exception of what you are doing with hit points and skills, where you are basically 'doubling up' instead of 'taking the best'.

The skills isn't a big deal balance wise, and probably suitable for a 2 person party.

Hit points is more questionable, but I think with a two person party it will also work out ok.

I expect with two actions a round though you are going to find this party MORE powerful than a standard 4 person party. They already have a very high point buy and they will get some synergy from their two classes (for example a fighter + magus vs a magus and fighter each of the two actions of the former is going to have more power than the individual actions of the latter.)

The only balancing factor now is that a single bad save on a save-or-lose can take out half the party, but that is somewhat countered by better saves in general.

I think what I would be tempted to do instead is use hero points. That can mitigate bad roles on saves and/or give occasional extra actions when needed, but won't be an always on thing that will distort everything else.


Good idea on the hero points to mitigate those save or lose rolls.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Running an Adventure for 2 Players - Character Generation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.