Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 03-24-06, 06:28 PM	Let's say that, somehow, you were going to play a D&D campaign where you're the only PC. Let's say that, somehow, this would be an interesting campaign to you. However, you're basically solo, except for cohorts, hirelings, etc. What class would you play? Some ideas: -druid (obvious) -cleric (maybe less feasible, with so few skill points) -rogue/chameleon (chameleons can do anything. Maybe toss a bit of wizard/prestige bard in there, to get rid of ASF for light armor and get access to the "battle caster" feat) -Some sort of crazy bard/druid/master thrower/sublime chord/fochlucan lyrist build. -Psion/Thrallherd (just make your thralls a CODzilla and a rogue, and you get blaster powers, and you're almost a whole party!) -Egoist/Slayer (fighting: check. Skills: sorta (high int, 4 + int sp for slayer levels). Healing: check, at least for yourself. Blasting: maybe)
sir_dwar 03-24-06, 06:33 PM	Hmmm, any idea what your gonna face?
RunLikeHell 03-24-06, 06:35 PM	heavy armor cleric probably a dwarf.
SaintSoldier 03-24-06, 06:37 PM	The answer depends on a whole lot of things. Where will you be adventuring? What are the classes of your hirelings? If it's possible, hire at least a cleric for the mix of spells and combat and some kind of wizard (offensive spellcaster) and you play the rogue, primarily so you can trust the rogue and don't get burned when your hired rogue gets ideas of becoming his own boss. Let me know what you decide to do. Good Luck!
JulesCARV 03-24-06, 08:11 PM	I'm not playing in any such campaign, BTW. I'm just curious as to your responses.
Dither 03-24-06, 08:31 PM	Law Incarnate/Psion (Shaper)/ Soulcaster (find the psionics version of the soulcaster in the Mind's Eye archives) I did a speed-build of an 18th-level one of these last night (Inc5/Psn3/SoC10) and boy, oh boy was it fun. Granted, in a party of three tanks and two casters against a straight-laced melee opponent and an 18th-level wizard who fumbled a save vs. dominate on the third turn... I didn't get to do much besides lose some hp to an AoE and buff myself (then do nothing) but the sheer power of the build... yay. The shaper in and of itself is a fairly strong soloist. Being able to create astral constructs of varying degrees of power on a whim is a lot more useful than burning various wierd levels of summon monster that one may or may not have. Take the Law Incarnate at low levels for AC (armor, soulmelds, etc) and hp (combined for greater survivability) and then go shaper by level 4 or 5 (being sure to go Soulcaster ASAP) and pick up a mix of utility soulmelds and powers (perhaps taking craft dorje of some of your more frequently-used psionic powers to save your power points for more on-the-fly situations). So yeah... that sounds good to me. Incarnate-> Shaper-> Soulcaster
Mitchell 03-24-06, 09:58 PM	Sticking with core, either a bard, ranger, or rogue, and maybe a multiclass of two of them. The stealth abilities would be very much worthwhile as avoiding fights will generally be preferrable to having them, and each brings other aspects that would be helpful as well.
Redmoon 03-24-06, 10:16 PM	I'd pick either a bard, or a psychic warrior. A bard because that's what they're made for. Good at everything, great at nothing. Thus, there is NO niche a bard couldn't attempt to fill. Psychic warriors are extremely versatile as well. It's a pretty combat oriented class, but the powers list is pretty useful. Buffs to abilities and armor, and a ton of utility powers for any situation. Three awesome powers for any combatant- vigor, animal affinity, and body adjustment. Take 50 damage and have some left, boost any ability score, and heal yourself as often as needed. Plus a ton of feats. Bonus feats work for any fighter feat, as well as any psionic feat.
Mirikon 03-24-06, 10:19 PM	Warlock or Rogue. Warlocks have the nice invocations that can make them pretty devestating, especially if you put a lot of points into CHA, DEX, and INT. Max out Bluff and UMD, and grab beguiling influence and spiderclimb. From early on, if you can't talk your way out of a problem, you can climb up a wall and just pick off the guys at your leisure. Trade Spiderclimb for Fell Flight at the earliest opportunity, though. By the high levels, you have limited self-healing abilities, and wands of different cure spells aren't too expensive. Take the magic Tatoo crafting feat, and you can make tatoos of Heal, too. As for the rogue, anything you can't use skills on, you can sneak past, and stab in the back. You got the skills to survive fairly well without magical backup. And when all else fails, there's always leadership.
ManTimeForgot 03-25-06, 01:36 AM	Human 16+ intelligence. Rogue 1/ Ranger 1/ Cleric of magic and luck 1/ Bard 8/ Horizon Walker 9 Use versatile feat to get disable device and search as class skills so that you don't get screwed when you start taking horizon walker levels. Feel free to alternate horizon walker and bard levels so that your diplomacy and perform skills don't lag behind too badly (UMD should be an issue with cleric of magic). Use Lyre of Building whenever anything relating to construction needs to be done. Orb of storms + crazy abilities should help with environmental hazards. Planar adaptation should be able to deal with most areas. Emphasize hide, move silent, spot, listen, and search. Make sure survival, knowledge nature, knowledge the planes, knowledge geography (8+), knowledge dungeoneering, knowledge history, and knowledge nobility are all 5 ranks or more. Make sure you have at least 5 bluff and sense motive. Diplomacy is going to be your friend. Do not let perform lag behind if at all possible because that is your fascinate power. Diplomacy should be high because this is how you will deal with NPCs, so as to gain allies. MTF
Baptor 03-25-06, 01:51 AM	Cleric. Hands down. They can do anything.
Millenia 03-25-06, 02:07 AM	Cleric. Hands down. They can do anything. My suggestion would be to use Gestalt rules and go as Cleric/Psychic Warrior. Not exactly very creative, but you get tons of stuff. XD
serow_#R 03-25-06, 02:50 AM	cloistered cleric
dan1234 03-25-06, 03:24 AM	Bard or rogue... Those 2 would be the most fun IMO :cookie:
ManTimeForgot 03-25-06, 03:29 AM	If we are actually going to make suggestions people lets create a list of challenges which would have to be overcome in some way . So all propositions for lone characters a person must explain how the individual would be able to deal with said challenge. I'm going to make a list (which I don't presume to be comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination): Traps Storms Natural fires/heat Natural Cold Underwater Environments Elemental Planes Outer Planes Positive/Negative Energy Planes Surprise/Ambush Damage Spells Death Spells Divination Spells Summoning Spells Puzzles (as in things which require knowledge to overcome) Melee Attacks Ranged Attacks Grapples Combat Maneuvers (Trip, Disarm, Overrun, etc) Fear effects Domination effects Intrigue (espionage, politics, blackmail, etc) Staying nourished in the wild Diseases Poisons Staying alive while sleeping in the wild I suspect most of the character choices suggested so far would die of exposure a long time before they could get powerful enough to start using magic to over come their deficiencies. MTF
snowstrider 03-25-06, 03:37 AM	Go with a straight barbarian, all the way. Nothing much to think about, (no need really) not to mention an infinite supply of roleplaying opportunities. Sometimes it's fun to play as an intelligent barbarian, it really surprises people when you go all "Ape nuts" on them.
zlatko 03-25-06, 05:58 AM	CoDzilla. Can do anything. Even Find Traps. At higher levels they're one man army. Without summoning or leadership. Those are just bonuses :). Seriously though, for a normal campaign use a gestalt char or the above. For an urban campaign play a rouge. The most skills and can sneak out of most ptoblems. Set a campaign around him entering a thieves guild, doing missions, taking over, guild rivalry...
Pandaemoni 03-25-06, 07:50 AM	I think any one could work, but I'd probably pick either rogue or bard. The reason is that a solo rogue or bard PC can do something that is very hard to do in a group: live a life of crime. Burglary is more trouble than it's worth when the plodding heavily armored fighters are clanking their way down the halls. Doing big "all stealth" missions are easier when all the PCs have the necessary skills...and the more PCs you have the less likely that is to be the case. If I were to run a more traditional hack "adventuring" style of game with one PC, then (ignoring gestalt characters) I'd think a druid would be the best choice.
Linkrulesx10 03-25-06, 08:14 AM	Arcane Trickster, most versitile class out there, even DMG says so. Perfect for those lone dungeon crawls, with an arcane trickster I took down the BBEG in one round... kinda scary huh... he was like my level + 2....
Millenia 03-25-06, 11:36 AM	CoDzilla. Can do anything. Even Find Traps. At higher levels they're one man army. Without summoning or leadership. Those are just bonuses :) What's CoDzilla? O-o
zlatko 03-25-06, 01:35 PM	Cleric or Druid. The -odzilla part was added due to a consesus about these two classes being the most if not too - powerful.
cleric-templar 03-25-06, 01:59 PM	I say paladin. THink about it, you have the best attack modifier, heavy armor lets you get one of the highest AC's, d10 hp, divine grace can give you the highest saving throes of anyone, and your mount can give you the best speed of anyone (especially if it can fly). You have the best survivability in the game. Gestalt: Paladin/soulknife- now your divine grace will boost your three good saving throes into obscenity and your mindblade will allow you to focus gold on vamping up your strength and charisma.
BW0222 03-25-06, 02:02 PM	Druid, no contest. Animal Companion A wolf or riding dog and some cheap leather barding and you have a someone to fight with, someone for guard duty, someone to carry some extra weight, etc. By higher levels, a tiger is likely tougher than most 7th-level fighters anyway. This give you a lot more flexibility over a cleric - who has to expect to end up in melee all the time. You can go for ranged while allowing you companion to block, or aim for mounted combat, etc. You also have a much better chance to flee if you aren't in heavy armor, have a mount, and/or have a wolf to block for a couple of rounds. A solo cleric build is almost has a lot less options. Healing You've go enough to keep you going. You certainly don't need to stop adventuring at the first cut. Use can use many items you find (scrolls and wands) and can of course craft your own. Although the cleric may have better healing spells, as a solo player most healing needs to be done outside of combat -- since you can rarely spare an action just healing yourself. Spells Likely better than a cleric. You have more offensive type spells -- from low-level produce flames to flame strike to wall of thorns, etc. Certainly outdoors you have a much easier time. Since you have an animal companion, you have something to buff. Buffing yourself is always a bad idea, since it means you are commiting to melee. The summoning spells alone are worth it. Not great at 1st or 2nd-level, but by 3rd, the ability to have 1d3 wolves in the fight for three rounds is likely the only thing which can prevent you from being overwhelmed by even small numbers of bad guys. At higher levels, elementals, tigers, etc. are often one-on-one more powerful than the individual creature you are fighting. Wildshape Travel, escape, avoiding drowning, carrying extra loot, scouting, spying, stealth, climbing, etc., etc. You don't need heavy physical stats, since if you are forced into melee, you can just gain them. Combined with natural spell, you certainly have more options. Even just for healing it's worth it. Often animal forms make up for lack of folks within a party. Use a leopard form to sneak up on someone, use a bear from to smash down a door, etc. Skills You have twice the skill points as clerics and more available as class skills. You have the points to keep key skills (concentration and diplomacy) maxed, while having enough for spellcraft, knowledge, survival, a craft/profession, etc. to be useful. Spot is a class skill -- which is important if when you are the only set of eyes. You also have the option of having enough points to gain cross-class skills for open lock, use magic device, or other skills you might need.
ninjarabbit 03-25-06, 03:53 PM	ninja1/druid19 with able learner
Zephyrus/Sonet 03-25-06, 04:47 PM	I've done this type of thing twice before. Once as a Fighter/Wizard and once as a Paladin. If you're creative enough anything can work.
meatrace 03-26-06, 02:30 AM	oh my, what a wonderful question :). how about Drd4/Brd3/Rog3 Fochlucan Lyricist? At 20th level you have +17BAB (4 attacks), F/R/W of +9/+14/+15, bardic knowledge, evasion, cast 5th level bard and 7th level druid spells, and have a TON of skill points. either that or a regular old bard/ranger.
Lotus Crane 03-26-06, 02:46 AM	how about Drd4/Brd3/Rog3 Fochlucan Lyricist? At 20th level you have +17BAB (4 attacks), F/R/W of +9/+14/+15, bardic knowledge, evasion, cast 5th level bard and 7th level druid spells, and have a TON of skill points. The only problem with that idea, is that at 10th level, you're still just a druid 4/bard 3/rogue 3, which is a rather mis or under-optimized build if you intend to actually survive any encounters with an appropriate CR opponent. Fochlucan Lyrist looks great on paper, until you understand that in real play, nobody can survive long enough and get all of the crazy prereqs, to actually reach the 1st level of FL. Anyway, getting back to the OP's question, druid 20 is perhaps too easy of an answer. Hexblade 4/warlock 16 is an interesting possibility, though it may be a bit of a challenge to figure out which class is better to take levels in first.
Oswald Krato 03-26-06, 03:26 AM	(Aasimar or lesser Aasimar ideally) Favored Soul/Sorcerer/ Mystic Theurge with leadership. Spells: check. Divine and Arcane. Selection is limited, but you can cover all the bases. Melee: check. Favored Soul gets 3/4 BAB Saves: Check. Favored Soul has Monk-like saves. Cohorts/Followers: check. Leadership, Summon various things. HP: check. d8 HD for favored soul helps early on. It all runs off of Cha. Charisma covers Favored Soul, Charisma covers Sorcerer, Charisma covers Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Use Magic Device, etc. etc. etc. If you have to be a one-man army, you'd better be a strong person about it.
Odimax 03-26-06, 04:51 AM	My wife and I are thinking of possibly running solo games for each other soon. I think a Ranger would be fairly self-sufficient. Good BAB, with the ability to fight up close and/or at range. Plus: survival as a class skill, good skill points, and tracking ability. Later on: animal companion to help with combat. I'm currently leaning towards a half-elf ranger for my character.
Shavit 03-26-06, 05:53 AM	IMO , Rogue. The jack-of-all-trades rogue can become a one man army. And this is why (8+int) skill point for: Diplomacy and Sense Motive to get out of that tight spots Hide and Move Silently (for Sneak Attacks) Use Magic Device to utilize wands scrolls, to wield magic.... AND MUCH MORE! plus for one man campaign it leaves the most hooks and ideas for the DM since you are a jack.
runestar 03-26-06, 07:53 AM	If you are gonna run a solo campaign from lv1-20, your build at each lv must be able to stand up to the competition, so no gimmicky builds which only pay off later on at the expense of early lvs. I think a druid is still the best. The animal companion can function as a semi-tank, while you stand back and buff. SNA and wildshape later on can't hurt either. Get scribe scroll to increase your store of spells at lower lvs. Maybe nab leadership later for a warlock cohort for that extra staying power...
Osiris Memnoch 03-26-06, 03:07 PM	Everyone who posted before me is wrong (I checked). If you are playing a solo game, you can play anything and it will work just as well as anything else. Why? Because unless your DM is a complete neophite, he/she'll tailor all the encounters and challenges to the exact abilities of your character. Seriously, yu can play ANYTHING. You're a skill monkey? OK expect lots of chances to use all those skills. You're a melee beast? Great now you find yourself if fights to the death pretty often. An arcane caster huh? Alrighty, let the wizard duels begin. Just not too many per day. Divine caster? You get the picture. Personally, I think a much much more fun game would be one where all the PCs have to try to fit the same-ish role. Like a party of 4 melee fighters or a party of 5 arcane casters. That would be tons of fun. In the next game I DM I'm going to do all fighters or all wizards. Haven't decided yet.
Jaxgaret 03-26-06, 06:14 PM	Everyone who posted before me is wrong (I checked). If you are playing a solo game, you can play anything and it will work just as well as anything else. Why? Because unless your DM is a complete neophite, he/she'll tailor all the encounters and challenges to the exact abilities of your character. Seriously, yu can play ANYTHING. You're a skill monkey? OK expect lots of chances to use all those skills. You're a melee beast? Great now you find yourself if fights to the death pretty often. An arcane caster huh? Alrighty, let the wizard duels begin. Just not too many per day. Divine caster? You get the picture. Personally, I think a much much more fun game would be one where all the PCs have to try to fit the same-ish role. Like a party of 4 melee fighters or a party of 5 arcane casters. That would be tons of fun. In the next game I DM I'm going to do all fighters or all wizards. Haven't decided yet. Indeed. :clap: One caveat: it's spelled neophyte. As to the OP's question: go gestalt, no doubt about it. Gestalt was created for campaigns with 3 or fewer PCs [less than the typical 4-man party, in other words] so that all traditional roles can be covered. I suspect a one-man party is in even more need of gestalt than a three-character one. And, as I've posted before, without going into crazy CO builds, the best gestalt is a simple Druid//Wizard. Or if you want to get a little more complex: Druid with PrCs focused on wildshaping//Wizard with good Wizard PrCs. Such as Druid/MoMF/Warshaper//Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage for one decent example.
ManTimeForgot 03-27-06, 03:01 AM	Everyone who posted before me is wrong (I checked). If you are playing a solo game, you can play anything and it will work just as well as anything else. Why? Because unless your DM is a complete neophite, he/she'll tailor all the encounters and challenges to the exact abilities of your character. Seriously, yu can play ANYTHING. You're a skill monkey? OK expect lots of chances to use all those skills. You're a melee beast? Great now you find yourself if fights to the death pretty often. An arcane caster huh? Alrighty, let the wizard duels begin. Just not too many per day. Divine caster? You get the picture. Personally, I think a much much more fun game would be one where all the PCs have to try to fit the same-ish role. Like a party of 4 melee fighters or a party of 5 arcane casters. That would be tons of fun. In the next game I DM I'm going to do all fighters or all wizards. Haven't decided yet. Or some of us might be thinking about what the most SURVIVABLE class would be. And what I posted would be able to deal with most of the challenge types I listed previously. Suggesting that DM's are just going to tailor their campaigns to your strengths runs counter to the very notion of "best class" under any circumstances. And if I were allowed access to gestalt I would change my build to the following: Bard/Druid Gestalt (pickup track feat). Take one level of rogue. Make sure to buff use magic device. Then fall into the Horizon Walker PrC. Progression would probably look something like this: Bard/Druid 1--> Rogue/Druid--> Bard/Druid (7 more times)--> Horizon Walker/Druid 10--> Bard/Druid 1 (last level you essentially sink all your skill points into perform). (If I remember correctly you can't have two PrC's gestalting, otherwise I would have horizon walker/Fochlucan lyrist). Most classes from previous posts would get torn apart if they had to do plane hopping. I imagine quite a few would die off early on being unable to forage/fend for themselves if things go primeval, and I imagine that traps would prove very difficult as well. MTF
Osiris Memnoch 03-27-06, 03:43 AM	Or some of us might be thinking about what the most SURVIVABLE class would be. Sorry. Not what the OP was asking. You're still wrong.
Lotus Crane 03-27-06, 04:09 AM	Everyone who posted before me is wrong (I checked). If you are playing a solo game, you can play anything and it will work just as well as anything else. Why? Because unless your DM is a complete neophite, he/she'll tailor all the encounters and challenges to the exact abilities of your character. Seriously, yu can play ANYTHING. I, and some other experienced DM's I know, never dumb down the realism of a game that way. I treat the campaigns I run as living and intelligent worlds, so if the player or party doesn't have the right tools at the right time, tough luck: they can either lose and die, give up and run away and look for a different dungeon or quest to do, or struggle through something the hard way (like when we had to go through the most locked-door-and-trap-filled dungeon ever without a rogue, where the barbarian and cleric basically just had to brute force their way through locks and traps, taking tons of damage and consuming almost all of the party's healing spells and items in the process). When I run an adventure, I make sure there's at least one challenge for each type of character: at least one trap or puzzle, at least one battle against a horde of weaker minions, at least one strong high level BBEG, at least one situation that can be resolved by roleplaying or at least social skill checks, at least one situation where stealth and discretion are desirable, and at least one situation where the direct approach is best. I don't put on the cheesy kiddy gloves and make the world revolve around and adapt to the players; how would anything be a challenge if I only gave them exactly what they could definately succeed on? I never deliberately try to TPK the party, but I also never deliberately try to avoid killing one or two PC's when they've done something stupid/unlucky enough to deserve it. PC's may be the "main characters of the show," but that doesn't mean they should be treated like gods. I'm fair, but I also try to stay real. So yes, getting back to the point of the OP, solo characters do in fact need to be survivable at any and all given levels, if they want to make it all the way to 20. By the RAW, that means druid (too easy though), cleric, possibly a ranger or bard, or like I suggested, a warlock or warlock/hexblade multiclass would be a somewhat more challenging but refreshingly fun experience.
runestar 03-27-06, 04:35 AM	Everyone who posted before me is wrong (I checked). If you are playing a solo game, you can play anything and it will work just as well as anything else. Why? Because unless your DM is a complete neophite, he/she'll tailor all the encounters and challenges to the exact abilities of your character. Seriously, yu can play ANYTHING. That's perhaps one of the dumbest statements I have seen so far. Why even bother playing if you know your character will be able to handle any challenge thrown at him? Where's the fun if your rogue is constantly in diplomacy or burglary scenarios? So if your dm suddenly throws a golem or undead at you and he's a player hater? :rolleyes: Part of the fun is encountering situations which appear to be to your disadvantage and having to use your creativity to overcome it. We have absolutely no idea what will come our way. So the best bet is still to try and cover as many of the bases as possible. I wouldn't expect the dm to cater to my every whim. And you shouldn't either.
fullmetal80110 03-27-06, 05:26 AM	What you do is go with a Feral Pixie out of the Savage Species, there 1 HD goes to a hit die of d10, then they get enough of an int bonus to off set savage and they are naturally invisable. Then go into ascetic spellcaster with monk, Savage grants wis and Pixie offsets savage dex penalty, and pixie grants wis on top of that. Then all of yor hit dice go into d10s due to savage, plus you get Str which will increase your unarmed damage. Then on top of that you get special arrows from being a pixie, you shoot the enemy with a sleep arrow and run up to hit them while your invis on top of that.
fullmetal80110 03-27-06, 05:29 AM	I forgot the important things, feral and Pixie grant extra armor total of 8 i think when your done with pixie, then you gain Fast Healing to heal hit points (the few you will have)
JulesCARV 03-27-06, 11:19 AM	I'm skeptical about the utility of the bard as a one-PC party. Most of their most potent abilities (inspire courage, inspire competence, etc.) basically either only work on another person, or work on oneself and also work on your friends freely, so a bard's utility is proportional to party size. In short, a lot of the bard's utility is wasted for a 1-person party. A possibility occured to me: Play an LG human with Able Learner: Have as high intelligence as possible. Then, become a paladin/archivist or fighter/archivist. Eventually, qualify for Fist of Raziel. Advance your archivist spellcasting levels with your Fist of Raziel levels. Now, you're a fighter/intelligence based divine spellcaster, with (theoretical) access to every cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, (divine) bard, adept, and cloistered cleric spell. All skills are in-class. Your intelligence will probably give you 4 skill points per level, and you get another paltry 2 from your paladin, fighter, and fist of raziel class levels, and 4 from your archivist class levels. To attempt to achieve the 17 CL/16 BAB goal... fighter or paladin 2/archivist 8/Fist of Raziel 10. Though really, I think that's kinda a silly goal. Update: It would probably be wise to cut out some of archivist or fighter/paladin levels with another prestige class, that advanced divine spellcasting while advancing BAB at a rate faster than 1/2, that's easier to qualify for than Fist of Raziel. I can't think of a good one off the top of my head.
Osiris Memnoch 03-27-06, 11:46 AM	Perhaps I was a bit too vague in my previous posts. I never said that the DM should make things easy on you. All I'm saying is that the DM will not/should not throw any encounters at you (or your party) that you can't overcome. If you play a solo rogue, don't expect to go through the game without fighting something. Similarly, if you decide your rogue is a master of forgery, your DM should provide at least some chance for you to use that skill. Rogues have lots of skills and especially in solo game the DM would need to allow the rogue to use them. It would be entirely unreasonable, however, to place the rogue in a situation where he can not succeed. For example, by making him fight through waves of bad guys without any ability to heal himself or asking for a high DC skill check in a skill that the rogue hasn't gained ranks in. To make my point clear-er, I shall explain it as I would to a child. DM: OK you're surrounded. Rogue: Oh man that's rough. I know! I can Tumble out of here and run away! DM: (excellent just as I planned) ...and... DM: The guard spots you! Roll Initiative. Rogue: Oh man this fight is gonna be tough! Good thing I have Improved Feint so I can sneak attack him or else this dude would probably just chew me up and stick me to the bottom of his desk. Probably going to need a Healing Potion after this though. DM: (exactly what I was thinking) as opposed to... DM: OK you're surrounded. Rogue: Damnit! I'm screwed! DM: Hey man, don't worry. Just Tumble out of there and run away. Rogue: *******! I didn't take any ranks in Tumble! DM: What?! How can you make a rogue without Tumble? Rogue: Like this! *points to character sheet* And how come it's been three adventures and I still haven't had any chances to use Forgery? Or you could replace Rogue with Wizard and Tumble with some spell and Forgery with some other spell.
Broken vacuum 03-27-06, 11:57 AM	It depends a lot on the campaign, really, but usually it pays off to choose a class that can do a number of different things and survive the lower levels. Builds that come into their own late is right out, as there is no-one to pick up slack for you. Other than druids, that can make pretty good solo characters in nature heavy settings, the classes that focus on casting (i.e. cleric, sorcerer and wizard) suffer from lack of utility or survivability during the lower levels, so they are probably not the easiest choices. Rangers should work rather well as they have a high survivability and utility from the start. Bards make excellent solo characters in my opinion. It is true that a lot of their powers work well with lots of allies, but the class does have decent survivability and plenty of utility. Also, fights are far more dangerous for a lone character, so being really good at avoiding them through social skills is a big plus. Rogues work well, too, but I consider bards superior solo characters. Paladins really lack skills, so I would not really say they are great choices, but healing and very good saves makes for great survivability. Monks are decent overall. They are of at least decent utility and start out with a decent survivability that gets steadily better as the character levels up. Fighters and barbarians really need parties to come into their own. Low utility (with the barbarian being slightly better off in this department) combined with reliance on fighting and bad saves make them quite risky choices. When all is said and done, though, what matters is what you want to play.
Lotus Crane 03-27-06, 12:02 PM	JulesCARV: Well, the reason that the idea of a bard (who is usually a group buffer as you mentioned) as a one-man-party is popular, is because in some situations, he can pretty much charm (whether through magic, music, or just skills) most humanoid or humanoid-minded NPC's into becoming his friends or allies. Perhaps I was a bit too vague in my previous posts. I never said that the DM should make things easy on you. All I'm saying is that the DM will not/should not throw any encounters at you (or your party) that you can't overcome. If you play a solo rogue, don't expect to go through the game without fighting something. Similarly, if you decide your rogue is a master of forgery, your DM should provide at least some chance for you to use that skill. Rogues have lots of skills and especially in solo game the DM would need to allow the rogue to use them. That's fine. Any adventure should include a challenge/situation for every character type. It would be entirely unreasonable, however, to place the rogue in a situation where he can not succeed. For example, by making him fight through waves of bad guys without any ability to heal himself or asking for a high DC skill check in a skill that the rogue hasn't gained ranks in. That's being too unrealistic. If the adventure involves an entire enemy army, then there should be the possibility of the encounter you just described. If the rogue is careful and has a good plan, he can sneak around and avoid the encounter (thus overcoming it and being entitled to the EXP for success), but if he makes a mistake, then yes, he should stumble into that situation and have a very high probability of losing and dying. Sometimes the hero or main character dies. To make my point clear-er, I shall explain it as I would to a child. You do realize this makes us less likely to listen to you, not more, right? DM: OK you're surrounded. Rogue: Oh man that's rough. I know! I can Tumble out of here and run away! DM: (excellent just as I planned) as opposed to... DM: OK you're surrounded. Rogue: Damnit! I'm screwed! DM: Hey man, don't worry. Just Tumble out of there and run away. Rogue: *******! I didn't take any ranks in Tumble! DM: What?! How can you make a rogue without Tumble? Rogue: Like this! *points to character sheet* If the rogue doesn't have Tumble or Mobility, hasn't thought to find or buy some magic items that can help him escape, and was careless/unlucky enough to walk into an ambush instead of sneaking around it, then it's his fault, not the DM's. In a realistic world, stuff like this happens. The rogue will just have to try and run out of there and hope he isn't hit by too many AoO's, or if he is, too bad, he dies. While the DM should never deliberately try to keep putting a PC or party in obvious TPK situations, he should not cheapen the realism of a world by removing all the challenging situations that the player or party might not be ideally equipped to face. If a rogue has Tumble, give him challenges that involve Tumble, but also give him challenges that involve Forgery, and if he can't do it himself or find an ally or hireling to do it for him, then too bad, that's one challenge he can't overcome. If a rogue has Forgery, give him challenges that involve Forgery, but also give him challenges that involve Tumble, and if he can't do it, then too bad, that's one challenge he can't overcome (though it's okay to have the occasional alternate method/path for getting around a challenge if a player/party can't go directly through the challenge). I don't take cheap shots, but I don't pull my punches either. I give a fair, clean, but hard fight (or game, as the case may be). An adventure should include something for everyone, not everything for someone.
Osiris Memnoch 03-27-06, 12:39 PM	You do realize this makes us less likely to listen to you, not more, right?Seeing as how you took the time to read and quote my entire post, I would have to disagree. That's being too unrealistic. If the adventure involves ]an entire enemy army, then there should be the possibility of the encounter you just described. If the rogue is careful and has a good plan, he can sneak around and avoid the encounter (thus overcoming it and being entitled to the EXP for success), but if he makes a mistake, then yes, he should stumble into that situation and have a very high probability of losing and dying. Sometimes the hero or main character dies. If the rogue doesn't have Tumble or Mobility, hasn't thought to find or buy some magic items that can help him escape, and was careless/unlucky enough to walk into an ambush instead of sneaking around it, then it's his fault, not the DM's. In a realistic world, stuff like this happens. The rogue will just have to try and run out of there and hope he isn't hit by too many AoO's, or if he is, too bad, he dies. While the DM should never deliberately try to keep putting a PC or party in obvious TPK situations, he should not cheapen the realism of a world by removing all the challenging situations that the player or party might not be ideally equipped to face. If a rogue has Tumble, give him challenges that involve Tumble, but also give him challenges that involve Forgery, and if he can't do it himself or find an ally or hireling to do it for him, then too bad, that's one challenge he can't overcome. If a rogue has Forgery, give him challenges that involve Forgery, but also give him challenges that involve Tumble, and if he can't do it, then too bad, that's one challenge he can't overcome (though it's okay to have the occasional alternate method/path for getting around a challenge if a player/party can't go directly through the challenge). The example I gave was just that. An example. An over simplified one at that. Try to understand what I'm saying rather than just reading it. That approach works fine in normal 4 person party games, but when you only have one player to keep happy, you need to actually keep him happy. I don't know about you, but being expected to be great at everything when you aren't makes me unhappy as a player. *I hate to break this to you, but not everyone likes to min/max their characters and actually have more fun making characters that aren't great at everything.* If I play a solo fighter, don't make me bluff my way out of my problems. Are there ways for a fighter to do that? Sure! But I would be real ****** if my DM turned to me and said, "You didn't buy a potion of Glibness? Oh well sucks for you! You should have seen this coming and gone around it. Guess you're dead. Too bad. I don't pull my punches." As for realism, I'll say this: Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game. It exists to live out fantasies and re-create your favorite tv/literary/comic book/movie moments. Is it realistic for 1 person to be able to beat up a room full of ninjas without mussing his mullet? No, or course not, but it sure is a lot of fun! Again, I am not saying that the DM should make things too easy. There has to be a challenge. All I'm saying is that unless your DM is a complete ass, he isn't going to make you run an adventure that he knows your character can not accomplish. Therefore, play whatever class you like the most OP and leave the rest to the Dungeon Master.
Lotus Crane 03-27-06, 02:40 PM	Seeing as how you took the time to read and quote my entire post, I would have to disagree. I guess instead of "listen," I should have said "agree." Nobody's going to agree with you when you have an attitude like that. The example I gave was just that. An example. An over simplified one at that. Try to understand what I'm saying rather than just reading it. Again with the attitude. Oh, I completely understand you, but I don't agree with you. It could be we're just different, but don't be so arrogant as to think that because I don't agree with you, you must be right and I must be wrong. Again, I am not saying that the DM should make things too easy. There has to be a challenge. All I'm saying is that unless your DM is a complete ass, he isn't going to make you run an adventure that he knows your character can not accomplish. Therefore, play whatever class you like the most OP and leave the rest to the Dungeon Master. A character can avoid or even fail individual challenges, and still (for the most part) complete an adventure. The point is to present a wide variety of challenges, and naturally some players or parties will do well at some challenges, and not so well at others. Or are your players so spoiled that they can't possibly have any fun if they fail even one challenge?
Osiris Memnoch 03-27-06, 03:52 PM	Or are your players so spoiled that they can't possibly have any fun if they fail even one challenge? Not so in the least! In fact, I generally plan out exactly what will happen if the party fails something, which they do often enough. I prefer to write my adventures like a tree rather than a script. I try to anticipate the different ways a party might approach something and have a plan no matter what way they go and no matter how they fair against the challenge. This is part of the reason why my encounters are usually a bit more complicated than a fight to death. Usually the challenge is "sneak past this" or "prevent that from escaping" etc. It's quite a bit of fun since "fight to the death" is rather unimaginative and quickly becomes dull. Not to mention it makes it tougher to write out new story arches if the party fails since if they fail they are dead now. I make sure that each and every one of my encounters are just as fail-able and they are pass-able. That includes the encounters that I want them to fail. Sometimes the villain's plans are thwarted earlier than he anticipated, but unlike him, I am prepared to deal with it. I've been doing it for years and it's quite a bit of fun. Just ask my players. There's been a lot of 'em over the years. But my ability to Dungeon Master is WAAAAY off the original topic. The fact remains, that its the DM's job (among other things) is to be just as aware of what his/her party is capable of so that he/she knows what he/she can and can not throw at them. Again, that's not to say that the party should have an obvious answer on their sheet to every problem, but it is to say that you shouldn't make encounters that require a certain quality that the party simply does not possess. PS: You don't have to tell that I'm an arrogant ass. I'm fully aware of that already. I revel in the irony of people telling me not to be so, since it's often started by them being unwilling to see that I am, in fact, correct and that they are not, which is arrogance on their part. Haha...hilarious.
malignor 03-27-06, 04:01 PM	I'd go for one of the true adventurers... Bard Monk Rogue Bards are the best choice in my eyes. They have a bit of everything. Plus they can survive in almost any setting at all... in the wild, in the city, on other planes, etc.
Nerf_Samurai 04-11-06, 03:15 AM	I say you should multiclass as a fighter/sorceror and take levels in spellsword asap. you can get to the point where you can wear scale armor and carry a small sheild or buckler, not counting what you can do with mithral armor(full plate and no sheild). Also, take some levels in a stealthy class like rogue, ninja, or scout to give yourself more options. If you don't want to multiclass, take either monk or bard.
Jontepojken 04-11-06, 05:27 AM	If you play in Realms, a cleric of mystra with the spell and magic domains and the feat that gives you acess to anyspell (cant really remember the name). heavy on strength and con, Switch between twohander and onehander+shield. get some spells like spider climb and invisibility FTW!
Pandaemoni 04-11-06, 06:43 AM	If it's really a one PC campaign, then bard might be fun. That would be one time that being "pretty good at everything" would be an advantage. The class would lack traditional offensive spell power (which would be a good reason to allow for a liberal reading of the "Extra Spell" feat), and would not have the plethora of feats needed to be a traditional melee powerhouse, but from a role playing perspective I can see a lot of potential (especially once the Leadership feat allows you to attract some backup). The notion of role playing the life of a famous medieval rock star/hero amuses me, from his lowly beginning, to the height of his fame (and then, perhaps, through his decent into drugs and alchemy). A DM would definitely have to adjust CRs a bit, or rely on adversaries that can be overcome via social interaction in that sort of campaign, though.
ManTimeForgot 04-11-06, 08:08 AM	Osiris Memnoch: You are not superior to everyone on the boards. You probably have less D&D experience than most of the people you are speaking to. And I highly doubt that your interpretation of the OP's statements is correct since the OP went through and listed things which he (she) believed to be powerful classes, not things which would be "fun to roleplay." In short: you have no basis for your attitude. The sum of your arguments so far translate into DM's pander to player interests and are never ever supposed to actually challenge us. No matter what way you shake it if you have never been placed in a situation which is 99.9% likely to involve your death because you screwed up majorly, then your DM's have just had the kid gloves on. The world does NOT revolve around the PC's. It is NOT the job of the DM to throw encounters which the PC's could defeat/defeat easily. If the PC's wander into Hell as first level characters, and are stupid enough to not leave immediately, then it is the DM's job to kill the PC's. PC's do not determine which monsters live where. A campaign world is a living environment. It has ecosystems, and economies, and political systems. If you assissinate the king of a nation, then you can expect powerful people to come after you. If you do not, then your DM is not doing his job. Assassins come after you when you wizz off high level/powerful individuals. It is just that simple. If you make the mistake of entering into the world of a being more powerful than yourself, and you anger this being, then you MUST be prepared to meet the consequences. If you are guaranteed an out regardless of the situation, then your DM is simply not doing his job. Heroes are one thing, guaranteed successors is another. Heroes ALWAYS face challenges which could result in death if a mistake is made. It is not even close to reasonable to assume that heroes always have an out. Of course I probably should expect this kind of awkward line of thinking from someone as duplicitous as yourself. You sit there and argue that the DM's job is to give the player an out, and must always know what the characters are capable of so he can tailor the encounters to what the characters can do, BUT then turn around and say that a rogue who gets surrounded and has no skill at tumbling should die. For starters: I don't think that's even close to realistic to assume that all rogues must have tumble or they aren't rogues. I've got a rogue right now who does not have any ranks in tumble, escape artist, or jump. And you know what? Still one of the most effective rogues I've ever played, and that is because D&D is NOT entirely about what you can do in combat. Sometimes how you avoid combat is just as important as how you deal with combat. Long story short: your assertions are weak or faulty, your premises are unreasonable, and your interpretations are off base. To everyone else: I suggest we simply ignore Osiris' argumentation on this thread and get back to debating which class/class combinations would be the most survivable across a broad range of encounter scenarios. MTF
kelvinaw273 04-11-06, 08:58 AM	Bards work well as jacks-of-all-trades. But honsestly, no class has the ability to handle everything. If you are running this as a serious campaign, use gestalt characters. I would use a combo of rogue-type plus caster-type to get the best spread of spells and skills, but sometimes you are best off using just one character and being good at what you do. For a single class, Bard, Cleric (or Druid), Monk, Ranger, Rogue (maybe). Disadvantages of classes would be: Insufficient stand-up combat ability; Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue, Bard. Insufficient Skills; Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin. Lack of Magic/Special Abilities: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue (use magic device compensates), Monk (special abilities compensate a lot, though). What are you left with? Ranger, Cleric, Druid, with Monk, Rogue and Barbarian as strong possibilities. Best combos: Cleric/Rogue, Cleric/Monk, Monk/Rogue, Ranger/anything.
nhs_boy 04-11-06, 09:26 AM	There is no possible combination of powers or abilities that would make me willing to play a "Feral Pixie". It just won't happen :-).
snowstrider 04-11-06, 11:12 AM	Lotus Crane and MTF: You guys fight like my kid sister does(very immature); I'm honestly surprised you weren't able to understand Osiris Memnoch's post about how a DM should cater to a party, especially since he explained it like he would to a child. A DM's JOB is to make the game fun for his/her players, not to kick them in the genitals because they were trying to have a little fun. PCs that accidentally find themselves in hell are actually probably more likely to be enslaved than killed, which gives you a whole plotline for a period of time. I would never kill off my PCs for making one mistake (not something they did on purpose mind you) but if they were to make a series of mistakes, they would likely be punished. Since D&D is a fantasy game, anything could possibly happen, they can be saved by a deity at the last minute only to be forced to work for the deity in the future. Never, ever say that a DMs job is to challenge the players, because it isnt. The DMs job is to make the game believable and enjoyable and fun for everyone involved. While that usually means making it challenging, try explaining to an 8 year old that his beloved character just died a horrible rotting doom that he can never return from as you tear up his character sheet. (No amount of challenge is worth the pain on that small childs face. For lack of time, I'll stop here.
nhs_boy 04-11-06, 11:18 AM	I think that Osiris was seen as annoying because he gave an answer that made the question pointless. Just because an answer might be technically correct, does not necessarily make it the _best_ answer. Trick answers are just irritating, and don't help anyone.
johnkretzer 04-11-06, 11:22 AM	A human Rogue2/ Druid the rest of the way with able learner. If you are using gesalt classes the of course Druid/Rogue.
ManTimeForgot 04-11-06, 11:39 AM	Lotus Crane and MTF: You guys fight like my kid sister does(very immature); I'm honestly surprised you weren't able to understand Osiris Memnoch's post about how a DM should cater to a party, especially since he explained it like he would to a child. A DM's JOB is to make the game fun for his/her players, not to kick them in the genitals because they were trying to have a little fun. PCs that accidentally find themselves in hell are actually probably more likely to be enslaved than killed, which gives you a whole plotline for a period of time. I would never kill off my PCs for making one mistake (not something they did on purpose mind you) but if they were to make a series of mistakes, they would likely be punished. Since D&D is a fantasy game, anything could possibly happen, they can be saved by a deity at the last minute only to be forced to work for the deity in the future. Never, ever say that a DMs job is to challenge the players, because it isnt. The DMs job is to make the game believable and enjoyable and fun for everyone involved. While that usually means making it challenging, try explaining to an 8 year old that his beloved character just died a horrible rotting doom that he can never return from as you tear up his character sheet. (No amount of challenge is worth the pain on that small childs face. For lack of time, I'll stop here. Listened. Understood. Found in wanting. The crux of the claims you all seem to put forward is "The DM is supposed to cater to the party." BS. I'm going to quote your own statement to counter your own claims. "The DMs job is to make the game believable and enjoyable and fun for everyone involved." Emphasis mine. You want a namby pamby little world where everything thrown your way is specifically designed to be defeated by you, then that is all well and good. But some of us have managed to progress past the type of D&D we played when we were 13 years old. I know I have, since 1995 was quite a while ago. In some of our worlds when you anger the assassins guild you can expect assassins to come after you. In some of our worlds if you go after a mage guild you can expect high level wizards to want to come after you. It really is that simple. I never said anything about accidentally. I said purposefully. When PC's make a grave mistake there should be grave consequences. A series of grave mistakes should result in death. Maybe PC's at exactly level 1 would get enslaved since they are just so weak that they couldn't resist. But those which tried to resist would get turned into lemures or something to that effect. The fact is you don't "accidentally" drop your PCs into Hell. Hell for low level characters is END OF GAME. There is no escape unless a high level party comes in and saves them, but that requires miracle since by the time the high level party would actually come and save them (unless you just have high level parties constantly in Hell in your worlds, and that's just unbelievable) the party will have been turned completely into lemures. I will tell an 8 year old that his character died because he took on the Tarrasque at level 1, and I will have no qualms about doing so. Beyond this I have no idea what an 8 year old is doing playing a normal game of D&D (one in which "rotting doom" is actually a part of the experience; BTW I never tear up people's character sheets as a DM because that is rude). Most of the content in D&D is better suited to a mature audience. Immature players are quite likely to throw fits when their characters die, and this is exactly why they shouldn't be playing the game. You want to play the "Candyland" equivalent of D&D with your 8 year old cousin, then that is fine, but that isn't your standard faire, and don't ever pretend like it is. You will be consistently dumbing down or altering the rules so as to favor your players, and that isn't what a DM is supposed to do. The purpose of this thread is to determine what the best class for a one-PC party would be, NOT determine what the best DM for a one-PC game would be. OBVIOUSLY if you can have a DM who would let you stand still during combat with the Tarrasque and just magically have all kinds of solars fly in to save you, then that would be the "best" DM to have in terms of one-PC survival. But the thread IS NOT ABOUt DMs. It's about CLASSES. Your "holier than thou" attitude regarding maturity does not become someone with your amount of posting experience. You want to prove that you are actually more mature than other posters, then you need to lay off the "kid sister" remarks because it only serves to make you out to be arrogant and condescending at this point. MTF
Northwest 04-11-06, 11:49 AM	I agree that it is the DMs job to provide missions that a PC can do solo. The PC does have some choice in mission selection, just as in the real world. That doesn't mean that the DM has to make it easy, or that the jobs pay as well as a job for a 4-man team. A solo fighter would realistically look for jobs that don't require stealth or magic use, why shouldn't there be some available. I don't think that is compromising anything. If someone chooses to become a policeman, why do you think they only for jobs in the medical or technical section of the classifieds?
Osiris Memnoch 04-11-06, 11:49 AM	Wow! I have a fan! Thank you for taking an interest in my thoughts, Man Time Forgot. Please allow me to retort if I may: You are not superior to everyone on the boards. If you say so. You probably have less D&D experience than most of the people you are speaking to. And I highly doubt that your interpretation of the OP's statements is correct since the OP went through and listed things which he (she) believed to be powerful classes, not things which would be "fun to roleplay." In short: you have no basis for your attitude. The title of this thread is Best Class for a one-PC Party. I simply stated in my first post that any class is the best class for a one-PC party since the DM would be likely to write the adventure after he knows what you're playing. Imagine if the DM wrote an adventure that involved stealing something and then the player ended up as a Paladin! The sum of your arguments so far translate into DM's pander to player interests and are never ever supposed to actually challenge us. No matter what way you shake it if you have never been placed in a situation which is 99.9% likely to involve your death because you screwed up majorly, then your DM's have just had the kid gloves on. The beauty of a situation where you think that you're 99.9% likely to die is that you only think that you're on death's door. In reality, the DM has (or should have) another story arch prepared in the likely event of your failure of that particular challenge. I've had characters that I've played in many situations where I thought I was a dead man, but the DM would consistantly surprise me with something new and exciting and my character would live to screw up another day. Similarly, I have put my players though encounters where death seemed apparent, but heroic escapes happened instead which lead to another adventure right around the corner. I suppose the sum of my arrguments (I really should be the one to sum them up since I'm the one that made them) is this: "It is the DMs job to make sure everyone is having fun. Having a chance to use all my character's skills and abilities is fun. Dieing, however, is not. Therefore, play whatever character you will have the most fun with rather than the one most suited for combat." Here's a good example: I know full well that Clerics and Druids are powerful classes, and yet I have never played either one. Why? Because I have much more fun playing Illusionists. The world does NOT revolve around the PC's. Yes it does. That's why they're in every scene and everything seems to happen to them. If it revolved around the NPCs, the DM wouldn't need players and could just talk to himself all night. PC's do not determine which monsters live where An excellent point. I couldn't agree more. That why its the DMs fault if there's a Mind Flayer in FirstLevelCharacterVille. If you assissinate the king of a nation, then you can expect powerful people to come after you. If you can actually manage to go through the king's body guards, castle walls, gates, palace guards, magical traps, and lord knows what else a powerful king in a fantasy setting has to protect himself, then you're probably tough enough to handle the assassins that he'll be too dead to hire to kill you. Assassins come after you when you wizz off high level/powerful individuals. "Wizz off"? What are you twelve? And secondly, no they don't realisticly. If a player steps on the toes of the local archmage, he'll probably just say, "Hey watch it!" or something those lines. If by "wizz off" you mean attack, that's when the DM says "No seriously guys that's a level 20 wizard. Of all the people in this game to attack for no reason whatsoever he should really be on the bottom of your list." Of course if they insist they can attack in which case the wizard would probably subdue them and have them thrown in jail for assault (unless he's chaotic evil. Even lawful evil would have them thrown in jail. If there's a chaotic evil level 20 wizard just chilling out in town then that's the DMs fault) You speak of realism but you fail to realize that in real life people aren't just shot in the face everytime they insult someone they don't know. If you want realism then people who do that should end up in prison which is exactly what happens when my players break laws overtly like that. If you are guaranteed an out regardless of the situation, then your DM is simply not doing his job. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Every encounter no matter how impossibly difficult must have an out. When the player has no choice but follow one course of action (in this case, death) then the DM is guilty of the sin of railroading. Of course I probably should expect this kind of awkward line of thinking from someone as duplicitous as yourself. So you're saying that I'm a pervaricater? Seriously, look up duplicitious. You sit there and argue that the DM's job is to give the player an out, and must always know what the characters are capable of so he can tailor the encounters to what the characters can do, BUT then turn around and say that a rogue who gets surrounded and has no skill at tumbling should die. For starters: I don't think that's even close to realistic to assume that all rogues must have tumble or they aren't rogues. I've got a rogue right now who does not have any ranks in tumble, escape artist, or jump. And you know what? Still one of the most effective rogues I've ever played, and that is because D&D is NOT entirely about what you can do in combat. Sometimes how you avoid combat is just as important as how you deal with combat *sigh* go read my post again. I argued that exact same thing. It's unreasable to assume any one character is capable of doing something that specific based souly on his/her class. That's why the player in that example was so angry at his DM. it is the DM's job to kill the PC's BLASPHEMY! *** Wow, that sure took a lot of typing! Can we get back to the topic now? Oh wait, you and others have spent most of this page debating the job of a dungeon master. I'd say this thread is dead. In fact, it was dead for several weeks before someone got the idea to call me out...again. In light of recent challenges to my answer to the OP's question, I am going to simply post the following form letter in response to anyone else trying to debunk my logic concerning the subject. Dear_____, Thank you for taking the time to read my replies, but I find your interpretations of my posts to be slightly off base. I recomend you re-read them more carefully. Love, Osiris Memnoch EDIT: Finally someone else that sees it the same way I do. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
qwerty1 04-11-06, 12:07 PM	it is the DM's job to kill the PC's I do not see it like that. It's the DM's job to Challenge the PC's not to kill them. Am I to far of base in saying this?
Shr3dZ 04-11-06, 12:19 PM	Every class should have an equal chance of survivability. Lets say the DM wants to put you up against a group of orcs- If youre playing as rogue, maybe theres only 3 orcs, or maybe you sneak past them- If youre playing as a wizard, maybe theres 2 orcs keeping watch while the other 1 is sleeping- If youre a barbarian, maybe theres 5 orcs looking for a fight- The point is the situation will change slightly depending on what you are capable of. To me it should make no difference which class you decide to play, just choose the one you want to play.
ManTimeForgot 04-11-06, 12:25 PM	Wow! I have a fan! Thank you for taking an interest in my thoughts, Man Time Forgot. Please allow me to retort if I may: If you say so. The title of this thread is Best Class for a one-PC Party. I simply stated in my first post that any class is the best class for a one-PC party since the DM would be likely to write the adventure after he knows what you're playing. Imagine if the DM wrote an adventure that involved stealing something and then the player ended up as a Paladin! The beauty of a situation where you think that you're 99.9% likely to die is that you only think that you're on death's door. In reality, the DM has (or should have) another story arch prepared in the likely event of your failure of that particular challenge. I've had characters that I've played in many situations where I thought I was a dead man, but the DM would consistantly surprise me with something new and exciting and my character would live to screw up another day. Similarly, I have put my players though encounters where death seemed apparent, but heroic escapes happened instead which lead to another adventure right around the corner. I suppose the sum of my arrguments (I really should be the one to sum them up since I'm the one that made them) is this: "It is the DMs job to make sure everyone is having fun. Having a chance to use all my character's skills and abilities is fun. Dieing, however, is not. Therefore, play whatever character you will have the most fun with rather than the one most suited for combat." Here's a good example: I know full well that Clerics and Druids are powerful classes, and yet I have never played either one. Why? Because I have much more fun playing Illusionists. Yes it does. That's why they're in every scene and everything seems to happen to them. If it revolved around the NPCs, the DM wouldn't need players and could just talk to himself all night. An excellent point. I couldn't agree more. That why its the DMs fault if there's a Mind Flayer in FirstLevelCharacterVille. If you can actually manage to go through the king's body guards, castle walls, gates, palace guards, magical traps, and lord knows what else a powerful king in a fantasy setting has to protect himself, then you're probably tough enough to handle the assassins that he'll be too dead to hire to kill you. "Wizz off"? What are you twelve? And secondly, no they don't realisticly. If a player steps on the toes of the local archmage, he'll probably just say, "Hey watch it!" or something those lines. If by "wizz off" you mean attack, that's when the DM says "No seriously guys that's a level 20 wizard. Of all the people in this game to attack for no reason whatsoever he should really be on the bottom of your list." Of course if they insist they can attack in which case the wizard would probably subdue them and have them thrown in jail for assault (unless he's chaotic evil. Even lawful evil would have them thrown in jail. If there's a chaotic evil level 20 wizard just chilling out in town then that's the DMs fault) You speak of realism but you fail to realize that in real life people aren't just shot in the face everytime they insult someone they don't know. If you want realism then people who do that should end up in prison which is exactly what happens when my players break laws overtly like that. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Every encounter no matter how impossibly difficult must have an out. When the player has no choice but follow one course of action (in this case, death) then the DM is guilty of the sin of railroading. So you're saying that I'm a pervaricater? Seriously, look up duplicitious. *sigh* go read my post again. I argued that exact same thing. It's unreasable to assume any one character is capable of doing something that specific based souly on his/her class. That's why the player in that example was so angry at his DM. BLASPHEMY! *** Wow, that sure took a lot of typing! Can we get back to the topic now? Oh wait, you and others have spent most of this page debating the job of a dungeon master. I'd say this thread is dead. In fact, it was dead for several weeks before someone got the idea to call me out...again. In light of recent challenges to my answer to the OP's question, I am going to simply post the following form letter in response to anyone else trying to debunk my logic concerning the subject. Dear_____, Thank you for taking the time to read my replies, but I find your interpretations of my posts to be slightly off base. I recomend you re-read them more carefully. Love, Osiris Memnoch Objective statement of fact: not I say so. And claiming that the DM is going to tailor his adventure to your class choice has NOTHING to do with what the OP asked. The OP asked what the best class choice for a one-PC party PERIOD, not for a specific campaign of his DM's choice. The beauty of this situation is that you don't know what you are talking about. If you are surrounded by the King's bodyguards and have entered the castle with the express purpose of harming the King, then there is no "alternate story arch" waiting in the works. You are a dead man. You are executed for treason. That's the way worlds work. A "get out of jail free card" only serves to reward stupidity. If you can live with rewarding stupidity, then I suppose you are free to run your worlds this way. The DM's job is NOT to make the game fun at the expense of believability. You want to play in "Candyland," then by all means, but don't come here and tell us that our DM's or we as DM's are doing things wrong when players die. Players are supposed to die because if players don't die, then there are NO consequences. You want to play in a world of no consequences, then by all means play your 8 year old version of D&D. But don't ever pretend like your 8 year old D&D where no PC can die is actually what D&D is all about. Dying in general may not be fun, but dying in a way that true to character is far better than living in a way that is not true to character. Ex: My character has "compulsive gambling" as a vice. He ends up owing lots of money to the "halfling mob boss." My character goes back to the gambling hall even though he knows that "mob boss" wants him dead. Stupid move? Yes. True to character? Yes. He's addicted to gambling and needs his fix. Net result? Character probably dies. Maybe he gets lucky and lives, but if he dies, then that was the way that character went. No the game does not revolve around the PCs. They are in every "scene" because we are only watching them. Are you trying to tell me that everyone else in the entire campaign world is frozen stiff unless the PCs are there. That is BS and so totally unebelievable as to not warrant any discussion. PCs may be the stars of the movie, but they are NOT the sole actors. Again I call BS. If first level characters wander into "Mindflayerville," then they should have their brains devoured. It's NOT the DM's fault if the first level character leaves "FirstLevelCharacterville" for "Mindflayerville." And as such it is beholden unto the DM to have the Mindflayers behave like Mindflayers and eat the stupid first level characters. You obviously aren't getting it. If you wander into the king's castle at level 1, then the magical traps and all that jazz SHOULD kill the character. Any first level character stupid enough to take on high level/very important individuals SHOULD DIE. "Wizz off" is my way of phrasing a colloquial expression which would get censored by the boards. Or did you not read the CoC regarding speech? And no the wizard is not just as likely to subdue them all. He may end up dominating them all sure, but then they become his slaves. They won't get the opportunity to rip up their character sheets; they will become mine when he makes thralls out of them. And chaotic evil is not the only mind-set that would kill the characters. A lawful good character may just as well assume that these individuals are insane for attacking someone who is clearly powerful, and are therefore a danger to society. The inevitable of justice would just as soon cut down the characters and that is lawful neutral. Cookie-cutter alignment examples are not convincing. No kidding. But if you attack a king, then you get executed for treason. You anger the assassins guildhead, and assassins come "knocking at your door" late at night. You insult a high level rogue, and some point down the road you find out your magic items are missing. You insult a high level wizard, then at some point down the road you find out that one of your plans has failed because the wizard engineered some kind of interference. You speak of "realism" like you have ever actually proferred an argument which involved realism. The very example of truth, not its opposite. If the a character puts himself into a situation in which his choices are limited, then this is NOT the sin of the DM. It is the sin of the player. And the DM's job is to punish those transgressions as they would be in any world. A "prevaricator" is a liar, in the sense that they try to distort the truth. You need to seriously look up duplicitous because I used it correctly. You claim that there should always be an out while simultaneously stating that a rogue without tumble who gets surrounded should die. You are either have no comprehension of the english language, or you are guilty of duplicity. Which is it? If a character has never had a chance to use forgery, then that is the player's fault NOT the DM's. A DM does not decide where characters go or what they do. A DM is therefore NOT responsible for the situations characters get themselves into. You seem to labor under the "classical" D&D mindset that when the DM presents an adventure hook, then this means "I am supposed to take it." The job of the DM is indeed to weave a story, but the players are ultimately the one's who choose to embark on a quest or not. If the player's choose to go only on quests which don't allow forgery use, then that is their fault. The sum of this is that the player in your example gets angry at the DM for his own failings. "Quoted out of context" Good job. Of course what your statement should have said instead of "Blasphemy" was "Welcome to Candyland" Qwerty: I suggest you look at what Osiris is mis-quoting before you draw any conclusions about my argument. MTF
ManTimeForgot 04-11-06, 12:29 PM	Every class should have an equal chance of survivability. Lets say the DM wants to put you up against a group of orcs- If youre playing as rogue, maybe theres only 3 orcs, or maybe you sneak past them- If youre playing as a wizard, maybe theres 2 orcs keeping watch while the other 1 is sleeping- If youre a barbarian, maybe theres 5 orcs looking for a fight- The point is the situation will change slightly depending on what you are capable of. To me it should make no difference which class you decide to play, just choose the one you want to play. So a barbarian should have equal chance of defeating a trap as a rogue? A fighter should be just as likely to survive in the wild as a druid? A wizard should be just as likely to win at an archery contest as a ranger? Sorry, but I don't buy it. There are certain challenges that classes are better at handling. While the base classes should certainly be able to contribute roughly equally to a party they are NOT objectively equal in terms of capability. It would therefore be of some use to try and figure out which class or combination of classes would be most able to defeat a broad range of challenges. Or are you prepared to state that a 20th level fighter is able to take on just as many different types of encounters as a 20th level wizard? Edit: And it seems to me that you are putting forward the "kid gloves" approach to D&D. Just because a character happens to be of a certain class SHOULD NOT have any effect on the world around him. Either 5 orcs live in the cave or they don't. If the character is smart and waits till nightfall, when the orcs are probably sleeping, then he deserves to have characters be sleeping. But if the character charges in mid-day, then he deserves to face the majority or all of the orcs at once. MTF
qwerty1 04-11-06, 12:45 PM	I was just making an observation/opinion not critequing you. I was just expressing how I felt a DM should be acting and as I saw you were sort of making the point by sarcasm ;). Sorry for my mistaken reply.
Northwest 04-11-06, 01:05 PM	In answer to the original topic...my opinion would be one of the highly skilled, stealthy classes: rogue, bard, ranger. This supports my idea that the scenario be balanced for a player. Sure they may not be able to fight the entire king's guards, but it lets them sneak in and see how many guards there are and decide to continue or not. At that point, the DM has done his job and now it is the PC's decision.
Shr3dZ 04-11-06, 01:25 PM	It would therefore be of some use to try and figure out which class or combination of classes would be most able to defeat a broad range of challenges. If the OP mentioned your quote above then a jack-of-all-trades would probably be the best choice, but when it comes to survivability every class has an equal chance (assuming you have a good DM). If your DM writes an adventure BLIND to what character classes will be available for it, thats moronic. Youll have upset and dead PCs on no time flat. Youve got to consider whos playing the game, if only a little at least. The DM can easily kill any number of PCs no matter how powerful they are "3000 Giants come rushing towards you!" and the DM can easily make things too easy "that kobold had 5 million gold on him!" but of course the DMs job is to strike a balance, regardless of class, imo.
Tony Vargas 04-11-06, 01:40 PM	Let's say that, somehow, you were going to play a D&D campaign where you're the only PC. What class would you play? Assuming you're talking about a single class there are two ways to aproach the single-PC challenge. You can either try to 'do it all yourself' (as best you can), or you can build a party of NPCs around yourself. The best single class for the former is probably the Monk. The monk has all good saves, decent combat ability, and decent ability to deal with many non-combat challenges. He can't find traps like a rogue, but, thanks to his awesome saves, he can probably survive them. He can fight reasonably well, spot ambushes, bypass some enemies, is highly mobile, can heal himself a bit, and has little need for others or for equipment. A survivable class, which is important when you're entirely on your own, and, if stats are high enough, a powerful one. Also, the Monk outlook can lend itself to stubborn self-sufficiency, providing a rationale for going it alone. For the latter, you can't do much better than the Bard. A bard can easily from the PC nucleus of an NPC party from early levels, using maxed-out (and, at level 2, syenergy-enhanced) Diplomacy to recruit helpers. The bard is capable enough to handle chalenges below his level in combat, able to boost any allies he collects, and, with a high CHA, can obtain a powerful cohort when that becomes an option. His abilities are diverse, including some combat capacity, spellcasting and skill. He should be able to work through many challenges by understanding them (through bardic knowledge, gather information and the like) and/or talking his way through them (bluff) and/or gathering allies to help deal with them (cohorts, diplomacy, charm, etc). The Druid is also a good choice, especially if you want aspects of both single-character, and single-PC w/NPC options. An animal companion gives you an instant ally from 1st level on, and the druid's good FORT and WILL saves will help see him through many dangers. One possible issue is traps and similar challenges, with a poor REF save and no skills to deal with such things, it could be a problem. Sticking to wilderness settings though, could reduce exposure to such challenges, and it'd be in-character to ignore dungeon and town based adventures. Multiclassing, of course, is a very good option, a single level of rogue to get trapfinding, for instance, could be a big plus, but you seemed to be asking about a single class. Finally, any class /can/ work in a single-PC campaign. Two things make it possible. NPC allies, and PC direction. NPC allies can cover whatever bases you don't, forming a more-or-less standard party. Alternately, the PC, since he doesn't need to compromise with other PCs, can exclusively choose adventures that are best suited to his tallents. If presented with the opportunity to either explore a trap- and undead-laden dungeon, or carry an important message/item across a dangerous wilderness, for instance, the Cleric/Rogue can go for the former, while the Druid would opt for the latter. Even if not given such choices, the PC could still ignore, or even willfully evade, adventures to which he seems ill-suited.
warforged_drow 04-11-06, 02:06 PM	im pretty much a noob to D&D, ive played other games etc. but im just getting into v3.5. the other guy i play with has played for like 20 years. yep, thats right, only 2 people within miles in a city centre who play D&D where i live. anyways, my question is how should i go about playing his campaign, ie. who should i have for hirelings, what feats shold i take, skills etc if im soloing. any help would be much appriated. thanks :P
Beeblebrox 04-11-06, 03:00 PM	I would say a Paladin. An Aasimar Paladin. Don't hit me!! I'll tell you why. Paladin gets: - Healing ablilities (Lay on Hands, Remove Disease) - Turn Undead - Immune to ALL diseases - Cool Mount - Good armor and weapon proficiencies - Spells, eventually - Smite Evil (not too bad) Aasimars make GREAT Paladins, they get: - +2 Charisma +2 Wisdom - Daylight 1/day - Favored Class: Paladin Plus, their high Cha score makes them good Leadership candidates. Please don't kill me!
Aufenshauft 04-11-06, 03:39 PM	Paladins are actually my first instinct too. They cover all the neccessary bases- decent saves all around, HP, spellcasting (healing on demand), and ability to be social. Next in line would be Bards and Rogues, depending on your style. A Bard would focus on bringing in NPCs and contacts through diplomacy. A rogue would skill out massively and sneak around obsticles. Both have UMD to make up for any magical flexibility they might need- and resolve 'impossible' situations the class abilities wouldn't allow you to accomplish (like healing). Monk would be viable, though it lacks in social graces (cha is a dump stat, and diplomacy isn't there) and has no spellcasting. In addition, it always requires great stats, and that isn't to be relied on. Arcane casters should be last on the list, because they are so fragile unless you build them just right, and even then it can be terrifying. Clerics and Druids can do it, but I think the sheer number of spells and options can be uneccessarily daunting unless you have a lot of experience in them, and even then you run into the social graces issue. Fighter types (besides paladin) don't have the healing capabiltiy or equivalent and don't have social skills. Fighter in particular wouln't work as you can't heal, have no critical skills (including spot), and don't have saves. One aspect of my choices is also there. favored saves play a strong part. Will is bottom of the list. Why? because in groups, a DM can use save-or-die effects like charm or hold person and if someone fails, the party can make up for it. In a solo game, you are undeniably dead. Fortitude would look the same, but they also cover survival situations (exposure) or poisons, which are not lethal but take a lot out of you. A good DM would use these things as real deterrants since they limit your abilities without killing you and keeps the game going. Reflex saves cover all the things that are commonly encountered, traps and spells and other things that are exciting. DMs use these a lot. Only at higher level do you have problems with instant death effects, and see above for that. I would personally suggest Rogue or Bard. All you need is within grasp with those two.
solbergb 04-11-06, 03:55 PM	I'd likely go with scout1/druidX, and the scout1 would spend his early cash on a barded riding dog, focus skills on intrusion and trapfinding/disabling. The "disposable" companion and summoned animals help with the achilles heel of the solo character: fail one save or take a crit at the wrong time and you are dead forever....and bleeding out = dead. Also such a char is reasonably equipment independent, which helps if you botch an encounter and get captured+stuff stolen. One awkward thing would be leadership or natural spell would have to be put off till level 9, and you would want a "Face" for a cohort because you'll lack all the social skills except maybe diplomacy (and likely lack that, if you're keeping up with your search and disable device) If the campaign was more urban and less wilderness+dungeon I'd probably go with straight bard.
Osiris Memnoch 04-11-06, 04:39 PM	If the OP mentioned your quote above then a jack-of-all-trades would probably be the best choice, but when it comes to survivability every class has an equal chance (assuming you have a good DM). If your DM writes an adventure BLIND to what character classes will be available for it, thats moronic. Youll have upset and dead PCs on no time flat. Youve got to consider whos playing the game, if only a little at least. The DM can easily kill any number of PCs no matter how powerful they are "3000 Giants come rushing towards you!" and the DM can easily make things too easy "that kobold had 5 million gold on him!" but of course the DMs job is to strike a balance, regardless of class, imo. Isn't that what I said like 30 posts ago?
Mirikon 04-11-06, 08:23 PM	Sometimes I wonder why some of the DMs who post on these boards still have groups to DM for. Even with a published module, the DM is expected to tailor events and other situations to fit the party. It is along the same idea as the Wealth per Level guidelines in the DMG. No adventure for 2nd level characters should require them to have an item worth over 20,000 gp. Likewise, a party of level 2 characters shouldn't be paying Asmodeus a house-call. You don't have DC 30 to detect deathtraps in a level 2 dungeon, do you? Too many people think of D&D as a game to be won or lost. The Job of the DM is to provide the setting, the mobs, and the NPCs, as well as a plot suited to the skills and abilities of the party. The Job of the Party is to overcome the challenges put forth to them by the DM, and help grow their characters both mechanically and thematically. If both DM and Party do their jobs right, then everyone has fun. Nobody likes to be the Rogue in an Undead campaign. Why? Because nobody likes feeling useless, all the time. The same goes for a wizard in a gladiatorial campaign, or a fighter on a mission to discover the secrets of an ancient library. A good DM, however, will try to find a way to keep the campaign fun. You can have the best module ever written for a solo campaign, but if your player is a Rogue and your module is undead-focused, your player is pretty much guaranteed of having a craptacular time going through it.
Osedox 04-11-06, 08:27 PM	First of all to answer the original post i think bard or rogue/caster/Arcane trickster is probably the best. One of my best DnD experiences was a solo campaign I did with my brother where he played a tiefling Barbarian/Assassin who only did Assassination missions, so make sure you will still be able to have fun without being resentful of your alone-ness. Secondly, I would like to agree with Mr. Memnoch, if a Dm isnt catering to his players then he is being a prick. Although this can quickly get out of hand if things are made too easy. We arent saying that everything should be handed to them on a silver platter, oh no, rather that often their are simple solutions to all problems which are solvable with different methods (Different Strokes for Different Folks!). If a Dm only trys to foil his PC's at every turn he is asking for an asskicking. This applys normaly to a 4-man campaign, and even more-so to a solo party. A good guidline is encounters should be difficult and often but not always near fatal, but never impossible. After all what kind of consenting player would put his life on the line to do something he cant do? None. Thats why classes play to their strengths and not their weaknesses. So a Rogue would never put himself into a situation that he couldnt get out of, like letting himself get surrounded without a chance of escape.
Mass_Assassin 04-11-06, 08:31 PM	I would play a bard. It's not necessarily the best choice, but he has a decent BAB, rogue skills, arcane spells, and the all important cure spells. Of course, you would have to play it real safe with a d6 hit die, but despite its shortcomings, it'd be a real tasty character.
Nitrokitty 04-11-06, 09:02 PM	I'm going to ignore all the 12 year old DM trolls and actually post something relevant. One of the most overlooked characters for a solo campaign is the sorcerer. Yes, I'm talking about that little red headed stepchild that everyone on these boards loves to hate. At low levels, a solo sorcerer can be very difficult to play, but at high levels, a solo sorcerer can be devastating. Also, many people overlook just how useful familiars are. My cat familiar says that there are 5 orcs up ahead. What should I do? Here's what I do. I distract them with Ghost Sound, lure them into a side room, and then Hold Portal or Arcane Lock the door, walking away, humming merrily to myself. (This actually happened in a solo campaign I played as a sorcerer) And those are spells that a low level character easily has access to. Granted, sorcerers may not be the best choice for a solo campaign, that would be the druid, but, at least for me anyways, they've been the most fun. Playing a sorcerer solo, especially at low levels, requires a lot of out-of-the-box thinking, careful planning, and good strategy.
Tony Vargas 04-11-06, 09:55 PM	The DM is expected to tailor events and other situations to fit the party. Not quite. The DMG goes to the trouble of describing two different styles of encounters: 'Tailored' and 'Status-Quo.' It does advise that DM's use both, but, ultimately, a DM may decide that one style or the other fits his campaign better. All-tailored is probably more viable than all-status quo, but it's also very contrived. All-status-quo puts a strong emphasis on versimilitude, but can easily leave the players bored or the party dead. Both are valid, if a bit extreme. Even so, to the extent that the DM decides to include status-quo encounters, the player should exercise caution in how he aproaches encounters. To be fair, the DM should outline his aproach a bit at the outset. This is true in party or single-PC play, but probably a lot more critical in the latter.
Grigori 04-11-06, 10:41 PM	Human Monk Ascetic (VoP). Who needs material possessions?
SevenOfSerenity 04-11-06, 10:59 PM	A solo campiang is a completely different style of game than one expecting a party of adventurers. It is ill advised to apply your normal style of D&D to a solo game (unless you're just playing a solo game for a super-tough challenge and "bragging rights") -- both styles of gaming are different as day and night. The base rules and game itself was tailored and designed around the assumption there will be at least four characters (quite obvious since there's no single class that can "do it all" within the core rules); so automatically you will have to approach a solo campaign in a totally different light. There's already been several posts as to what the "best class" for a solo campaign could be. For the most part, depending on your DM and the game's themes and styles, about anything can potentially work. Any DM who plans out the game without even considering what you're playing, including your strengths/weaknesses/class/etc and that a solo game is a completely different beast, is obviously inexperienced in what you're looking for. As to the core topic of the original post, I'll have to agree with Osiris Memnoch, Mirikon, and other people who agree with them or express similar views. Tony Vargas also mentioned several ideas that apply (particularly that, unless the entire game is being rail-roaded, the single PC has much more leeway to pick and choose what adventures and challenges she wishes to be a part of). I'd say go with whatever you'd like to play, but be sure that the DM is taking into consideration your choice, including your strengths and weaknesses.
Sunrider 04-12-06, 03:56 AM	A few things that make one-PC parties very different from the standard team approach: Disadvantages: - Death tends to be final. You may be able to cast True Resurrection five times per day, but you can't cast it on yourself. - You only have one action per round - unlike in an ordinary campaign, your enemies are likely to have more. - Unless you can cast healing spells, you're limited to potions and temples. - The level 10 rogue with 40hp is also the party's meat shield. - The 6-Cha dwarven fighter is also the party's face. - The 3-Int half-orc fighter is also the skill-monkey. Advantages: - Stealth. A party is only as stealthy as its most un-stealthy member. A larger party is also inherently less stealthy than a smaller one. - Mission selection - In a party, a rogue will usually have to go along on undead-hunting missions. If you aren't in a party, you can pick and choose your missions. - Approach - Working independently, you can approach a task in the way most suited to your strengths - any task can be tackled in a variety of ways. In a party, your choices are more limited. So, what does this mean? Most significantly, combat is much more dangerous. Alone and outnumbered, you will be much easier to kill in a fight against a so-called 'balanced' encounter. Remember how easy it is for a party to overcome a lone, humanoid opponent four to five levels higher than your party level? Now the tables are turned. Between flanking, teamwork and having five times as many actions as you do, fighting becomes that much harder. Also, many more spells become effectively save-or-die, and you can't rely on resurrection. Without others to take up the slack while you're incapacitated, a single failed save (anything except reflex) will probably be fatal. Finally, lack of healing means your combat endurance is much more limited, both on a fight-by-fight basis and on a day-to-day basis. How can a player overcome these problems? Just a few tips: - Non-combat solutions are ideal. Regardless of how much firepower you pack, a natural 1 on a saving throw is an automatic failure. Better not to have to make the roll, if you can avoid it. Also, 'non-combat' does not equal 'diplomatic' - stealth and subterfuge are just as valid solutions. Whatever gets the job done. - Be the general, not the grunt. You only have one life, and can't afford to put it on the line all the time. If you must fight, let someone else do it - act as the coordinator, not as a cog in the wheel. - XP is for completing challenges, not frag count. Especially not personal frag count. If you can overcome a challenge without putting your life on the line, all the better. - Pick and choose your missions. If the DM serves up a mission that's not to your liking, you don't have to accept it; if you do accept it, you don't have to tackle it head-on (see below about subcontracting). Also, if the overall quest isn't something which quite suits your character, approach it in a roundabout fashion (see other tips). - Plan, plan and plan. Approach is paramount - in some ways, you actually have more options than a standard party (a party with a full-plate wearing fighter can't sneak, while a flying approach won't do unless everyone can fly). - Who you know is just as important as what you know. Safe-houses, guild contacts, friendly mages (or dragons...) are very useful. Also, see below about subcontracting. - Subcontracting is a perfectly legitimate solution. If a mission is too risky or difficult for you, get someone else to do it. If you have more contacts than the person offering you the job, you can even make a tidy profit out of it. - Money talks. Currency is just as valuable as magic items. In fact, for a solo character, magic items are often better used as 'currency'. Remember all those people who used to offer items for services/quests? Now it's your turn to do the same thing. Better to risk someone else's hide than yours. - Don't be too equipment-dependant. See below about subterfuge - no matter what their Disguise skill, someone carrying a glowing sword (or any sword, for that matter) does not make a convincing beggar. If you have Sneak Attack or a similar ability, Improved Unarmed Strike is a very useful feat to have. - Social skills are all-powerful. Given that you will be just as much, if not more, a manager/coordinator as you are a grunt, the ability to persuade/manipulate/con people is paramount. - Subterfuge is a very useful adjunct to social skills. A forged order from the queen, can turn an army around. A good disguise can pin the blame on someone else. - Appearance is important. If you want to infiltrate the courtesans' parlour or gain admittance to a noble's court, you'd best not show up wearing a bearskin pelt, a jewelled helmet with horns and a mummified elf hand, regardless of how high your Bluff or Disguise checks are. A wardrobe of costumes and mundane (both masterwork and normal) equipment is very useful, if you have somewhere to store them. If you're moving between towns and can't carry everything with you, buy or steal from local merchants (in disguise, of course). See above about reliance on equipment and the usefulness of loose currency. - Be able to live up to your lies. If you say you're a minstrel, be prepared to sing. If you're trying to pass yourself off as a blacksmith, it's good to be able to forge a few nails. If you're pretending to be an expert on Mulhorandi history, make sure you know something about it (or at least sound like you know something about it). Jack of All Trades and high Intelligence and Charisma scores are very useful here (covers Craft, Knowledge and Perform). - Appearing powerful or highly-skilled isn't always the best thing. Particularly if you aren't actually skilled in that area. See above about living up to your lies - often, it's better to say you're a journeyman than a master. So, given all this, what classes do I prefer? Personally, I like rogues - plenty of skill points, a wide skill set and very useful class abilities. See Dragon 326 for an expanded list of high-level abilities. Many rogue prestige classes (especially the non-combat orientated ones) are also well-suited to single-player games. That said, bards, wizards, psions, druids and sorcerers are also very good in single-player campaigns - spells and powers make up for many skills and also pack quite a punch in combat. I'd probably rate bards and psions above the others - bards because of their skill points, skill list and class features, psions because of the ability to completely suppress any sort of display for many powers (no wild arm movements, funny noises or big explosions). Although very powerful in combat, clerics tend to be less versatile than wizards, and often have trouble with subterfuge and other skill-related (or skill-emulating) roles. They're great bruisers if you choose to take the direct approach to problems, but the direct approach is usually not ideal in a single-player game. Lastly, pure combat types bring up the rear - being very equipment-dependent, and with few abilities other than fighting, they are very limited in their options, while the limited healing available and the increased danger of combat make their strengths much less useful. Paladins are good in the social department, but their code of conduct and lack of subtlety limits their options even further, and may become a liability.
Tony Vargas 04-12-06, 12:07 PM	Any DM who plans out the game without even considering what you're playing, including your strengths/weaknesses/class/etc and that a solo game is a completely different beast, is obviously inexperienced in what you're looking for. I can't really agree. There's something to be said for the verisimilitude of a status-quo campaign - one that's set up to make sense, internally, and doesn't take into account what the PC is, just what he has done. That said, it's critical for the DM to give the player complete latitude in such a campaign. Railroading is completely unacceptable, the PC must be free to make decisions and choose direction, as it is only by doing so that he can avoid encounters that might be too much for him. Tony Vargas also mentioned several ideas that apply (particularly that, unless the entire game is being rail-roaded, the single PC has much more leeway to pick and choose what adventures and challenges she wishes to be a part of).The more the game is tailored to the PC, the more justified the DM is in railroading. Afterall, if the player doesn't de-rail the game, he's gauranteed apropriate challenges, and the DM has gone to the trouble of creating those challenges specifically for him - and probably hasn't bothered creating alternatives. I'd say go with whatever you'd like to play, but be sure that the DM is taking into consideration your choice, including your strengths and weaknesses.I'd say it'd be equally valid for the PC to take on that responsibility.
supermonk7 04-12-06, 12:45 PM	Monk, of course. Built to survive, but you may not kill anything. You will live, however in most cases.
Nausicaa 04-12-06, 12:46 PM	For personal experience, in a solo adventure the DM frequently forgets that the player is the main character of the adventure. This must be accepted. BTW, in a soloadv, i played succesfully a druid, a totemist and a fighter.. finally an high level sorc/master of the yuirwood
solbergb 04-12-06, 02:21 PM	I'm going to ignore all the 12 year old DM trolls and actually post something relevant. One of the most overlooked characters for a solo campaign is the sorcerer. Yes, I'm talking about that little red headed stepchild that everyone on these boards loves to hate. At low levels, a solo sorcerer can be very difficult to play, but at high levels, a solo sorcerer can be devastating. To do a solo sorc, you'd have to fix the "healing" problem. There's a SC spell that helps (L3, burn hitpoints to heal...if you combine this with false life, you can heal yourself) or you could go the arcane disciple route with healing domain and wands. Or maybe wild mage+UMD. Otherwise it works out ok, but in the low levels you'll want to spend cash on animals to draw fire, and go the subtle/diplomatic route until you can get a few more spells under your belt. If the campaign started at 8+, I'd say "sure" but you'd want to build the sorc to be pretty self-sufficient. In the low levels though, it is far too likely that you'd either run out of spells or run out of hitpoints or just blow a save (sorcs suck at everything savewise, since their only good save is in the attribute they almost always dump). Warlock would be a better choice, mainly because in the low levels it doesn't run out of juice after a handful of actions. Solo characters who rely entirely on spells burn spell slots like you wouldn't believe. I've noticed on my sorc a direct correlation between the number of party members effective in an encounter and the number of spell slots I burn (the fewer contributing, the faster my slots drain)
Tony Vargas 04-12-06, 02:45 PM	Another thing to consider is the level of challenges apropriate to a solo game. The combat abilities of, say, a Bard or Rogue (sans SA) or BAB-sacrificing multiclass don't count for a whole lot vs same-level challenges, but an apropriate challenge for a single character is CR = level-4 - a 4th level rogue or bard might just be able to handle fighting 4 orcs, one at a time, over the corse of a day, for instance. The abilities of the more generalist classes and multiclasses may not shine too brightly as a 5th wheel in a standard party vs same-level challenges, but they'll be adequate against level-4 challenges. Against CRs closer to his level, the generalist will have to manuever to bring the opponent's weaknesses into play. Now that I think about it, yes, almost any class could handle CR-4 challenges. A 1st-level fighter may not be able to heal himself, but when the toughest fight of the day was with a lone dire rat, that may not be much of an issue. A 1st level wizard may have a crap FORT save, but the dire rat's 'filth fever' is still unlikely to do him in. However, it's encounters that come in closer to your level that could make it really hard on them, since they don't really have any options but to go in with what they do best, the might just do it better (or even just almost as well and get slightly lucky), or thier own weaknesses could doom them.
rowboy85 04-12-06, 04:15 PM	If your character is made well, all that matter is do you enjoy your character. A good amount of preparation and creativeness can get you out of, or at least avoid, deadly situations. Personally i would play one of two characters... Herky-the rougue-wizard-arcane trixter-goblin Grond- the half giant-psychic warrior with monstrous blow, expansion, and a huge greatsword. and combat reflexes. But i just think their cool. Course i'm banned from Grond. Apparently he's overpowered. No ones let me play herky yet. but i start soon. He's the awesome goblin who speaks in third person. :)
SevenOfSerenity 04-12-06, 08:02 PM	I can't really agree. There's something to be said for the verisimilitude of a status-quo campaign - one that's set up to make sense, internally, and doesn't take into account what the PC is, just what he has done. That said, it's critical for the DM to give the player complete latitude in such a campaign. Railroading is completely unacceptable, the PC must be free to make decisions and choose direction, as it is only by doing so that he can avoid encounters that might be too much for him. A solo campaign is, by definition, different than a normal D&D campaign. The game was designed around at least a group of four characters to tackle challenges, dungeons, etc -- this is very, painfully, obvious in the way the rules are designed (especially the way the rules/guidelines are for challenging a party). CR of an encounter is based on the fact that there will be four members of a party, each of them equally capable in the niche they fill. A CR 5 encounter is designed to use a set amount of resources available to a party of four 5th level characters (resources being hit points, consumables, spells, and the like). When there are at least four players, generally you do not need to worry about what sort of challenges you present to your group. There is a likely chance that at least one character can deal with magical challenges, one with skill-based challenges, and one with combat based challenges. There is not one class that does all of these effectively -- the closest class to that is a bard. When you only have one character, then you cannot fill all of those roles -- you can only hope to fill one or two fully, or several of them decently. The classes were designed to compliment each other. If the game was designed for a group of one or two characters, then it would be much different. You also have to change the way you run encounters, lest you end the game prematurely due to a death. The more the game is tailored to the PC, the more justified the DM is in railroading. Afterall, if the player doesn't de-rail the game, he's gauranteed apropriate challenges, and the DM has gone to the trouble of creating those challenges specifically for him - and probably hasn't bothered creating alternatives. I'd say it'd be equally valid for the PC to take on that responsibility. There is no justification in rail-roading at all. Your statement of, "the game is rail-roaded because the character is garunteed to be set up against challenges she can expect to overcome" isn't any different than it is in any other game. I can say the same for a party of four characters. Barring the party doesn't de-rail the game, they're gaunteed appropriate challenges. A DM doesn't set the party up against a balor at 3rd level, does she? But if said group finds a way into Hell (aka, de-railing), it may happen. If a DM -does- put a balor against the party at 3rd level, she is A) rail-roading, or B) doesn't understand what's going on. There is a responsibility for PCs and DMs alike in the party. The role isn't just up to the PCs. You can't always expect everyone to fill every role -- it just doesn't happen like that. People would rather play the characters they want to play, and you can only punish the party so long for not having a tank, a healer, etc before it becomes old hat and they're fed up, angry, or just tired of the game. Also, don't use something I didn't say to try and prove your point in the discussion. I said a DM should take into consideration your character's strengths and weaknesses when she works out the campaign and the world. I never said every encounter should be built to work against your character's strength. If your character is a fighter, but your DM had worked on a stealth-heavy/diplomacy-heavy game, then it's absurd to continue with that style of game, since most encounters are always going to work against your character's weaknesses. It's just as absurd making all encounters melee brawls when you're a fighter -- the fighter will always excel at that. However there should be NO forced encounters where, if you can't do something, the game is over (unless both the player and the DM are fine with the game being over). I have no qualms with a character failing at something she could succeed at, and then the game be over. But the game being over due to something the character couldn't possibly deal with is rail roading, and inexcusable. D&D, formost and lastly, is a game. It's for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. If people aren't having fun most of the time, then the point is lost. Sometimes, I think people forget D&D isn't all about having the big skill check, the big attack, or the big spell. EDIT: I'm currently running a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game, and the group has no healer. The closest thing is a paladin and someone who uses a wand of cure light wounds. It's been extremely, extremely tough. There's also no one who is a rogue, either. They understand that they need healing and do their best to compensate for it without any of them being a bard, cleric, or druid (wands, potions, paladin preparing cure spells, etc). They've done their part in closing whatever gaps they can with their set up, and as a DM, I have to take into account they don't have the healing power of a typical party. If I don't, the game's going to be over quick (there's already been deaths). For the most part, I've only done little to the encounters, since my group is fairly resourceful, I'll give them that. They're having a hell of a lot of fun, though, more than usual I'd warrent, because they're playing the characters they want to play, and aren't saying, "well, someone needs to be the cleric. guess it's my turn to take one for the team". Sadly, one of my players, as of last session, lost a character he, and everyone else, loved and had brought a lot of roleplaying fun to the table (they're in debt and very little money, and too low level to cast raise dead). I was looking forward to what he'd do next with his character, but unfortunately life can be rough ;). I've been in several games where the typical fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard roles aren't filled, or just decently at best -- the people I play with tend to try new classes that come out or oddball roles, due to the fact they've already played the typical, generic roles plenty of times. I've found myself picking up one of those roles from time to time, depending on what the group "needs", just because no one else wants to, or will. It makes the game drab and boring, too. I speak from my experience in solo games and games where the typical, standard party isn't really there -- you really begin to understand and feel that the core game was specifically designed for all the roles being filled by someone (and not every DM allows Leadership). EDIT2: Also, when I mentioned that the DM should take into account your character's strengths and weaknesses, no where did I say that the DM should build every encounter and challenge to work against your character's strengths.
Grey_Mage 04-12-06, 08:43 PM	Im going to go with the basic Assumption that the Characters involved are Human. Why? Because its easier than throwing in the 1000+ subraces out their. Im going to say either Rogue/Cleric or Ranger/Bard. The Rogue/Cleric has strong saves in everything... healing abilities and some strong magic that wont be interfeared with by the armor that hell be wearing. The high dex of the rogue will help, and the skill points are going to be a godsend *no pun intended* that let you deal with traps and most diplomatic situations. The cleric gives proficiencies and buffs that the rogue just wouldnt be able to come up with otherwise... especially if he got magic, trickery, or other tailored domains for his rogue styles. Ranger/Bard is a bit more direct... less subtle but just as strong. Decent Hit Die and skills... good armor and dex... and a nice damage dealing capability. Saves are good al around with a very nice Ref save to boot. Possibly better than the rogue cleric if your in a woodlands campaign... though I think for the most part they might not be quite as strong.
Tony Vargas 04-12-06, 09:27 PM	A solo campaign is, by definition, different than a normal D&D campaign. Certainly. The world it's set in doesn't need to be different, though, and you /could/ put a solo character through, say, a module designed for a standard party - that individual would just have to be at least 4 levels higher than the party would've been (just based on CR/EL). There are, of course, additional issues that confront the solo adventurer, which would have to be taken into account by the player and/or DM, in order for the adventure to really work. When there are at least four players, generally you do not need to worry about what sort of challenges you present to your group. Again, that's a stylistic issues. Some DMs just don't worry about the sorts of challenges they present to the the group - they figure the players are clever and will handle it, or figure out they can't handle it and avoid it - OK, maybe such DMs are like parents who let thier kids play on a busy street, but, it's possible... On the other extreme, there are DMs who tailor every encounter to the party - to it's abilities, competencies, goals, habbits and whatnot - if such a DM is good at what he does, he can prettymuch decide the the outcome of every encounter before it starts, the finesse lies in leaving the players an 'illusion of control.' Either style could be used in either solo or group play. The solo player in the 'status quo' campaign is going to have to be even more cautious than a party would be, though. There is not one class that does all of these effectively -- the closest class to that is a bard.And, once you've adjusted CR for a single PC, the bard does it pretty effectively - and so would many multiclass options. It's then just a matter of style whether the DM specifically an exclusively throws such tailored power-level encounters at the solo PC, or leaves the player to pick his way through a status-quo world, seeking them out - or does the more usual thing of some of each... There is no justification in rail-roading at all. Actually, there is. An adventure or campaign can have a very linear structure, or a variety of avenues that all inevitably lead to the same end. Either way it's 'railroading,' but, if done well, it won't detract from the player's enjoyment. Choosing to run a such a game allows you to tailor not only the enounter but the whole story arc to the specific characters, and to develop what they encounter in vivid detail, while leaving things they won't encounter vague. It allows a DM to concentrate his effort (and often limitted time) on just the bits of his 'world' that matter. Of course, 'railroading' is really just such an aproach done badly (it becomes obvious, and it stops being fun). If a DM -does- put a balor against the party at 3rd level, she is A) rail-roading, or B) doesn't understand what's going on. Or the players just decided to tackle something that the DM had placed, because it made sense to the world (there's a balor in the keep of Balthazaar the Demonologist), not because he expected the PCs to go after it. People would rather play the characters they want to play, and you can only punish the party so long for not having a tank, a healer, etc before it becomes old hat and they're fed up, angry, or just tired of the game. It's not a matter of 'punishing,' just of either the DM modifying the challenges to match the party, or the party modifying it's strategy to suit it's capabilities. Just as you wouldn't go up against a balor at 3rd level, even if you happen to find out where one is, you wouldn't volunteer to take on an undead army if you're a gang of rogues, even if a 'normal' party of your level might've been able to handle it. Also, don't use something I didn't say to try and prove your point in the discussion. I said a DM should take into consideration your character's strengths and weaknesses when she works out the campaign and the world. I never said every encounter should be built to work against your character's strength.I don't see where say you said that... :confused: As I understand what I thought you did say, a single-PC campaign should be 100% tailored challenges. That means that combat challenges faced by a fighter would be relatively tough compared, say to combat challenges faced by a rogue; while, conversely, traps encounterd by the fighter would mostly have low DCs to find, and be able to be bypassed fairly easily (or simply endured), while those facing a rogue would be much more cunningly concealed and require successful disarming. That sort of thing, right? I'll agree as far as, yes, if your'e going to tailor encounters, that's the way to do it. I just can't agree that all - or even any - encounters /need/ to be tailored. (It's just that any overpowering 'status quo' encounter should be avoidable in some sense). If your character is a fighter, but your DM had worked on a stealth-heavy/diplomacy-heavy game, then it's absurd to continue with that style of game, since most encounters are always going to work against your character's weaknesses. Nod. And, presumably, the fighter's actions would probably quickly change it. For instance, if an intrigue campaign is based around the goal of avoiding a war between two kingdoms, and the fighter character brough into it misses all the Sense Motive rolls he needed to make to find out about the intrigue, then, obviously, he fails to stop the war - and you can skip ahead to the war itself, where his participation might make a difference.... However there should be NO forced encounters where, if you can't do something, the game is over (unless both the player and the DM are fine with the game being over). Well, since you object to the concept of railroading, there should be no forced encounters at all, right? In any case, I agree with you: if you place an unavoidable challenge, it had better be a tailored challenge. But the game being over due to something the character couldn't possibly deal with is rail roading, and inexcusable. Only if he's not given any other option but to go in against the no-win scenario. D&D, formost and lastly, is a game. It's for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. If people aren't having fun most of the time, then the point is lost. Nod. That's why the idea of both status-quo and tailored encounters is included. Both have thier positives and thier drawbacks when it comes to building the most enjoyable campaign possible.
tiercel 04-12-06, 10:29 PM	If it were a solo campaign, I would be tempted to make a character that would do things I couldn't normally do in a regular campaign -- because if I got tied up in them, I'd be hogging the DM while he tried to deal with what I was up to, because I would hog the spotlight, because the other PCs aren't capable of doing them. Stealth is an obvious one. Hide and Move Silently, in a normal campaign, is often limited to "sneak around a little bit and come back and report." A solo stealth character could make an entire campaign career about getting in and out of sticky situations without being seen or heard. Heavy social RP is another. Sure, you can play the party "face" in a normal campaign during a RP-heavy situation, but players who want some more combat, or just feel unable to contribute much to an extended sequence when you have Diplomacy +17 and they have Diplomacy 0. A solo socialite could get into extended intrigue sequences quite easily, not to mention recruit the allies that your PC might like to have around when combat does become inevitable. Both of these have definite advantages that address the big challenge of solo campaigns -- your PC is (mostly) solo. On an enemy crit or blown save you might have to start all over because you don't have a partymate to defend/heal/save you. The advantage to stealth and social is that you are deliberately avoiding fights and so minimizing your exposure to combat -- an approach which is usually difficult to pull off in a typical adventuring party. Partly it would depend how willing the DM would be to run a more stealth or intrigue oriented campaign, since it would be a significantly different set of challenges than usual D&D combat challenges. I think it could be a lot of fun to focus on playing a character in a way I wouldn't be able to otherwise, though. For an urban stealth/intrigue game, it would be fun to break out the full potential of rogue or bard. If you have the urge to play a true wilderness "lone wolf," ranger could be a load of fun. These classes would all play much differently solo than as part of a party, and I think that would be the fun of it.
SevenOfSerenity 04-13-06, 09:27 AM	Certainly. The world it's set in doesn't need to be different, though, and you /could/ put a solo character through, say, a module designed for a standard party - that individual would just have to be at least 4 levels higher than the party would've been (just based on CR/EL). I'm not so sure a hard rule of ~4 levels over would be appropriate, it would really depend on the sort of character. Levels don't translate into extra actions, and actions in a round is a character's most limited resource (it's hard for a soloist to heal herself well, depending on the enemy, since it does nothing to further along the fight except drag on the inevitable [healing doesn't make the monsters any deader]). Though that's not really here nor there, but it's a fair guideline. Again, that's a stylistic issues. Some DMs just don't worry about the sorts of challenges they present to the the group - they figure the players are clever and will handle it, or figure out they can't handle it and avoid it Generally, there will be someone to take the hits, heal the hurts, do lots of damage, and find/disarm traps. D&D was designed around four people, and it's no coincidence that there are four main roles in a group. You could argue that the "face" role counts as a fifth, but usually one or more of the party members can do that anyway (well-placed spells or a skill or two). For the most part, you really don't need to worry about the type of challenges you'll throw a typical adventuring group, since more than likely, they will have the means to overcome it. The more people, naturally, the more roles they can fill easily and more thoroughly. The less people, the less roles. With a solo game, it is much harder and punishing to go with a "status-quo" -- the likelihood of you putting up your solo player against an counter that she cannot overcome without miraclous rolls, many more levels than the challenge was designed for, or simply impossible to overcome, is much more likely; in fact, I'd say at least twice as likely, if not much more. It does, of course, come down to what classes the player is and how effectively she min/max'd her soloist to being able to fillfil multiple roles (to an extent). My point: because of the way the game mechanics work, you can't look at a soloist and solo campaign the same way you can as any other. The solo player as fourth the resources and actions she can perform, and she has no or few (NPCs who may tag-along) people she can fall back on or count to cover her weaknesses in a way a real party can (the wizard doesn't have to worry so much about being a melee fighter, the fighter can protect her). As such, you will have to take into account the player's character, and her character's strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and so forth. You can't leave anything to granted. Even your "status-quo" challenges you will have to make sure will not end up as a game-killer because the solo character cannot overcome it. Again, as I mentioned previously, I am not advocating the use of "kid gloves", nor am I saying the player should think herself invicible -- if the game ends due to her own choice or when she fails an encounter she should be able to overcome, then that's just tough luck, for the most part. It isn't just up to the player to worry about all the bases she can cover or having to min/max her character to survive -- the DM has to do the same. She has to min/max her campaign so that it's survivable. There can be no expectation or assumptions, you (as a DM), really have to have an understanding of the character, your campaign, and the player. It's then just a matter of style whether the DM specifically an exclusively throws such tailored power-level encounters at the solo PC, or leaves the player to pick his way through a status-quo world, seeking them out - or does the more usual thing of some of each... (I don't even know why there are "types" of games. It's my opinion that all games need to be tailored to the characters, it's only common sense. No, that doesn't mean "the characters always win" or no "every encounter goes against the character's strengths", no that doesn't mean "it's easy mode", no it doesn't mean "railroading" or "giving an illusion of challenge", or anykind of rubbish like that. This goes for module, premade adventures and campaigns, too). Being able to pick and choose your adventures is a luxury that groups might not have, and does help out the solo player, since she can do what she wants. But if you're giving her the luxury of picking the sort of adventures she wants, why are you even bothering with "status-quo" places? It's highly unlikely she'll pick something that she'll have a hard or impossible time with, in effect, "tailoring" the game anyway. I just don't see why there's a point in "status quo", whether solo game or not (see my above rant ;) ). Actually, there is. An adventure or campaign can have a very linear structure, or a variety of avenues that all inevitably lead to the same end. Either way it's 'railroading,' but, if done well, it won't detract from the player's enjoyment. That's not necissarily rail-roading, at least in my opinion. So long as you give your player(s) opportunity to leave the "main story" whenever and for however long she wants (even forever), then that's fine. Forcing your players to a storyline for a varying of reasons (most often, it seems, because you have no other "stories" to tell or places planned out) is what I'm so against. If you can form a storyline that keeps the players' attentions without you having to force them to it, congrats! :) That's good DM'ing. It allows a DM to concentrate his effort (and often limitted time) on just the bits of his 'world' that matter. Quite frankly, the only parts of the world "that matters" are the ones that the player(s) are interested in. If it's too much work, you could always ask the players to give you ideas of settings, organizations, etc. Maybe even have them work out encounters and dungeons with you doing a little fine tining so they don't remember it (could be as easy as flipping the map). Forcing the character(s) into an area just because you want them there is poor DMing, plain and simple. Or the players just decided to tackle something that the DM had placed, because it made sense to the world (there's a balor in the keep of Balthazaar the Demonologist), not because he expected the PCs to go after it. It really depends on how you want to go about it. Not everything in a dungeon, building, place, etc, is there 24/7. Just because you wrote "balor" in the creature section of room 17 of Balthazaar's Keep doesn't mean the balor doesn't leave for business, isn't summoned elsewhere, or isn't taking a vacation, or whatever. Even if you decide the balor is there, it doesn't mean the balor is going to kill the PCs, either. Instead, the balor could toy with them and let them run off (like a cat playing with a mouse), enslave them, coerce them into some diabolical pact, etc. Depending on the PCs actions, it might result in her death, though at least it was her choice and not DM railroading/poor planning (at least, not 100%). It's not a matter of 'punishing,' just of either the DM modifying the challenges to match the party, or the party modifying it's strategy to suit it's capabilities. Just as you wouldn't go up against a balor at 3rd level, even if you happen to find out where one is, you wouldn't volunteer to take on an undead army if you're a gang of rogues, even if a 'normal' party of your level might've been able to handle it. Whether or not the DM intentionally punishes players or not, if you continually play against the player's weaknesses, then it can definately come off like that. Again, this is mostly not a problem in tailored encounters vs status-quo, and in situations where PCs have a choice. However if the DM have a trend of putting lots of traps (for whatever reason) when there is no rogue, then I garuntee the players will see themselves as being punished for one of them not being the rogue and instead being what they want. This goes for any kind of situation (no "tank", no "healer", no "utility", etc etc). To tie this in to the solo campaign, it's mostly the same. You shouldn't put a lot of traps against a character with little/no trapfinding ability, you shouldn't put swarms of enemies against someone who has no way to deal with such numbers, etc. If the character has means to deal with most situations, great! If she doesn't, don't punish her for her choices (intentual or not). As I understand what I thought you did say, a single-PC campaign should be 100% tailored challenges. That means that combat challenges faced by a fighter would be relatively tough compared, say to combat challenges faced by a rogue; while, conversely, traps encounterd by the fighter would mostly have low DCs to find, and be able to be bypassed fairly easily (or simply endured), while those facing a rogue would be much more cunningly concealed and require successful disarming. That sort of thing, right? Pretty much, yup. I'll agree as far as, yes, if your'e going to tailor encounters, that's the way to do it. I just can't agree that all - or even any - encounters /need/ to be tailored. (It's just that any overpowering 'status quo' encounter should be avoidable in some sense). I'll have to disagree with your disagreement :P . I think that all encounters, in all campaigns, need to have some form of tailoring. Even if it's as little as looking over the encounters, then looking at your character's abilities, and making sure it's all okay (which can lead to tweaking the difficulty to a tad easier, or even harder). While a group of all front-liners (has happened to me before) will be able to dominate most melee engagements, they're frequently very weak in most all other categories. You could always try to convince one or more of them to make a different type of character (I'd only do this if that person wasn't really interested in the character anymore, for whatever reasons) -- I wouldn't push it on anyone or force them to "take one for the team". It's easier on everyone, but easier doesn't always mean enjoyable. The group will have a much harder or even impossible time if you don't alter some things, and you might also need to make some things more difficult if the situation warrents it. Nod. That's why the idea of both status-quo and tailored encounters is included. Both have thier positives and thier drawbacks when it comes to building the most enjoyable campaign possible. I find tailored encounters having many more positives than drawbacks, while the opposite being true for status-quo. Though I may have to reread that section, and if i'm not mistaken, they're mostly guidelines to newer DMs. I'm glad that for the most part we agree on a lot of things. My reply's long winded, but I wanted to try and explain my point as best I could. :embarrass
babysamurai 04-13-06, 09:50 AM	Expert - all the way.
Votan 04-13-06, 10:22 AM	I think that all encounters, in all campaigns, need to have some form of tailoring. Even if it's as little as looking over the encounters, then looking at your character's abilities, and making sure it's all okay (which can lead to tweaking the difficulty to a tad easier, or even harder). While a group of all front-liners (has happened to me before) will be able to dominate most melee engagements, they're frequently very weak in most all other categories. You could always try to convince one or more of them to make a different type of character (I'd only do this if that person wasn't really interested in the character anymore, for whatever reasons) -- I wouldn't push it on anyone or force them to "take one for the team". It's easier on everyone, but easier doesn't always mean enjoyable. I think we are all overlooking the indirect issues of tailoring. In the real world, people focus on where there skills are. If you have an ex-CIA computer hacker and an ex-Army Ranger, it is likely that the mercenary in africia will be the Ranger and the Corporate Espionage Guy will be the computer hacker. it could go the other way but people pick things that they can do. A well rounded team tends to do everything (thus all adventures are open). But a solo rogue isn't wandering into ghast-yard graves without an exceptionally good reason. In the same sense, Timmy the cleric isn't likely to rob the mansion of the Thief King. Joe the wizard isn't going to be leading military assaults on magic resistent golems or providing bodyguard services to the local Red Wizard. And the Kruge the Barbarian isn't going to take on a quest to find ancient lore. As a result, a certain amount of tailoring will happen in that a properly played character would need motivation to go seriously against type. Timmy is going to wander down the ghast-yard and smite undead in the name of Pelor if all of these missions are around. Being forced to play against type every once in a while is realistic but if the game is only creating scenarios for fighters than that should be made obvious upfront.
Dark Brandon 04-13-06, 10:27 AM	I'd probably do cleric or druid/Rogue or cleric or druid/Bard.
Illion the Red 04-13-06, 11:28 AM	The blunt fact is that Solo Campaigns are inherrently different than group campaigns. There is no "best" class for a solo campaign. This is something that the DM and the Player should work out together. If you do no do so, you will likely have either a terribly un-fun or terminally short campaign. Remember, if the lone PC dies in a Solo campaign...the campaign's over. Sure there's a few tricks to get around such a situation, but most of them are flat-out contrivances. Therefore, the campaign SHOULD be tailored to the skills and abilities of the PC. This does not mean that there should be no challenge. A room full of high-CR traps IS a challenge for a Rogue trapmonkey. It's tailored to his strengths, but it is a challenge with real consequences for the PC nonetheless.
solbergb 04-13-06, 11:54 AM	One thing that really helps a solo game is some challenges where the consequences of failure are imprisonment/slavery/humiliation/loss of status/loss of equipment rather than character death. Or where the consequences of failure don't land on the PC head, but rather on those they care about. One reason solo superhero campaigns are easy is the genre is such that the heroes rarely die (they're too tough generally for thugs to kill, and the BBEG's use deathtraps rather than a coup-de-grace). An example in the old Greyhawk setting of a good environment for a solo campaign would be the 1st edition vault of the drow, weirdly. Elves live a long time, even the chaotic evil types don't casually kill each other off. It isn't an accident that their most effective poison was a sleep poison, and everyone uses expendible minions to "keep score". If you really screw up, you could end up dominated/enslaved or just beholden to your worst enemy. But "death is too good for you." Another possibility is the "life insurance" option. The adventurer carries something on his person saying (in many languages) "If you take my body to this temple, you will be rewarded with no questions asked" and he keeps enough on deposit with the temple to get him raised and pay off anyone who brings in the body (even if it is the guys who killed him). Not much use against a hungry dire bear, but pretty handy if the bandit crits with his bow. Alternately he could be part of something larger. In the Bandit Kingdoms region of Living Greyhawk, the government is "Iuz" and his flunkies, and there are a lot of folks out there sympathetic to those who resist Iuz, but are too afraid to do anything. Adventurers with enough "infamy" (ie, famous for striking against Iuz) get the benefit that when they die and their bodies aren't recovered, they "mysteriously" turn up at a friendly (secret) temple...ie the local peasants or clerks or whatever get their hands on the remains and spirit it away. In a chaotic society like the bandit kindoms, they're unlikely to get caught, and it strikes a blow against the oppressor. On the flipside, he could be part of a military or spy organization that actually sends out recovery squads for their field agents. Or (another favor I've seen in Living Greyhawk) if you rescued someone else from death or a group from TPK, maybe they return the favor (with a chance of failure based on how dangerous an encounter you were in when you died). If you are high enough level to have friends who cast 9th level spells, a True Rez doesn't even need a body...
SevenOfSerenity 04-13-06, 12:19 PM	@Votan: That's one of the points I was trying to convey. In a standard party, most roles are *likely* covered, and you have much more room to challenge your party. In a solo game, the types of challenges are not as varying in difficulty (depending where your strengths and weaknesses lie). A fighter may be able to deal with a couple of very weak, low CR traps. A wizard may survive a melee fight against opponents of half his level in CR, etc. I agree people tend to focus on what they're good at and what they've decided to do with themselves -- a reason why I think trying to "cover all your bases" in a solo campaign is usually silly. The DM has to play their part in making sure the campaign is suited for your character (if it isn't, then what's the point?). @Illion the Red: I wholehearted agree.
Sunrider 04-13-06, 01:04 PM	In a solo game, the types of challenges are not as varying in difficulty (depending where your strengths and weaknesses lie). A fighter may be able to deal with a couple of very weak, low CR traps. A wizard may survive a melee fight against opponents of half his level in CR, etc. I agree people tend to focus on what they're good at and what they've decided to do with themselves -- a reason why I think trying to "cover all your bases" in a solo campaign is usually silly. The DM has to play their part in making sure the campaign is suited for your character (if it isn't, then what's the point?). Not quite - in fact, it is very possible for a solo character to overcome the same challenges as a standard party of four. Just don't expect the method to be anything like the typical blast-in/blast-out approach of a standard game. In a solo game, you still have almost all the resources that would be present in a four-player game. The key difference is the location of these resources - whereas in a standard party most of the commonly-used resources will be within the party, in a solo game most of these resources will be outside the party. Whether you need arcane magic, healing or some extra muscle, it's all still available - you just need to know how to get it. In essence, it's not difficult for a solo rogue or spellcaster to change a so-called 'difficult' challenge into one that's not so difficult after all - all it takes is a bit of creative thinking and a willingness to take an alternative to the 'lone wolf' approach. For example, a rogue can turn what seems like an undead-clearing mission into an exercise in diplomacy (get someone else to risk their soul... then devise a scheme to keep the profits), a stronghold assault into an infiltration/subterfuge mission (sneak in, poison the water supply and disable the portcullis) or a battle into a farce (sneak in, falsify orders, distribute false maps, mislead enemy forces and generally cause chaos). A spellcaster can do the same thing with spells instead of skills, while a bard has both options available. Combat classes are kinda screwed, since they're basically one-trick ponies - if they can't outfight it, there isn't a lot they can do. But, for everyone else, going solo isn't such a bad deal. On another note, if you plan on playing a solo campaign (especially a non-gestalt campaign), try to convince your DM to give you a higher-than-normal point-buy. Not so much for the extra damage, hitpoints, power points or attack rolls (since these are all relative to what your opponents have), but for the extra skill points. Personally, I use 42 point buy for solo, non-gestalt Forgotten Realms campaigns (a high-powered setting), as opposed to 32 points for a standard party - the extra points don't tend to overpower a solo character as they would a party, and also adds somewhat to verisimilitude, in that only a truly exceptional character would even think of going it alone in the Realms.
OravennasBrother 04-13-06, 01:44 PM	I, and some other experienced DM's I know, never dumb down the realism of a game that way. When I run an adventure, I make sure there's at least one challenge for each type of character: at least one trap or puzzle, at least one battle against a horde of weaker minions, at least one strong high level BBEG, at least one situation that can be resolved by roleplaying or at least social skill checks, at least one situation where stealth and discretion are desirable, and at least one situation where the direct approach is best. I find it stretches my suspension of disbelief that EVERY adventure will contain each of those challenges. That said I prtially agree that ANY class can make it through a one person campaign. One option is to forse teh DM to play the missing 3 PC's. Otherwise the different classes will each, if run by a proactive player, go with their strengths. A solitary Fighter may seek out situations where a "Blank Shield" is needed, not randomly adventure throught he wilderness or plunge into underground lairs. A solitary Wizard may seek funding for an expedition, with him in charge, to explore uncharted sea lanes. A solitary Rogue may decide to stay in an Urban environ and STEAL for a living. Or if one insists on some sort of quest structure (the cliche "Save the Kingdom/World/Existance" campaign) you can still be part of a team with NPC's filling the other roles. Then any class which could fit into a group could be played - in ohter words ANY class. My personal favorite for solitaire play is a Ranger - I get to sneak past a guarded perimeter, get close to the enemy wizard, and CDG him while he sleeps. Then I melt into the mist and begin seeking the signs of the next evil wizard.
Ryusage 04-13-06, 04:08 PM	IMHO, paladin. basically, you're decent with the bow, you're a great melee combatant, you can heal your own wounds, and you get high charisma (think Leadership, diplomacy, gather information and sense motive) I can see why some people would say bards because it's pretty much the same thing. I choose paladin because of the (sort of) extensive healing abilities.
Votan 04-13-06, 04:49 PM	In a solo game, you still have almost all the resources that would be present in a four-player game. The key difference is the location of these resources - whereas in a standard party most of the commonly-used resources will be within the party, in a solo game most of these resources will be outside the party. Whether you need arcane magic, healing or some extra muscle, it's all still available - you just need to know how to get it. In essence, it's not difficult for a solo rogue or spellcaster to change a so-called 'difficult' challenge into one that's not so difficult after all - all it takes is a bit of creative thinking and a willingness to take an alternative to the 'lone wolf' approach. For example, a rogue can turn what seems like an undead-clearing mission into an exercise in diplomacy (get someone else to risk their soul... then devise a scheme to keep the profits), a stronghold assault into an infiltration/subterfuge mission (sneak in, poison the water supply and disable the portcullis) or a battle into a farce (sneak in, falsify orders, distribute false maps, mislead enemy forces and generally cause chaos). A spellcaster can do the same thing with spells instead of skills, while a bard has both options available. Combat classes are kinda screwed, since they're basically one-trick ponies - if they can't outfight it, there isn't a lot they can do. But, for everyone else, going solo isn't such a bad deal. This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM and is still challenge related. If the DM allows the character to hire allies and to set these things up that is great. But it doesn't mean that the level 4 wizard fighting 3 level 1 fighters with improved trip and spiked chains in close quarters has any options. The diplomatic skills can make a game that was otherwise difficult fun but if you are trapped in the dungeon of skulls and need to fight your way to the surface as a rogue facing mindless undead it's going to be a long and painful game.
The_Levitator 04-13-06, 06:20 PM	OK, I've read all 4 pages and I'm starting to get confused. Doesn't ANYONE use NPC's anymore? I am currently running 2 solo campaigns for 2 of my players who are also in our main group. I don't force them to live a life of solitude in their campaigns. I would think that would be really boring as a player. I'm not bashing anyone here, I guess I am just trying to understand everyone's definition of a solo campaign. That said, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference which character you select. I have found that the key to good solo gaming is being able to find the right people to help you accomplish your goals. Finding those to assist you can turn into many sub-adventures in and of themselves. In fact, 1 of my players prefers the solo style gaming because he gets to find, create and build his contacts on his own. He prefers that to being stuck with an assortment of player-generated characters with a goofy storyline to try and logically put them all in a group. As a player, my favorite thing to was start out as a Barbarian, since they are built to be survivors. I would then multiclass with Rogue. My background is usually along the lines of country mouse becoming city mouse. I found it to be a good balance for a non-spellcasting character. If I were to go with a spellcasting character, I would go with a fighter/sorcerer. My brother is currently running a fighter/sorcerer in his campaign with me, and he seems to be having a blast! :D
OravennasBrother 04-13-06, 07:14 PM	OK, I've read all 4 pages and I'm starting to get confused. Doesn't ANYONE use NPC's anymore? Look about 3 posts above your original post.
The_Levitator 04-13-06, 07:51 PM	OOOPS!! Sorry OravennasBrother! OK, I admit it, my eyes got a little fuzzy by page 4. I have thoroughly read that post and totally agree with you. :D Cut me some slack though, it was on the 4th page! ;)
SevenOfSerenity 04-13-06, 08:34 PM	In a solo game, you still have almost all the resources that would be present in a four-player game. No, no you don't. You have 1/4th the amount of resources of a standard party. 1/4th the actions to take, 1/4th the wealth, 1/4th the options, among others. You aren't playing four (or more) characters, it's very obvious you do not have the options and resources an entire party has. In essence, it's not difficult for a solo rogue or spellcaster to change a so-called 'difficult' challenge into one that's not so difficult after all - all it takes is a bit of creative thinking and a willingness to take an alternative to the 'lone wolf' approach. The use of NPCs has nothing to do whether or not if you're in a solo game or a standard game. In fact, it's much easier for an entire party to make use of other NPCs, since they have four times (at least) wealth, actions, etc than a solo character does. Just because a solo character can "subcontract" adventures to NPCs, doesn't mean a party can't do that. In fact, it's *easier* for a party to do such, especially if they set themselves up as an official "adventuring company" of sorts. Any option a solo character has, a party has at least four times as many. The only option a solo player has over a group is that she has all the lime light and can have a depth of roleplaying in her actions that the other players in a normal campaign don't (everyone else probably gets bored when they're not involved in the roleplaying after several hours ;) ). Both types of games are limited depending on how severe any railroading is. OK, I've read all 4 pages and I'm starting to get confused. Doesn't ANYONE use NPC's anymore? Yup, and you always should. However, using NPCs cannot be the measuring stick for solo campaigns (in that it's OK to throw whatever you want at the character, she'll just use NPCS!) because it's an options open to *everyone*, solo campaign or standard. In my current game, my group makes lot of use of NPCs to bolster their combat ability and, because, well they'd rather someone else die than themselves. There's a cut of the XP and treasure, but it's better than biting the dust.
WyldMooN 04-13-06, 08:53 PM	The list is already long enough but I have to say druids. With their spell selection and their class abilities, they can fill in any role: Stealth: Felines have good hide/move silently. Add camouflage spell and a smaller size and become almost invisible! Scout: Eagles and Dire Bats have awesome spot checks plus they can fly. Dire Bats have blindsense, say goodbye sneaking rogue/invisible mage! Can also cast scrying and other divination spells Travel or Escape: Burrow, Swim, Climb or fly as you wish Canon: Druids has lots of decent direct damage spell such as call lighting, flaming sphere and creeping cold Restoration: Access to cure spells, plus, out of combat, double effectiveness with vigor spells. Many spells to cure status or even bring back the dead Spying: Nobody will mind you if you're a horse, dog or rat Damage Dealer: Nobody beats the heck out of someone like a Dire Lion with 4 attacks Crush Spellcasters: Brown Bear/Feline/Snake/Alligator then grapple the enemy spellcaster and watch him suddently become powerless in your grasp Druids have to be the more versatile of all class, they shine above bards and rogues as they can fill in any spot in the group. They are always the next best thing
Tony Vargas 04-13-06, 09:11 PM	You aren't playing four (or more) characters, it's very obvious you do not have the options and resources an entire party has. OK, clearly, you don't have the total power/wealth/etc of a party of 4 characters of your level. But, then, hopefully, you won't be facing the challenges of a full-sized party of your level, either. I certainly agree that having 1 action vs 4 reduces your tactical options in combat drastically. However, a multiclass or otherwise generalist solo character can come pretty close to having the breadth of theoretical options of a party that'd normally face the sorts of challenges he's facing (that is, a party some 4 levels or so below his level). Not the same tactial options, because of the actions/round issue, but the same sorts of actions. In fact, the solo character will also have some options a standard iconic party won't. Sneaking past an encounter, for instance, isn't a good option for a party when the heavy-armored fighter & cleric must make stealth rolls as well as the rogue and wizard. For another, there's no in-fighting or debating when choosing a course of action, and no bungled coordination. The use of NPCs has nothing to do whether or not if you're in a solo game or a standard game. Oh, it certainly does. NPCs added to an iconic party add some power, and, of course, action in combat - but the abilities they add are probably redundant to an extend. Conversely, if you're playing a single-class, non-generalist solo character, adding the right NPCs will certainly increase your range of options - and adding any NPC, regardless, will greatly increase your options in combat (because of the # of actions issue). The solo PC simply benefits much more from adding some NPCs to his 'party' than an iconic party does. To take your very important example of number of actions, a solo character with an NPC companion has just doubled his 'party's number of actions, and largely eliminated the one-failed-save-ends-the-campaign issue (and the NPC almost certainly has some abilities he doesn't); in contrast, adding one NPC to an iconic party adds 25% to thier number of actions, and little more. So NPCs can be much more important to the solo player, making a CHA-based class more attractive, since he can have a better cohort, and probably more easily attract and maintain the loyalty of other NPCs, as well. However, using NPCs cannot be the measuring stick for solo campaigns (in that it's OK to throw whatever you want at the character, she'll just use NPCS!). Ih. A solo campaign can be solo because there's just one DM & one player available - in that case, using NPCs (or even multiple PCs) to build up an iconic party might be perfectly reasonable. Or, a 'solo campaign' (and I think this is more what the OP meant) can be a single /character/ adventuring, intentionally, by himself. Then, of course, NPCs are out-of-concept for the character. Besides, if you're looking at what class is good for soloing, NPCs do rather cloud the issue. (Though the fact that some classes will be good with NPCs, or have class abilities that give them NPC allies, really shouldn't be ignored, either.)
Sunrider 04-13-06, 09:32 PM	This requires a lot of flexibility on the part of the DM and is still challenge related. If the DM allows the character to hire allies and to set these things up that is great. But it doesn't mean that the level 4 wizard fighting 3 level 1 fighters with improved trip and spiked chains in close quarters has any options. You don't need to hire allies - all you need to do is outsource the work. Sure, it requires a lot of DM flexibility, but it should be within the realm of any halfway competent DM. Does your DM have towns? Cities? Thieves guilds? Temples? Mercenary companies? Are you the only adventurer in the entire region? If not, you will always be able to find someone willing to take on a task (for the right price, of course) - to disallow this is essentially gimping your character and forcing a combat-focused approach in a style of game where combat is exceedingly dangerous. Unless your entire world is one giant dungeon, where the only option is to go from room to room to room in a linear fashion, it will be possible to approach any particular problem from more than one angle. After all, it doesn't matter how you overcome a challenge - only that you do overcome it. As for the wizard fighting three spiked-chain fighters in close quarters, how did he or she end up in that position anyway? Wizards, even low-level ones, are intelligent enough to realise that they can't fight and, knowing that resurrection isn't likely, would take steps to avoid such a situation. If they do have to fight, better to do it in an open area than in a small room. But most of the time, if you have to fight on someone else's terms in s aolo game, you've already made a mistake. The diplomatic skills can make a game that was otherwise difficult fun but if you are trapped in the dungeon of skulls and need to fight your way to the surface as a rogue facing mindless undead it's going to be a long and painful game. If you ever end up in that position as a rogue, you've already made a series of big mistakes - either you've been captured and thrown into the dungeon, or you voluntarily entered a deathtrap without an item that allows teleportation.
Sunrider 04-13-06, 10:02 PM	No, no you don't. You have 1/4th the amount of resources of a standard party. 1/4th the actions to take, 1/4th the wealth, 1/4th the options, among others. You aren't playing four (or more) characters, it's very obvious you do not have the options and resources an entire party has. Actions only matter in combat. For that reason, and many others, combat is much more dangerous for a lone character. In terms of every other resource - it's all at your disposal. Mage guilds, temples, thieves' guilds, cities, etc. are all still there. If you need water while on the road, the well is still there, whether you have one player or four. Everything is still there - you just need to manipulate it differently from a standard party. The use of NPCs has nothing to do whether or not if you're in a solo game or a standard game. In fact, it's much easier for an entire party to make use of other NPCs, since they have four times (at least) wealth, actions, etc than a solo character does. A party will have four times as much wealth at any one time than a solo character, but this is normally tied up in equipment, magic items, etc. which they aren't willing to sell or part with - after all, if you're actually going into a monster-filled dungeon yourself, you don't want to part with your +5 sword or soulfire armour. In other words, the party has wealth, but not a lot of liquid assets (no, not potions...). In contrast, a solo character will be spending less time fighting and dungeon-crawling - magic items are far less critical then, and a solo character ends up having more liquid assets than any individual character in a party or, quite possibly, the entire party. Also, remember that a solo character will end up with a greater proportion of a mission's rewards than a party character will - just because you have one character instead of four doesn't mean the king pays you 10kgp instead of 40kgp to complete a task. Sure, you may have to spend 25kgp to arrange for the task to be completed (partly by you, partly by others), but the wealth still passes through your hands. Remember that the DMG guidelines for wealth indicate the wealth (approximately) that a character should have at any one time. For a four-member party, this means that quest rewards are split between party members and often spent on new equipment - the wealth stays within the party. For a solo character, this means that one-quarter of a quest reward goes towards the lone character, while three-quarters of it will probably go towards paying for the quest. In other words, the wealth doesn't stay within the party - most of it goes to someone else and the player still follows the wealth guidelines, but the turnover rate is much higher. It's kind of like a business - a lot of money comes in, but a lot also goes towards expenses. The overall increase in wealth for the business owner may be low- to moderate, but the cash turnover rate is high. Just because a solo character can "subcontract" adventures to NPCs, doesn't mean a party can't do that. In fact, it's *easier* for a party to do such, especially if they set themselves up as an official "adventuring company" of sorts. Most of the time, a party also doesn't gain much by subcontracting - it's a much more useful option for a solo character. Any option a solo character has, a party has at least four times as many. Only during combat. When you're not fighting, a party really has no more options than a solo character, and potentially even less (e.g. stealth, disguise and infiltration are much easier for a solo character than a party of four). When playing solo, you should capitalise on this, avoiding combat whenever possible. The only option a solo player has over a group is that she has all the lime light and can have a depth of roleplaying in her actions that the other players in a normal campaign don't (everyone else probably gets bored when they're not involved in the roleplaying after several hours ;) ). This is an -extremely- valuable option when you're trying to avoid a fight.
The_Levitator 04-13-06, 10:04 PM	Yup, and you always should. However, using NPCs cannot be the measuring stick for solo campaigns (in that it's OK to throw whatever you want at the character, she'll just use NPCS!) because it's an options open to *everyone*, solo campaign or standard. In my current game, my group makes lot of use of NPCs to bolster their combat ability and, because, well they'd rather someone else die than themselves. There's a cut of the XP and treasure, but it's better than biting the dust. I totally agree with you. I hope I didn't mean to imply that I thought of NPC's as limitless filler. I also agree that it's easier for groups getting NPC's to join a single person requires a little more creativity than a 4 person party with more resources. I think both types of gaming have their appeal.
Sunrider 04-13-06, 10:09 PM	Ih. A solo campaign can be solo because there's just one DM & one player available - in that case, using NPCs (or even multiple PCs) to build up an iconic party might be perfectly reasonable. Or, a 'solo campaign' (and I think this is more what the OP meant) can be a single /character/ adventuring, intentionally, by himself. Then, of course, NPCs are out-of-concept for the character. NPCs don't have to follow the solo character around - in that case, it's no longer a solo adventure, just a standard game with a single PC and several DMPCs. The trick to using NPCs (and NPC organisations) isn't to use them as extra party members. Rather, it's to use them to complete tasks a lone character otherwise couldn't tackle. Your job is to coordinate the various helpers you've recruited - for example, telling a hired mercernary company to hide in a particular spot (possibly getting a hired wizard to cover it with an illusion) while you sneak in, disguised as an enemy messenger, to deliver a falsified order leading an enemy unit into the ambush (which you may or may not be present for).
The_Levitator 04-13-06, 10:56 PM	I've tried to follow that guideline too I guess. I don't like the idea of a long term party forming with a majority of it being NPC's. In solo campaigning, I don't mind 1 "buddy" NPC. It does help with balancing encounters out and is a little more realistic than the eternal loner for my tastes. Even then, the "buddy" does have a life of their own and is occasionally taken away by personal things (family crisis, job opportunity, etc.) I then usually turn that NPC into a recurring character. Is that kind of a standard approach for most DM's?
Tony Vargas 04-14-06, 03:09 PM	NPCs don't have to follow the solo character around - in that case, it's no longer a solo adventure, just a standard game with a single PC and several DMPCs. That's the point I was making - there's two ways you could consider a 'solo' game: a solo /player/, vs a solo /pc/. The trick to using NPCs (and NPC organisations) isn't to use them as extra party members. Rather, it's to use them to complete tasks a lone character otherwise couldn't tackle.That's an interesting proposition, but it works towards the same sorts of classes as the idea of building a party around yourself. A high-CHA and at least one good interpersonal skill is almost essential, and a class that benefits from a high CHA (like Bard, Pally or Sorcerer - all of which also have one or more social skills) would thus be favored. OTOH, a hard-core solo PC, who counts on no one, might not need the CHA at all, and definitely needs to be very well defended (especialy vs save-or-else effects that would, in effect, end the campaign) and versatile. Thus my (much earlier) suggestion of the Monk.
Sunrider 04-15-06, 01:14 PM	That's an interesting proposition, but it works towards the same sorts of classes as the idea of building a party around yourself. A high-CHA and at least one good interpersonal skill is almost essential, and a class that benefits from a high CHA (like Bard, Pally or Sorcerer - all of which also have one or more social skills) would thus be favored. Not necessarily. A rogue/PrC would be my first choice, due to the skill points (I prefer wits to spells), but a telepath or enchanter would be just as viable, 'persuasive' spells substituting for persuasive skills. A necromancer or cleric could do the same thing with undead or outsiders, acting as a general or coordinator while others do the dirty work. Even without persuasive skills or spells, you can still get around it - after all, money talks. It may cost you a bit more, though. In any case, I don't see it so much as a case of building a party around yourself as a case of manipulating people to accomplish your tasks, for good or for ill, whether through persuasion or coercion. For starters, your network will be much larger than a standard party - a few higher-level characters (your main contacts and strike team - e.g. bounty hunters), numerous lower-level characters (probably working for your main contacts, acting as your 'hand') and even more first-level commoners (working as your eyes and ears - recruited either by you or by a spymaster working for you (maybe a trusted cohort)). Depending on the campaign, this network may start small, expanding to cover entire regions (or even between planes) as you level, with you as its head (think Jarlaxle). Alternatively, you may not have a permanent network, instead recruiting people to carry out specific tasks, paying them and moving on once the task is complete. In between, you can operate using a 'cell'-type structure - you have many small, independent cells, all over the country, unknown to each other, possibly with different skills, all answering to you; your role is to coordinate these cells, using them to carry out your tasks. How you maintain loyalty is up to you - magic, money or persuasion are all possibilities. Regardless, your setup is completely different to that of any regular party. OTOH, a hard-core solo PC, who counts on no one, might not need the CHA at all, and definitely needs to be very well defended (especialy vs save-or-else effects that would, in effect, end the campaign) and versatile. Thus my (much earlier) suggestion of the Monk. Depends on the setting - such a character is much more viable in a low- or no-magic campaign than in a high-magic campaign, due to the fewer number of save-or-dies. Playing an urban street-rat (rogue/TA) is great fun...