Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Geethree 01-30-04, 05:16 PM	Which core class is the best for adventuring alone? For the purposes of this argument, the DM is not going to suit every single adventure to the strong points of the character. This means there will be monsters, traps, perhaps some puzzles, dungeons, a bit of diplomacy, some roleplaying challenges, etc. My original thought was Bard, seeing as how they have a lot of skills, magic, and they aren't that bad at fighting (assuming you play them correctly). And, they can probably circumvent some of the more challenging monsters by either outsmarting them or fascinating them or something like that. However, Bards are not really suited for things like solo dungeon crawls or straight up combat against a lot of creatures. After a few moments of though, my list came down to these: -Monk. Good at fighting, will never be at a loss for equipment, has good HP, has essential abilities like Evasion, has limited healing powers, and at higher levels is just plain awesome. -Paladin. Great at combat, great HP, has healing powers, gets a special mount, etc. The Paladin seems like the best candidate for this. -Druid. Powerful spellcasting, good HP, decent at combat (especially combined with the animal companion), and is pretty versatile (Wild Shape is helpful). -Cleric. Similar to Druid, and is a much better healer. The Cleric has the capability to keep himself alive for a much longer time. -Ranger. Probably the most versatile combat-oriented class. The Ranger excels at combat, has numerous skills, gets magic, has an animal companion, etc.
Hogre 01-30-04, 05:35 PM	A tough question. I would probably have to go with monk. A bard alone is pretty hamstrung. The bard has a lot of abilities that make him a great part of a team, but individually he isn't that great. Cleric and Druid are tempting. Neither has a very good way of dealing with traps though. I know what you are thinking. "Neither does the monk". But the monk does have great saves that will allow him to pretty much ignore setting off all the traps. Paladins are a possible choice. Their saves can be close to the monks, especially at low levels.
Illithid Tentacles 01-30-04, 05:37 PM	I'd go druid or bard, myself.
Aramek 01-30-04, 07:16 PM	I vote Monk. My favorite core class other than mine.
Geethree 01-30-04, 07:28 PM	Cleric and Druid are tempting. Neither has a very good way of dealing with traps though. I know what you are thinking. "Neither does the monk". But the monk does have great saves that will allow him to pretty much ignore setting off all the traps.Theoretically, the Druid could use his animal companions to "disable" potentially life-threatening traps. It's evil, yeah, but it's an option. But you're right. The monk has all good saves, and Evasion early on will save him a lot of HP.
ManTimeForgot 01-30-04, 07:51 PM	Single core class? I'd have to say rogue, though this is really a tough decision. You said that it does not cater to the strengths of the class. That means just about any trap will mean instant death for any class except a rogue. That said if traps were a non-factor, then the ranger is the clear winner. The ranger can survive on his own: getting his own food, getting his own water, killing his own enemies, and eventually gets to augment these with further skills, abilities, and magics. The problem here is really what campaign we are talking about. In a campaign which does not have a lot of urban traps, then the ranger is still the winner. Detect snares and pits lets the ranger get away with not having the traps ability. A simple multiclass of one level of rogue and the rest ranger would be the single best survivable character there is. Such a character could detect any trap (search is class skill for ranger), has access to healing, has access to magic and an animal companion, has good BAB, good fighting skill, and good survival skills. But since you say no multiclass I think a JoAT rogue is probably the best bet. He won't be a social min/max for sure, but with use of feats on skills I think he would be the most survivable. If the game started at higher level the wizard or sorceror would be the clear winner, but the wizard/sorceror has to get teleport before it becomes even playable alone. The ranger (druid and barbarian don't have track to start) begins the game as totally self-sufficient. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
meabolex 01-30-04, 08:00 PM	Tested and approved: The Bard. While against a fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric, the bard isn't as good, he shares all of their abilities. inspire courage/greatness/heroics = fighter's combat ability 6 x int skills + magic support = rogue's skillfulness the cure spells on list + UMD = cleric's healing ability the powerful arcane enchantment spells + UMD = wizard's spellcasting Yes, you won't be able to detect magic traps. Yes, you'll probably be better at running than fighting. But, in a single-player campaign, staying alive is very important -- no team is going to raise you if you get hit by phantasmal killer. A bard is well-rounded and very well suited to the single life. You can also use the fascinate/suggestion combo to the biggest effect -- seek out high-powered merchants/nobility and suggestion them again and again.
Geethree 01-30-04, 08:08 PM	For more info about the type of game, here are some basic characteristics. Though every challenge will be implemented (monsters and social, traps and puzzles), the emphasis will be more on classic adventuring. In other words, you'll spend more time in the dungeons and forests than in the cities. This means that the bard can't just run away from the dungeon, use suggestion on a noble and get an army of soldiers to fight a green dragon for him. There will be one-on-one showdowns with powerful monsters. However, the smarter characters will be able to see them coming and can plan ahead. This means that a Bard could theoretically try to bargain with a dragon, or he could set up an elaborate trap. However, he has to directly confront it at some time. Magic items/weapons/armor will be abundant and about on par with a standard D&D game. This means that characters will start getting stuff like +1 weapons and potions around 3rd level. To level the playing field a bit more, Magic Shops will be commonly available to the PC. The campaign will take the character from 1st to 20th level. This means there will be almost every single kind of encounter imaginable. Assassinations, defeating a beholder, convincing a senile king to stop invading another country, etc. This also means that the PC will fight many, many monsters. Or at least have to defeat them in some way. This means monsters like golems which cannot be bargained with or sneak attacked. EDIT: I used the phrase "this means" too many times in this post.
DrakaraGM 01-30-04, 09:04 PM	I like Monks...and Bards are fun too, both would have an edge in avoidance (by saves and speed or by bluff and negotiation respectively)...but the unavoidable one-on-one battles could be tough. But for this situation, I think perhaps Cleric -- with the Magic domain, so as to be able to use wands (and to a lesser extent scrolls) of arcane spells, some VERY useful low level arcane spells can be very helpful to a solo Cleric. Essentially, Magic domain gives the Cleric many of the advantages the Bard would have, in terms of being able to use some nice devices that complement his own not-too-shabby spell capabilities. A wand of fireballs for instance makes encounters with multiple lesser CR creatures a lot less scary... (Boom! Out go the orcs...) For the other domain, hard to say -- but one of the ones that makes the character a more powerful fighter wouldn't be all that bad for some of those one-on-one big bad monster foes..the ones you cannot just negotiate with. Or alternatively, something like Trickery to provide some pseudo-stealth capability. Yep -- intelligent (or at least lucky) domain choice could be crucial in making a cleric fit the situation... Divination spells could provide trap warnings, and summoned creatures could provide crucial assistance in many tasks -- if the cleric cannot summon what he needs on his own, that Wand of Summon Monster III or IV may well provide very useful temporary minions for a wide variety of situation. Guilt-free minions too -- they don't actually die when they get killed, they just go home! Yep, I'd go with Cleric, and hope I was consistently smart in my selection of magic items and spells prepared... Also, putting a decent score in CHA has its own advantages for a Cleric, ontop of providing some ability to socialize. And at higher levels, the 1/2-caster-level for using scrolls means that the character might actually be able to successfully cast some fairly high level arcane spells, so scrolls might become more useful as wands are becoming less so...
NZCardinal 01-30-04, 09:26 PM	Although probably far too weak at early levels, a wizard (preferably with summoning spells to help screw the odds) could make a feasable solo adventurer. The familiar will help a lot here too. I'm thinking sorcerer would be too limited in his spell choices. In my opinion the Cleric (again with summons) would be the ultimate solo character. Good armour and weaponry will help the cleric here, and some divinations will make themselves useful. Of course there will certainly be areas which will be challenging for the sole cleric, especially in terms of skills. If multiclassing was allowed I'd be inclined to say Cleric/Rogue favouring the Cleric class and only going a couple of levels of rogue to help round off the skills.
Czahkiswashi 01-30-04, 11:18 PM	Clerics. With a decent BAB and saves, as well as armor and pretty good HP his only downfalls is skills, but his spells eventually can overcome all of this, and he has healing-essencial for soloing
Scarlet Knight 01-31-04, 12:17 AM	That's actually why I was thinking I would pick the druid, Czahkiswashi. Druids have a lot of the same advantages clerics enjoy, plus better skills.
Shiido 01-31-04, 12:22 AM	All for the monk. Paladins are restricted by too many rules so i don't travel with or use them at all, i would eliminate one before i would travel with one
Tony Vargas 01-31-04, 12:49 AM	It's an interesting question. The Bard certainly is in the running, as it has the most diverse mix of abilities - arcane magic, skills, combat, & healing. However, it depends on how the encounters are balanced. Obviously, no individual character is going to have a chance going through encounters that are balanced for a whole party at his level. If the chalenges are generally 'balanced' for a single character of his level, the Bard probably will do very well. OTOH, if the lone PC will have to take on CRs comparable to what a whole party might face, the more potent Cleric might be preferable. Clerics might blunder into traps once in a while, but thier self-healing ability should give them the staying power to deal with anything that doesn't insta-kill them. Which brings up the point that no one stands up to save-or-die threats like the all-good-save Monk. The monk also has some slight healing ability and a relative independence from magic items... and he can run away real good. In a 'standard' setup, though, the item-independence will actually work against him - there are many potent items that would be useless to a monk... So, in that sense, a Rogue might be a good choice. If the CR of the monsters he faces is generally below his level, the rogue's combat abilities - even without sneak attack - should be adequate, and his ability to Use Magic Diveces will let him take full advantage of the broad range of items he may come across. Clearly out of the running are the more specialized Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard and Sorcerer. Though they might be able to handle a broad range of encounters well below thier CR, these classes would quickly succumb to typical challenges - lack of healing would make it hard for them to face multiple encounters, and a single weapon- or magic- immune encounter (respectively) could doom them. Paladins and Rangers have some magic and healing to call upon, so could do better than pure fighters... but, I suspect, not a lot better. A Driud might be a good choice - with both solid offensive spells, and healing and the help of an animal companion... but, in a 'typical' dungeon-heavy campaign, there could easily be challenges that would be simply beyond them. I think it comes down to how the campaign is balanced. If the sheer power of the threats faced isn't much less than would be faced by a typical party, the Cleric has the best chance - his combination of armor, spells, and healing gives a chance of survival. If the campaign is balanced in the types of chalenges and rewards - but balanced 'low' (that is, with most encounters being several CRs below the character's level), then the Bard could do very well, and so might the Rogue. If the campaign is varied in challenges, but with rewards that are rather stingy or not very diverse, the Monk might be the best bet.
meabolex 01-31-04, 01:09 AM	One decently difficult unplanned swim/climb/balance check (20's range) will take out a cleric. The armor is simply too heavy, and most clerics don't have a maxed out strength score. A cleric has one primary weakness -- skills. The monk is a better class for a solo campaign. The healing ability later on and the great abilities and mobility give him an edge. The only reason I'd put him under a bard is because the bard has UMD, which is an essential skill to emulate the abilities of spellcasting classes. The bard is also more social, which allows him to survive in roleplaying situations the monk wouldn't be able to handle. The rogue can't do much at all against undead, elementals, oozes, plants, and constructs other than flee. The bard, although enchantment based, has simply more options. The readily available invisibility/silence makes the bard less equipment-based. Bardic music combined with buff magic makes the bard more combat-oriented.
NZCardinal 01-31-04, 03:42 AM	One thing that may spell certain doom for a sole dungeoneer is whether or not they have to sleep in the dungeon. The 1st level arcane spell "Alarm" will be useful here, available to wizards, sorcerors and bards, and also as a divine spell to rangers. Just a thought. I'm still inclined to say the cleric will rock though.
Vysirez 01-31-04, 04:04 AM	I would have to vote for druids. They would have some difficulty up til 5th, then things would get a lot better. Druids have a very nice range of spellcasting, they have ok skills, they can melee well when wildshaped, they get fairly good hps, they can bypass a lot of trap either through spells or wildshape. A druid character can also afford to let physical stats be a lot lower then say a cleric becuase of wildshape. Because of this they can afford better mental stats for more skills and cha for some boosts to social arenas. For example a 32 point buy could get Str - 10 Dex - 10 Con - 14 Int - 14 Wis - 16 Cha - 14 Druids also gets an animal companion as a class feature. Add in leadership and you can have a good amount of backup for a "solo" PC. After a druid I would have to say a cleric with the right domains. Trickery and travel for example would grant a wide range of abilities not normally thought of as a clerics arena. Travel gives access to highly useful spells like fly and teleport, plus the freedom of movement granted power is pretty darned useful for a solo character. And trickery helps with the skills situation somewhat. Fly plus invis would allow you to "sneak" past a lot of troubles. I would also have to add that any character who doesnt have some sort of healing ability is going to be severly handicapped. Having to either spend a lot of cash on healing magic or resting for multiple days between each battle is a bad idea generally.
Urlithani 01-31-04, 04:32 AM	I vote for Rogue. At later levels, Use magic device is a real winner. Wands of searing light, healing, and other stuff help you deal with things a rogue couldn't normally handle.
Fiendish Dire Weasel 01-31-04, 05:36 AM	It would depend on the nature of the game, in general though I think the best would be a Druid. After that I think Monk, Ranger & Bard all come real close too each other and not terribly far away from the Druid. Clerics and Rogues wouldn't be too far behind in the third spot. I think Paladins lack too many skills needed to get around and while Wizards could challenge Druids at high levels maybe, I don't know if/how they could make it through the first 5-10 levels. In fact, if you're taking all 20 levels into account, Sorcerer may beat the Wizard just due to extra spells low levels and good charisma for a strong Leadership score level 6+.
Sir Ferdinand 01-31-04, 05:40 AM	I believe either a Cleric or a Bard. Both can fight and cast spells (including healing). And both are good diplomats (depends on how the Cleric is built), and Bards also have lots of other skills. No other class can do these things, but from those two, I really don't know which one would do better.
Geethree 01-31-04, 02:39 PM	Monks have plenty of skills too, including Diplomacy and Perform. They are more varied than one might think.
Dwalon 01-31-04, 09:28 PM	Here are the reasons why: All simple and martial weapons available. Strong "to hit" possibilities. Rogues and Bards, and even clerics and monks will fall behind. All armors available. Roges, Bards, and Monks will fall behind in AC. Lay on Hands healing comes early. Only clerics and druids will have better healing capabilities than a paladin, but their combat effectiveness suffers in comparison. Saving throw bonuses. Since the paladin receives bonus to his saves due to a high charisma, the paladin outshines all but the monk in this regard. The traps may go off in a paladin's face, but he can save and heal the damage incurred. Social skills. High charisma offers strong diplomacy and other social skills. Only the Bard will do better than the Paladin. Mount/Cohort. Acquisition of a mount, summonable into the dungeon itself allows it to carry his/her heavy gear such as 10-ft ladders, grappling hooks, tents, etc. High charisma will allow a reasonably leveled cohort with the Leadership feat at 6th level, even with a mount subtracting 2 from the score. Magic. Has access to magical spells, better than Rogues and Monks. In all cases, the Paladin is at or near the top of all single character situations.
Geethree 01-31-04, 10:33 PM	But, as has been said, a single swim or climb check can ruin a paladin, or anyone else in heavy armor. How does the paladin get around that? And the paladin is in trouble if he is ever without his equipment.
da chicken 01-31-04, 10:37 PM	Originally posted by Geethree Theoretically, the Druid could use his animal companions to "disable" potentially life-threatening traps. It's evil, yeah, but it's an option. That's what SNA II is for! Door locked? Summon an earth elemental. Chest trapped? Summon an earth elemental.
Griffinmore 01-31-04, 11:18 PM	I guess I would have to go with either a ranger or a druid. Traps aside, a ranger is built for survival. Although not as physically tough as a brabarian or as versatile as a fighter, the ranger still has a high probability of survival, at least in my opinion. As for the druid, the fact that they can summon animals/other creatures raises their survival rating and wild shap also helps out there.
Kaya Kenobi 02-01-04, 01:03 AM	It's very subjective. It has really a lot to deal with how a campaign is run. One can say a fighter is good single player, others may say a wizard. But the one thing that always comes to mind, is a class that can do whatever they need to get out of a fix or do something... Therefore I feel the bard is one of the best for a single player. They can fight. They can make allies. They can even cast spells that help them through situations and have decent skills to help them as well. The bard is one of the most perfect classes IMHO.
Orguth the Brawler 02-01-04, 01:05 AM	This may be mildly pedantic, but I think summoning animals to set off traps would qualify as un-Druidly behavior. Even for an evil Druid; all Druids revere nature, evil ones are just more callous than good ones are. But nature is never particularly sadistic.
Geethree 02-01-04, 01:13 AM	Originally posted by Orguth the Brawler This may be mildly pedantic, but I think summoning animals to set off traps would qualify as un-Druidly behavior. Even for an evil Druid; all Druids revere nature, evil ones are just more callous than good ones are. But nature is never particularly sadistic. I disagree. I think evil Druids would throw a summoned animal at a trap. They revere nature, yes, but they revere it because it grants them power. In D&D, seflishness is one of the basic aspects of Evil. Throwing away the lives of others in order to save your own is perfectly within the realm of evil. To an evil druid, summoned animals would be considered at the best minions and at the worst tools.
Sheer_FALACY 02-01-04, 01:37 AM	I think that anyone would throw something summoned at anything. An exalted wizard would throw a summoned humanoid at a crushing trap, and should not be penalized for that. Remember, nothing that happens to a summoned creature is real; it has no effect on anything. There is no difference between sending a summoned creature to die and waiting a few rounds for it to vanish. Also, there is no difference between sending it to die in combat and sending it to die by several thousand tons of falling rock.
Geethree 02-01-04, 02:36 AM	Remember, nothing that happens to a summoned creature is real; it has no effect on anything. There is no difference between sending a summoned creature to die and waiting a few rounds for it to vanish. Also, there is no difference between sending it to die in combat and sending it to die by several thousand tons of falling rock.There's a big difference. Summoned creatures are not just magically created out of nothing. You're "borrowing" them from other planes, or perhaps even from the plane you're on. When the spell ends, the creature or elemental returns to its home plane.
Sheer_FALACY 02-01-04, 03:18 AM	True. However, there is still no difference between sending that creature to fight the great wyrm red dragon and sending it to stand on those suspicious floor tiles.
Fiendish Dire Weasel 02-01-04, 04:03 AM	believe either a Cleric or a Bard. Both can fight and cast spells (including healing). And both are good diplomats (depends on how the Cleric is built), and Bards also have lots of other skills. No other class can do these things, but from those two, I really don't know which one would do better.While these are good classes, a Druid can do everything here and more. Druids have: Healing & Cure spells, second best single core class. Offensive spells, arguably third best in this area. Buff spells, hard to say where they fall here, but they have them and they're pretty good. Animal Companion, very strong, combat oriented, free cohort. Wild shape, this is very strong and goes a long way to making the Druid an effective melee combatant. Then there are little things like 2 good saves, secondary BAB (which is more than adequite for wild shape purposes), good hit die and decent skills (4 skill points with survival, spot, listen and diplomacy as class skills). I really think that from level 1 to level 20 no single core class beats the druid in both power & versatility. Other classes may be more powerful at certain levels or more versitile, but I don't think any other class has both across as many levels as the Druid. The only real downside is traps, but that is a downside for every class other than rogues really.
logan007 02-01-04, 09:03 AM	I think a Human fighter with maxed-out ranks in Climb, Jump, and Swim is the best single class. Name any situation and I'll show you how a fighter will prevail... :) Logan007
Thunderbox 02-01-04, 11:35 AM	The cleric's really a good choice for solo adventuring. But he really su*** when it comes to skills. But if you are playing in a forgotten realms campaign setting there is a nice 1st-level spell called "wield skill" which gives you a +10 on a single skill roll. This certainly can save your live while balancing, climbing or jumping.
Kaya Kenobi 02-01-04, 11:56 AM	And then there's even good points about how a rogue is the best single player class.. It's all subjective I say..
Dwalon 02-01-04, 12:28 PM	Originally posted by Geethree But, as has been said, a single swim or climb check can ruin a paladin, or anyone else in heavy armor. How does the paladin get around that? And the paladin is in trouble if he is ever without his equipment. **** Several options: 1) Go around. 2) Find a door that will float ... make raft. 3) Use rope to tie around your gear to pull along through the water or up the slope after you've already swam or climbed the obstacle. 4) Use your social skills to convince the neutrally based kobolds in the dungeon you are inadvertently saving to help you get across as you attack their goblinoid opponents. And if all else fails, 5) Leave it. The person is always more important to the success of the mission than any inanimate gear. You've still got your wits, your combat skills, your social skills, and your healing abilities to carry you onward. If someone is scared to play a paladin for fear that they will run into a lake or a cliff, then that is simply silly. Paladins still make the best character overall, regardless.
Geethree 02-01-04, 01:31 PM	If someone is scared to play a paladin for fear that they will run into a lake or a cliff, then that is simply silly.What if the room suddenly fills with water? That is not an unknown dungeon trap. Unexpected scenarios like that could be bad for a paladin. Leave it. The person is always more important to the success of the mission than any inanimate gear. You've still got your wits, your combat skills, your social skills, and your healing abilities to carry you onward.A completely unequipped paladin is almost useless. You can still heal and maybe cast spells, but that's about it. Your superior combat skills don't help when you don't have any weapons. Your AC is probably shot to hell without your armor. Your mount may or may not even be with you considering how hard it is to navigate them through dungeons. You can't defeat a beholder through diplomatic means. If the paladin ever loses their equipment, it is extremely unlikely they'll make it through the dungeon alive.
Dwalon 02-01-04, 06:25 PM	Originally posted by Geethree What if the room suddenly fills with water? **** What if ...? Heck, there are a hundred "what if" scenarios that will do in any character type. That is why D&D is a team-based designed game to limit the weaknesses of any one class. The point is who would do the best all-around job given for a single character. With that limitation in mind, a paladin remains the best choice due to all of its benefits in combat, healing, spell casting, social skills, saving throws, and leadership potential.
Kaya Kenobi 02-01-04, 06:37 PM	Originally posted by Dwalon **** What if ...? Heck, there are a hundred "what if" scenarios that will do in any character type. That is why D&D is a team-based designed game to limit the weaknesses of any one class. The point is who would do the best all-around job given for a single character. With that limitation in mind, a paladin remains the best choice due to all of its benefits in combat, healing, spell casting, social skills, saving throws, and leadership potential. What if the room fills with water? My bard casts Gaseous Form What if I confront a great red dragon? I cast glibness and make the dragon think it's a fire newt What if? Hmm.. The bard can do quite a bit.. I like the bard. ;)
Dwalon 02-01-04, 06:52 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi What if the room fills with water? My bard casts Gaseous Form What if I confront a great red dragon? I cast glibness and make the dragon think it's a fire newt What if? Hmm.. The bard can do quite a bit.. I like the bard. ;) **** Hmmm ... I believe gas can move in air, but being in gaseous form is not necessarily wise in a room or cavern filled with water. Read the spell ... gaseous form cannot move in water. It cannot penetrate through the thicker flows of water molecules. When the spell runs out, and the bard returns to flesh, he/she will still need to swim. May as well have swam at the start rather than waste a spell. Glibness ... well ... that is a nice spell but it doesn't do as you suggested. Glibness is merely a bluff; a nice bluff mind you, but still just a bluff. Your bard may be able to convince the dragon you are the merely passing through and don't mean any harm. Bluff does not convince an adult dragon that it is a fire newt. At some point, your bard will need to conduct combat.
Geethree 02-01-04, 07:30 PM	The point is who would do the best all-around job given for a single character. With that limitation in mind, a paladin remains the best choice due to all of its benefits in combat, healing, spell casting, social skills, saving throws, and leadership potential.Except it has the glaring weakness of relying on equipment and not being able to successfully handle climb/swim/jump/etc checks. EDIT: At some point, your bard will need to conduct combat.Not so. I believe my phrasing was that it will need to encounter monsters, not fight them.
Kaya Kenobi 02-01-04, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by Dwalon **** Hmmm ... I believe gas can move in air, but being in gaseous form is not necessarily wise in a room or cavern filled with water. Read the spell ... gaseous form cannot move in water. It cannot penetrate through the thicker flows of water molecules. When the spell runs out, and the bard returns to flesh, he/she will still need to swim. May as well have swam at the start rather than waste a spell. Glibness ... well ... that is a nice spell but it doesn't do as you suggested. Glibness is merely a bluff; a nice bluff mind you, but still just a bluff. Your bard may be able to convince the dragon you are the merely passing through and don't mean any harm. Bluff does not convince an adult dragon that it is a fire newt. At some point, your bard will need to conduct combat. The thing with the bard is that they do get a spell to perform any skill possible. And as far as combat goes, diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, all maxed out, and the bard can talk their way out of anything.
Sheer_FALACY 02-01-04, 10:02 PM	Actually, I think that what really matters is what level this is starting at. If it starts at level 1, that bard won't be able to talk himself out of a wet paper bag. Of course, if it starts there, wizard is out as a choice too. On the other hand, if it starts at level 20, you start running into undead and constructs pretty often; good luck talking them out of whatever it was they were going to do. Also, silence becomes an issue because they have actually heard of you.
Endless Dave 02-01-04, 10:29 PM	When I first began reading this thread, I was thinking either Paladin or Cleric, but after having read it, my vote is for Druid.
The Half-Orc Wizard 02-01-04, 10:38 PM	Great question. I would have to say Ranger, as the average campaign has better need of fighting capabilities, and the Ranger excels at that. Plus, Ranger skill selection lets it excel in several areas, making it useful outside of battle. A Hawk or Eagle as an animal campanion really helps with scouting. Spell-selection is pretty bad, so I would ask DM to let you use variant rules with no spells. Healign is a bit of a problem, but if the ranger is played right, healign won't be needed too often. Bard, for the healing reason, makes a close second, and Monk with wholeness of body runs third. Druid and Cleric are decent choices, but Ranger is still better. frodo lives
The Half-Orc Wizard 02-01-04, 10:38 PM	Great question. I would have to say Ranger, as the average campaign has better need of fighting capabilities, and the Ranger excels at that. Plus, Ranger skill selection lets it excel in several areas, making it useful outside of battle. A Hawk or Eagle as an animal campanion really helps with scouting. Spell-selection is pretty bad, so I would ask DM to let you use variant rules with no spells. Healign is a bit of a problem, but if the ranger is played right, healign won't be needed too often. Bard, for the healing reason, makes a close second, and Monk with wholeness of body runs third. Druid and Cleric are decent choices, but Ranger is still better. frodo lives
jvsperoni 02-01-04, 11:01 PM	No core class makes a one-man adventuring machine. First failed saving throw against paralysis, poison, hold person, etc. means the PC is a goner. Plus, game sessions would become boring after a while, with only one PC and the GM. However, if forced to pick, I'd say the monk. Good saves might keep you alive until you can run away. Cleric is a close second choice.
Kaya Kenobi 02-02-04, 02:45 AM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY Actually, I think that what really matters is what level this is starting at. If it starts at level 1, that bard won't be able to talk himself out of a wet paper bag. Of course, if it starts there, wizard is out as a choice too. On the other hand, if it starts at level 20, you start running into undead and constructs pretty often; good luck talking them out of whatever it was they were going to do. Also, silence becomes an issue because they have actually heard of you. A first level bard will probably have the following: maxed out diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, or hide and move silently. Maybe all of them. They would also have the following spells: Sleep, Summon Monster I, Cause Fear At higher levels they may have the required feats to be able to affect golems, plants, and even the undead with their abilities. The bard does quite a lot, and there's little that they can't do.
Sheer_FALACY 02-02-04, 03:27 AM	Maxed out diplomacy and bluff? At first level? That means 4 ranks. You aren't going to be changing anyone's mind like that. Just what feat allows you to bluff a golem or use diplomacy on a zombie or cast sleep on a vampire?
Kaya Kenobi 02-02-04, 03:57 AM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY Maxed out diplomacy and bluff? At first level? That means 4 ranks. You aren't going to be changing anyone's mind like that. Just what feat allows you to bluff a golem or use diplomacy on a zombie or cast sleep on a vampire? 4 + Cha, and even feats that boost those stats. And requiem comes to mind with bardic abilites... Note I never said spells. I said abilities. Fascinate and Suggestion works wonders.
HyperactiveBuffalo 02-02-04, 06:56 AM	a very general question. id say for the average campaign, a monk. if you have what I will refer to as an 'intelligent' GM, that is to say a gm who likes to make you think and find new ways around things instead of just fighting, then a rogue. when im in low player games, 3 and under for example, I often play a Rogue, and take educated as my first feat. roleplay wise I usually go for the noble rogue variety. the rogue is decent in combat, not amazing, but decent. the fact that about 90% of the skills that will ever come into use are considered class skills, and he has the best skills in the game, it means that I will be good at most anything I attempt... and most importantly, in low player games you usually face characters with low HPs, which makes the sneak attack deadly. just my two cents.
Hogre 02-02-04, 09:35 AM	I noted several responses that suggested that someone could use summons to get through traps. The thing they never brought up is that you have to detect the trap first. This is unlikely for most of the classes that summon. So, druids and clerics will still die fairly quickly to traps and to a lesser extent to environmental hazards like climb and balance checks. My vote still goes to the monk who survives a lot of traps he never even sees. Also, the rogue doesn't really have enough hitpoints to solo and without a companion to flank with for sneak attacks, he really suffers in combat.
Fiendish Dire Weasel 02-02-04, 03:03 PM	A first level bard will probably have the following: maxed out diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, or hide and move silently. Maybe all of them. They would also have the following spells: Sleep, Summon Monster I, Cause Fear At higher levels they may have the required feats to be able to affect golems, plants, and even the undead with their abilities. The bard does quite a lot, and there's little that they can't do. First of all, Bards don't get Sleep, Summon Monster I or Cause Fear at 1st level. Second, social skills don't take off until second (when you can get the 5 rank synergy bonus from Bluff and Sense Motive to Diplomacy), giving a 9+Cha+Feats Diplomacy. Finally, I really think, especially at low levels, that if an event occurs that forces combat the Bard may be pretty well screwed. A single second level Bard against 2 skeletons could be pretty iffy.
meabolex 02-02-04, 04:00 PM	Originally posted by Fiendish Dire Weasel A single second level Bard against 2 skeletons could be pretty iffy. A second level fighter without bludgeoning damage would be in trouble against 2 skeletons. A bard with a heavy mace, mw chain shirt, and a mw buckler should have no problem -- mainly considering the bard's healing and tumble. The key is not to allow a full attack action or flank by the skeletons and to tumble out of the way of AoOs. Dodge + Mobility for human bards works great here. The bard should have a tumble of 5 + 2 + 2 (synergy) -1 from chain shirt = 8, meaning he has to roll a 7. A d8 is almost enough to take a skeleton in 1 hit (on average 4.5 vs 6). AC becomes 17. Attack bonus is +1 (+2 if the weapon is masterwork). You could also use a sling for less damage and more chance to hit. Of course, you could use one of your bardic music and/or grease the skeletons to make the fight easier, but I don't think it's necessary. This isn't a simple fight (mainly because of the DR), but it can be if played properly. edit: stats 10, 14, 13, 12, 8, 15 w/ 25 point buy
Tony Vargas 02-02-04, 04:08 PM	Originally posted by Hogre Also, the rogue doesn't really have enough hitpoints to solo and without a companion to flank with for sneak attacks, he really suffers in combat. Well, on average, a Rogue has 1 hp/level less than a Monk, and, while the lack of flanking can certainly hurt, the lack of less-stealthy characters to give away your position and insist on frontal assualts can only help... ;) That is another thing to consider. When you're on your own, there's no one to 'cramp your style,' so you can take some abilities to thier fullest potential more easily. The Sorcerer doesn't have to worry about catching allies in his fireballs or burning down the druid's favourite forest by accident. The rogue doesn't have to worry about the paladin's clanking giving away the party's position (or his morals getting in the way of a sweet job). The Bard doesn't have to worry about the hot-headed barbarian jumping the gun before he can finish negotiations. etc,etc.... .... Oh, and the following isn't really an objection, just a funny: Monk on a Solo adventure: Monk wanders into town. The bandits on the road didn't bother him, since he was carrying no valuables. He buys a simple meal at the local inn, looking distant, contemplative, and ill-equiped, he is not aproached by the locals to help clear the nearby ruins of dangerous monsters. On the way out, a shady character attempts to sell him a treasure map to the same ruins, "I have no interest in such worldy concerns, he replies." He walks by the local shrine to Pelor, but doesn't stop, as the worship of the divine has no place in his philosophy, even if he had, the struggle against the rightful (if evil) baron being organized by the friar there probably wouldn't have seemed an apropriate thing to support (he's LN). As he walks off into the sunset he's acosted by an even more raggeed group of bandits who figure they can at least steal his boots - after beating them up a bit, he points out that he's not wearing any and continues on his way....
Sheer_FALACY 02-02-04, 06:03 PM	Just because you play a monk doesn't mean you don't own anything. It also doesn't prevent you from playing a deity.
Tony Vargas 02-02-04, 06:11 PM	Like I said, that wasn't serious... but Monks are by far the most equipment-independent class, and they are supposed to be philosophical and ascetic... aseetic... aestetic.... uh... not into all that material stuff.... :rolleyes:
Hogre 02-02-04, 06:21 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Like I said, that wasn't serious... but Monks are by far the most equipment-independent class, and they are supposed to be philosophical and ascetic... aseetic... aestetic.... uh... not into all that material stuff.... :rolleyes: I would say that is just one limited way to play the monk. There is a lot of equipment out there that synergizes well with monks. You just have to sell all of the stuff you don't need like sword and axes to buy the stuff that you do need.
Tony Vargas 02-02-04, 08:09 PM	Sure, there's probably still some out there that synergizes a little too well - there certainly was in 3.0 - but, part of the idea here is that there won't be any tailoring to a particular class, and the items that useful to Monks are generally supposed to be rare, so you probably couldn't do too much trading in... Which is fine, since they are so equipment-independent, but, it is one area where a relatively fragile Rogue or Bard (Use Magic Device) would have an advantage as a lone adventurer compared to the more durrable Monk.
Sheer_FALACY 02-02-04, 11:46 PM	Actually, a monk has a greater need for items than any other class. While a wizard can get by with a simple headband, and a fighter just wants an amulet of health and a belt of strength, the monk needs wisdom, dexterity, constitution, and strength. It needs wisdom and dexterity to make up for the lack of armor, constitution to make up for the lower hit die, and strength to make up (at low levels) for the weakness of its fists. They also want an amulet of mighty fists (triple cost of a weapon) and a monks belt, not to mention all of the normal armor increasing items. Essentially, they want everything a spellcaster wants, everything a fighter wants, and some additional things that only a monk wants.
ManTimeForgot 02-03-04, 12:15 AM	The only possible contenders for a 1-20 survival match are as follows: barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, and rogue. Remember everyone we are talking about all manner of adverse terrains. Those are the only choices. The fighter will not survive if dropped into a wilderness area (unable to feed himself). The cleric will likewise be unable to survive. The wizard and sorceror are very much screwed in the low level survival department without party members to support them. If dropped into a desert how do you all really think a fighter in his chainmail/breastplate is going to survive? Barbarian gets easily thrown out because the barbarian does not have enough out of combat abilities to justify taking the barbarian over the other 4. The bard and rogue thrive exceedingly over the druid and ranger in city situations. As to which is better the bard or the rogue I can scarcely even begin to evaluate. In a wilderness area the druid and ranger tower over the bard and rogue. The bard and rogue are pretty much reduced to scrounging whatever they can manage to find and then steal or use diplomacy to get whatever the rest it is they need. I think the ranger beats out the druid due to the ability to get social bonuses from favored enemy (humans is a nice pick), pretty certain the rest nearly balance out in terms of survivability at least at low levels. If a druid makes it to the point where the druid can wildshape and assume many forms it might be tough to compete, but the druid is pretty well snowballed in a city, whereas the ranger has the ability to work passably. Counter-tracking, stealth, and good hunting skills are almost imperative in any hostile non-city environment. Diplomacy can make up for this loss if the threats come from intelligent beings which one can communicate with, but that will not cover all the bases. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Fiendish Dire Weasel 02-03-04, 01:48 AM	Druids have Diplomacy as a class skill and good Wisdom for Sense Motive, don't see how they are weaker than Rangers in a social setting. As far as wilderness survival, anyone can cross-class 1 rank of Survival to take 10 and feed yourself every day in the woods.
Raging Halfling 02-03-04, 02:35 AM	It really depends on a number of factors. What level you're starting at is definitely an issue, but I'll just assume you're talking about going all the way 1-20. Stats are also an issue: it's hard, for example, to make a really good paladin with mediocre stats. Okay, you've specified that it's more dungeon-crawling and wilderness-based, so I think that probably rules out the fighter. He can't detect traps, and lack of survival skills could be a problem. A lot of traps could be walked through, but his poor Will save could be a big factor in the long run. Magical traps and magic-using enemies would be his Achilles heel. Barbarians might actually do quite well. He has Survival skill, unlike the fighter. Listen is a class skill as well, so he does have a means of detecting opponents. He's a combat god and rogues can't victimize him. Healing himself might not be a huge issue just given how many hp he has. Now on the down side his will save still sucks, and that remains as much a problem for him as the fighter, although raging does help a bit. His lack of magic is a weakness also. A rogue could do very well, given his penchant for stealth and his wide variety of skills. Maxed UMD is a must here for playing solo, and that could make him very versatile. Still, even a rogue's skills are somewhat limited, and he can't get every skill. Social skills are most likely to take a hit, but that's up to personal preference. The rogue's biggest problem over the long run will probably be things that are immune to sneak attacks. But with UMD and a smart player, the rogue could do very well. The ranger: see rogue, but eliminate the weakness of SA. Also, without UMD his versatility becomes a bit more limited. I'm not certain, but I think rogue would be a better choice. The paladin would be excellent...if your ability points at character creation are very generous. To be versatile enough, you'd need a good Int in addition to Str, Con, Wis, and Cha. I like Clerics with the Travel domain for this sort of thing. They get Survival as a class skill, plus lots of good high-level escape spells. If you're allowed to mix whatever domains you like, I would then add either Magic or Luck domain. Magic domain nets you the ability to use arcane devices, plus a couple of good spells. Luck domain's use is pretty obvious: ummmm......no....I didn't roll a 1 on that save against that nasty spell! :) Druids are quite versatile and useful. They really don't have any glaring weaknesses and a lot of resources on hand with their spells and animal companions, as well as Wild Shape. This might be your best choice over the long term, but I'm sure this could be contested: again, clerics with good domain choices and rogues also would do well. Any of the above could probably do well, but I think overall cleric, druid, and rogue would do best.
Kage Wellby 02-03-04, 03:46 AM	Druid. -Good saves to Will and Fort -Good HD -Great mix of spells, healing, offensive, utility -Companion adds extra melee options -Wild Shape is extremely versatile Only thing stronger is a cleric who channels negative energy and has a couple of undead pets, but they would be quite weak unless they were shadows. Even then, when facing a powerful undead monster, this cleric will be at a disadvantage, because he can't turn things much stronger than him, and the shadows wouldn't deal their str damage to another undead.
NZCardinal 02-03-04, 04:55 AM	Even a cleric without wilderness lore could survive lost almost anywhere once they had a few levels under their belt. They alone have access to the 3rd level spell Create Food and Water, and they also have access to the 1st level spell Endure Elements which has a duration of 24hours (but so does every other caster except for bard and ranger). They may be totally inept out in the wilderness or deep dank dungeon, but at least they can sustain themselves and stay warm. Having a brief look thorough the spell lists, there are a nice assortment of low level utility spells which will aid a cleric considerably. Room filling up with water? cast Water Walk or Water Breathing. Traps? cast Find Traps (actually, having just read the spell description it looks a bit dud unless you have a good Search skill) or possibly Detect Poison Break an important piece of equipment? cast Mending or Make Whole Food goes bad? Purify Food and Water Can't communicate with someone you are trying to negotiate with? Comprehend Languages The list goes on, but its a matter of ingenuity and using spells intelligently, however preparing these spells may decrease his offensive capabiliy. I think a cleric still has the biggest advantage as a sole adventurer.
Krelios 02-03-04, 03:49 PM	Paladins in the Forgottem Realms can multiclass without losing the ability to gain Paladin levels if they follow certain gods. My Paladin/Wizard of Azuth was the most survivable character I've ever played. I started at 1st level with Paladin and then alternated until I was a 9 Paladin / 11 Wizard. That ends up being very nice.
Geethree 02-03-04, 05:43 PM	Another note, no DM will ever just throw you in a situation where you will die instantly. That means that you won't be a 1st level wizard stranded in the middle of the desert with no provisions. However, at higher levels, you might be expected to have some replenishable (magical, most likely) source of water and/or food. The survival aspect is still important and a good point (I hadn't thought of it before), but it won't automatically spell death for some classes.
ManTimeForgot 02-03-04, 07:38 PM	Yeah but the point is Geethree that a ranger and druid have a heck of a lot less situations a DM can throw them into at low levels and still be an instant death. A ranger or druid thrown butt naked into the middle of a desert has a decent chance of coming out alive. A wizard or fighter in the same situation is likely boned deluxe. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Geethree 02-03-04, 08:33 PM	I agree that it is an excellent point. I'm just saying it's not the only point.
Xeven the Mighty 02-03-04, 09:24 PM	Hmm...I think the Cleric is the best choice. Take the Magic domain and you have the ability to emulate the arcane spells that you need (although the Cleric list is good...especially at the high levels...Harm springs to mind. But a mix is good too. Harm + Time Stop? Oh, fun! :D.) . The next domain would have to be Luck, due to the Cleric only getting one good save (as opposed to the Monk's 2, or the Pally's Divine Grace.). If you roll bad (like instant death bad), just re-roll. Searching for traps is covered by the trap spell, and the ability to reroll a save (Ref, perhaps?). Plus the cleric has Diplomacy, and if the player isn't a complete moron, a pretty high Cha, so city situations aren't that bad. Hmm...seems survivable so far. Originally posted by ManTimeForgot: A ranger or druid thrown butt naked into the middle of a desert has a decent chance of coming out alive. A wizard or fighter in the same situation is likely boned deluxe. I would like to state, for the record, that the ranger cannot create his own water, However, a cleric can. Thus, a cleric need not spend time searching for water: he could just create it. Ever hear of a thing called 'heat exhaustion'? The cleric would spend less time in the dessert than the ranger (due to the ability to create water) and thus suffer less of a chance to actually become dehyderated (unless of course you don't play by those rules.). And, Lest we forget, Survival is usable untrained, and could be rolled, then rerolled if the cleric needs to know the way out of the desert (Since it is the new Int. Direction). I would pump a few Cross Class ranks in Survival in a solo campaign ...and cleric's wis would be his highest score....do the math...I mean, if you don't plan ahead enough to pump your skills like that, you shouldn't play D&D. It seems clear to me that the other classes (Ranger, Druid, Monk, Rogue), although good canidates and very survivable, are vastly inferior to the mighty cleric. PS: Arguements are fun, some one disagree with me, please. :D
ManTimeForgot 02-03-04, 09:42 PM	Can't cast spells if you don't have a holy symbol. A druid can find a holy symbol. I said butt naked. But even barring the butt naked thing, the cleric is totally snowed. Now as far as survival being able to be used untrained, so what? You can't hunt anything. Level 1 in the middle of the desert you are going to die of starvation. Without track just how do you propose to find animal food? Without knowledge nature how do you propose to identify what is food, or even better what isn't poisonous; heck the druid doesn't have this problem at all the druid just intinctively knows what plant/animal is what. And heat exhaustion? It's called wilderness lore which gives me that nice bonus to fortitude saves versus the environment, which is something that untrained classes aren't going to be able to make with any degree of consistency. Nextly what do you do about natural hazards, like quicksand and the like. You really think your untrained check is going to keep you alive? All alone there are only two classes which have any chance in the wild: druid and ranger, and I think the ranger has a leg up in cities. Sure druid has class skills, but the druid doesn't have the skill points to afford on that sort of purchase if the druid is going to have spot, listen, hide, and move silent which are all solid buys. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Xeven the Mighty 02-03-04, 10:27 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Can't cast spells if you don't have a holy symbol. A druid can find a holy symbol. I said butt naked. Yes, actually you can. In the PHB the only thing it says is a cleric needs a holy symbol for turning (Well, it doesn't even specifically say that...It is more implied than said...). It does not say they need one for casting. In point of fact, if you read the text closely, it says you don't even need a God, so the even holy symbol for turning could be up for a debate. If you want to get really, really, really, technical, the holy symbol can be anything. It is really ony a divine focus. So the cleric could pick up a rock and use it as his symbol if he really wanted to. But these are just my views and how I run my campaign, so let's forget about this and go on. :) But even barring the butt naked thing, the cleric is totally snowed. Now as far as survival being able to be used untrained, so what? You can't hunt anything. Level 1 in the middle of the desert you are going to die of starvation. Without track just how do you propose to find animal food? Without knowledge nature how do you propose to identify what is food, or even better what isn't poisonous; heck the druid doesn't have this problem at all the druid just intinctively knows what plant/animal is what. At low levels, the untrained skill would be enough. There are ways of pumping it to make it better. But the cleric does get a spell called Create Food and Water about the time a ranger gets his first spells.... Ranger is beat here (maybe not the Druid). The cleric is mostly self sufficient on this front. He has both more efficient and less time consuming ways to get water and food. And heat exhaustion? It's called wilderness lore which gives me that nice bonus to fortitude saves versus the environment, which is something that untrained classes aren't going to be able to make with any degree of consistency. Didn't you say: '...Level 1 in the middle of the desert...'? At level 1, a cleric with Skill Focus and 2 CC ranks in Survival (The new Wildernesslore, don't ya know?) can have the same bonus as a ranger. End of story. He will also be able to reroll his die with the Luck domain special ability. I believe they are tied if you put it this way.... Oh, but the cleric could use Guidence, a nifty but often overlooked spell that gives you +1 on your next roll, save or check. With Wis being his highest score, the Cleric can actually have a better bonus to Survival at 1st level than the ranger. Nextly what do you do about natural hazards, like quicksand and the like. You really think your untrained check is going to keep you alive? Well, maybe; maybe not. But a ranger has less healing spells than a cleric. At around 3rd the cleric gets Delay Poision and Resist Elements. Snakebites, sunburns, and the like...;) Answer me this: Do you know who would be more likely to survive an extended dungeon crawl? All alone there are only two classes which have any chance in the wild: druid and ranger, and I think the ranger has a leg up in cities. Sure druid has class skills, but the druid doesn't have the skill points to afford on that sort of purchase if the druid is going to have spot, listen, hide, and move silent which are all solid buys. See above.
jvsperoni 02-04-04, 12:06 AM	Yes, the cleric is screwed if the GM tosses him, butt naked, into the desert at 1st level. This does little to prove that the ranger is superior to the cleric for a solo campaign; it's more an example of bad GMing. A ranger would be equally screwed if the GM tosses him, butt naked, into a crypt full of undead at 1st level.
ManTimeForgot 02-04-04, 12:21 AM	Actually the cleric absolutely requires a holy symbol. If you look all clerical spells without a focus component require a divine focus. :) And if you get really technical actually only the holy symbol as espoused by the religion of the cleric can serve as a holy symbol. This means even a deityless cleric is going to have to come up with one. Create food and water is pointless if you don't survive level 1. Same survival score as a ranger? Please you don't have anywhere near enough skill points. You get 2 ranks in survival and that is half your skill points for a 10 int non-human. And just how are you going to hunt with your wonderful crossbow? But naked a ranger who is smart has ranks in craft weaponsmith and can handcraft a bow from wild materials. The cleric who is human and has a 14 int might be able to afford a rank in craft weaponsmith. But a human ranger with a 14 int is going to actually be self-sufficient, as he will be able to deal with just about everything. A cleric requires armor. A ranger does not. A ranger can make use of guerilla warfare. In order to have even a chance at survival a cleric has to blow most of his skill points on survival and blow a feat (perhaps his only one) in order to survive. Snakebites, sun burns, etc. All natural hazards... Which the ranger is going to avoid or resist with survival checks. You still haven't shown how you are going to survive without track and knowledge nature. No food means no life at first level. I don't think there is that much of a difference in survivability in dungeon crawls. The ranger can hide. The cleric cannot. The cleric therefore must take head on enemies the ranger can ambush or avoid. Cleric has healing; so, he's gonna need it. I'd also point out that the ranger likely has knowledge dungeoneering, and that is a serious advantage in under ground environments. And realistically speaking do you think there are more wilderness or dungeons out there? I think I will bank on the wilderness. Edited: for spelling Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Tony Vargas 02-04-04, 01:23 PM	Just a comment on the such-and-such would screw so-and-so. Sure, any DM, at any time, can whipe out any character with just a tad of vindictiveness. The assumption, as I understood it, was that the encounters would be a 'normal variety.' So, the character may run into a survial-oriented challenge, but it's not guaranteed to be a life-or-death challenge at first level. No single class is going to be sufficiently invincible to survive /anything/ thrown at him, and players do have some control over which challenges they take on, and which they try to avoid. A lone adventuring ranger might jump at the chance to explore The Desert Hell Of No Return and take care to make sure it's full daylight when he rides by the Infamous Enclave of the Vampires on his way there, while other classes might have different ideas....
Votan 02-04-04, 04:29 PM	My vote: Human cleric (domains: Luck and Travel). Convienently there is a diety that allows this. WIth a 28 pt buy: S 12 D 10 Cn 14 I 14 W 15 Ch 10 That is 5 skill points a level (sadly, intelligence suddenly becomes a priority for this cleric where it usually isn't). I'd invest in Survival (class skill), Diplomacy, Spellcraft and do my best with spot and search as cc skills. Summon Monsters for support. Feats: Alertness, Lightning Reflexes. Weapons suck but that is life. Travel domain spells will let you get out of trouble even faster than you got into it. :) Sure there are weak points and with 32 points I'd shore up charisma and dexterity to try and minimze the issues there. But this character has a good chance to make it past low levels (they aren't completely competitive with a Ranger orm Druid but not hosed in the wilderness). They have okay melee skill. Okay fighting skill. Summoning spells (did I mention that was this characters primary offense?). Healing. Traps are going to be bear but 2 rolls and lightning reflexes will help. Lots and lots of traps is still a major issue even if the summoned critter goes first but search as a cc skill will mean that they have to be good traps. An elf cleric is an alternative. Drop the alertness feat and spellcraft skill. Dex 12 Con 12. Learn to love the long bow.
Geethree 02-04-04, 06:45 PM	I think it's pointless to argue whether or not a cleric could accomplish all of these things because he cannot do them all. So you want your cleric to have Use Magic Device? And you want him to have Survival? Well, the Cleric has really bad skill points. Sure, he could have both of those, but then you'll be missing out on things like Heal, Concentration, Spellcraft, and his other limited class skills. And you need to use specific domains to get these things, anyway. You're limiting yourself by doing this. Conceivably the Cleric could have a better Survival rank than the Ranger at first level (4 skill points + good wisdom + Skill Focus), but so what? That's not a cleric's strong point. If you're going to plan ahead for potential survival challenges, just make sure to have some flasks of water and spare rations. Any worthwhile adventurer will be carrying these things anyway.
Xeven the Mighty 02-04-04, 07:29 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Actually the cleric absolutely requires a holy symbol. If you look all clerical spells without a focus component require a divine focus. Hmm, I've read the Cleric from back to front, and checked all the spells I have suggested a cleric use. The class says absolutely nothing about the symbol and the spells do not either. I am using a mixture of 3.0 and 3.5 (since one of my players has the 3.5 book book but not the 3.0 and I have the 3.0 but not the 3.5), so 3.5 could say differently. And if you get really technical actually only the holy symbol as espoused by the religion of the cleric can serve as a holy symbol. This means even a deityless cleric is going to have to come up with one. Now don't tell me that. This is a matter of opinion. Even though I don't have the 3.5 book, I know it says nothing about this. Neither does 3.0. This is what you believe, not an actual rule. I believe the symbol is just a focus, nothing more. That is what I believe, it is not an actual rule. This part of either one of our arguements is pointless as it comes down to what either of us believe. Create food and water is pointless if you don't survive level 1. Indeed it is, but I still don't have to search for water at level 1. And I don't think any DM is so much of an asshat that he'll leave me completely stranded, so I do think I have an awsome chance to make it to level 5. But I should be fine with my skills and spells if he is. Same survival score as a ranger? Please you don't have anywhere near enough skill points. You get 2 ranks in survival and that is half your skill points for a 10 int non-human. And just how are you going to hunt with your wonderful crossbow? But naked a ranger who is smart has ranks in craft weaponsmith and can handcraft a bow from wild materials. The cleric who is human and has a 14 int might be able to afford a rank in craft weaponsmith. But a human ranger with a 14 int is going to actually be self-sufficient, as he will be able to deal with just about everything. A cleric requires armor. A ranger does not. A ranger can make use of guerilla warfare. In order to have even a chance at survival a cleric has to blow most of his skill points on survival and blow a feat (perhaps his only one) in order to survive. True. I'll admit that a non-human with Int 10 would non have enough. But a Human (which, is infact what I play if I am restricted to pure PHB races) with an Int of 15 or 16 (which I usually roll two or three of) can have 20 (or 24) at first level, which lets him max 5 (or 6) skills. It is enough to get past a few levels with maxed skills. Yes, admit he will have to blow feats, but what else will he use them for? They seem like good feat uses to me. Snakebites, sun burns, etc. All natural hazards... Which the ranger is going to avoid or resist with survival checks. Bully for him. The cleric does it with spells...So what? Your point is where? You still haven't shown how you are going to survive without track and knowledge nature. No food means no life at first level. I don't need to track. The cleric doesn't have to eat meat. The nuts and berries gathered with Survival are enough (If he needs more, he could eat a couple of ants and beetles). Knowedge (Nature)...Well I think a cleric would have a basic know of what is poisonous and what is not is he had a few ranks in Survival. I mean, even I (with little to no experiance with these things) know what a rasberry or blackberry is. So he, with the Survival ranks, should have a better chance than I would. I don't think there is that much of a difference in survivability in dungeon crawls. The ranger can hide. The cleric cannot. The cleric therefore must take head on enemies the ranger can ambush or avoid. Cleric has healing; so, he's gonna need it. I'd also point out that the ranger likely has knowledge dungeoneering, and that is a serious advantage in under ground environments. Knowledge dungeoneering? That's a new one, gotta write that down... Well, the cleric can find traps, unlike the ranger. It is a spell called, rather unoriginally: Find Traps. So, when you calculate out how much damage each will take from traps/monsters, you'll find that they would quite possibly take the same a mount. And since the cleric has healing spells, he'll survive a lot longer than the ranger. And realistically speaking do you think there are more wilderness or dungeons out there? I think I will bank on the wilderness. No, I don't. But you assume the DM is a complete prick and the cleric will be naked the whole time, which he will not. And you also assume he will not survive past level 1, which he will unless the DM is hellbent on killing him (which he won't be). And when he is past level 1, you know he is more survivable than the ranger by a long shot, due to the versatility of his spells (which make up for almost all of his weaknesses, if not all of them). I mean, come on, what does a ranger have that is better than Harm? Even with the save in 3.5, it is one of the most powerful spells available to Divine casters...Anything can be brought to 1d4 HP and then killed with a simple Inflict Light Wounds spell. Granted, Finger of Death and Power Word: Kill are more efficient, but Harm is badass.
Xeven the Mighty 02-04-04, 07:30 PM	Originally posted by Geethree: I think it's pointless to argue whether or not a cleric could accomplish all of these things because he cannot do them all. Agreed, but neither can the ranger. No class can do everything. So you want your cleric to have Use Magic Device? And you want him to have Survival? Well, the Cleric has really bad skill points. Sure, he could have both of those, but then you'll be missing out on things like Heal, Concentration, Spellcraft, and his other limited class skills. And you need to use specific domains to get these things, anyway. You're limiting yourself by doing this. A cleric with the Magic domain can activate both Divine and Arcane items without UMD. Read skills. The rogue and bard use UMD to emulate a Divine or Arcane caster for perposes of activating an item. In essence, they are trying trick the item into working by making themselves appear to be Divine or Arcane casters. Since the cleric is a divine caster and the Magic domain lets him activate devices as though he was a arcane caster, he doesn't need UMD. Conceivably the Cleric could have a better Survival rank than the Ranger at first level (4 skill points + good wisdom + Skill Focus), but so what? That's not a cleric's strong point. If you're going to plan ahead for potential survival challenges, just make sure to have some flasks of water and spare rations. Any worthwhile adventurer will be carrying these things anyway Exactly. Yes, I would carry extra rations and water. But ManTimeForgot has some fetish for naked, desert traveling characters ( ;) ), so I had to show him that the cleric could, in fact, have a higher Survival bonus than the ranger. I would still put ranks in the skill, though...(In case I was naked and without rations)...
Votan 02-04-04, 08:45 PM	Originally posted by Geethree I think it's pointless to argue whether or not a cleric could accomplish all of these things because he cannot do them all. So you want your cleric to have Use Magic Device? And you want him to have Survival? Well, the Cleric has really bad skill points. Sure, he could have both of those, but then you'll be missing out on things like Heal, Concentration, Spellcraft, and his other limited class skills. And you need to use specific domains to get these things, anyway. You're limiting yourself by doing this. Conceivably the Cleric could have a better Survival rank than the Ranger at first level (4 skill points + good wisdom + Skill Focus), but so what? That's not a cleric's strong point. If you're going to plan ahead for potential survival challenges, just make sure to have some flasks of water and spare rations. Any worthwhile adventurer will be carrying these things anyway. No class is good at everything. This is a good thing. Still, a cleric is a decent pick. Domains permit customization of the cleric which makes him/her more flexible. Still it is possible to get a decent spectrum of abilities in a single cleric (even if there are hard choices involved). In some ways a Druid is better (more skill points and relevant class skills) but there are definite downsides (lack of domain customization, troubles casting spells in wildshape). I tend to not prefer the Ranger as a solo. It is a reasonable choice but a summoner is better prepared for a solo adventure. Bards are okay too but they are too weak at too many things to really be my first choice -- although I might be under-rating the new bard. :confused: Still, the rogue is always the wildcard. They lack combat and magical power. But they are the best outside of combat. Even in combat they can be devastatign if they can bring their skills to bear. However, they are too likely to run into opponents where none of their talents will work (a Beholder or a Lich would be a massive problem for a rogue).
Geethree 02-04-04, 09:41 PM	Agreed, but neither can the ranger. No class can do everything.No class is good at everything.I agree, of course. However, some classes are good at a lot of things. The cleric is relatively linear compared to classes like the Ranger or the Bard. This is why you can't compare a Cleric and a Ranger based on what a Cleric could do. Bards are okay too but they are too weak at too many things to really be my first choice -- although I might be under-rating the new bard. The only thing the Bard is really weak at is combat (which he can circumvent). He can also make use of UMD to give him some boosts in power. Wand of fireballs, go!
Votan 02-04-04, 10:04 PM	Originally posted by Geethree I agree, of course. However, some classes are good at a lot of things. The cleric is relatively linear compared to classes like the Ranger or the Bard. This is why you can't compare a Cleric and a Ranger based on what a Cleric could do. The only thing the Bard is really weak at is combat (which he can circumvent). He can also make use of UMD to give him some boosts in power. Wand of fireballs, go! The cleric is linear but they also lack a lot of weak points. Good spell choices can make them pretty tough and the right domains can really help out. Still, a cleric not chosen to be a "survivor" can be beaten by a Ranger. There are a lot of domains with good powers that don't contribute to a solo cleric. This is a legitimate weak point of the cleric -- flexible and survival clerics require specialized builds. The bard has a few other weak points besides combat. Their reliance on sound makes them vunerable to certain types of threats that are hard to work around. They do extremely well at enhancing others which is minimized when they are solo. I will freely admit that my dislike of bards comes from a very unfortunate 2ed attempt to play one as a fighter MU that went horribly, horribly wrong. :eek: When the maimed bard (who could no longer casst magic) ended up as a villian you know that it just did not work out . . . So this could all be bias from a very horrific experience. :uh-huh: The current 3.5E bard looks like it might be back to something I could touch without trauma . . . And let's not mention the utterly music impaired player being forced to try and sing at the table . . .:nonono:
Xeven the Mighty 02-04-04, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by Geethree The cleric is relatively linear compared to classes like the Ranger or the Bard. This is why you can't compare a Cleric and a Ranger based on what a Cleric could do. I disagree. The cleric can do a lot if built right. With the Magic domain to emulate Arcane casters, and the Travel domain to make Survival a class skill (Now that I think on it, this would be a better choice than the Luck domain). If solo, stats would most likely become the most important thing (because of the need for Average/High Int, Wis, Str, and Cha), but if his stats were rolled good, he'd do as good as a ranger, if not better. And, tell me, seriously, who else can wade into battle with full plate, a tower shield, and a bastard sword and still be able to cast a full compliment of level 1 - 9 spells?
ManTimeForgot 02-05-04, 01:16 AM	"If built right..." Which is exactly not what we are talking about. We are not talking about the most survivable build. The question is what is the most survivable class (under any and all circumstances). And if you want to not be able to cast 80% of clerical spells, then that is your call, but you aren't a cleric anymore. You are just some dude with 1/5 the spell list of a cleric and can't turn or rebuke undead. Furthermore no you can't just pick up any old rock. Read your players handbook. If you look up the definition of holy symbol it says (regardless of what substance it is made out of) that it is used as a focus for spells (and almost all the clerical spells require one) and turning undead. It then goes on to say that each religion has "its own holy symbol." Please to note the quoted portion of the previous sentence. You can't just pick up any old rock wherever you are and expect that to function as a holy symbol. If your religion used a rock as its holy symbol, then it might work, but that isn't the case with any of the deities in the PHB. Banking on the DM being nice to you when this entire thread is about survivability is contrary to the goal of this thread. See top of post about builds versus class distinction. You seem to have trouble distinguishing what falls under survival and what falls under knowledge nature. You know what a rasberry and blackberry are because it is "common knowledge." Common knowledge is what can be used in an untrained knowledge check. You do not possess knowledge nature, but it is common knowledge what a blackberry is in our culture. I can't say any DM I have ever had would allow a character to go without ingesting protein, but I won't discount the possibility. There is nothing stated that rules that someone when they eat needs to ingest protein. Of course no rule states that humans need to eat for that matter. Nextly the eating of insects for protein is almost definitely NOT common knowledge. If you mean to collect insects for nourishment, then you had better have knowledge nature. And just where exactly in the desert do you mean to find a blackberry? Know any edible cactus specieis? Find traps? Nice 1 minute per level duration. Gonna have find traps up when there are traps around I'm sure. Nice insight bonus (half caster level, which means at low levels the cleric is still behind the ranger) to find traps too. Whereas the ranger who has the search skill will be able to locate traps normally until much higher in level. And detect snares and pits has an actual duration 10 minutes per level, and is auto success. I will grant you it doesn't find all traps, but this is a very nice bonus in all non-city non-dungeon environments. The whole point of this thread is what class is the hardest to kill in a 1-20. The DM is trying to be a "prick;" we are testing survivability after all. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Votan 02-05-04, 09:05 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot "If built right..." Which is exactly not what we are talking about. We are not talking about the most survivable build. The question is what is the most survivable class (under any and all circumstances). And if you want to not be able to cast 80% of clerical spells, then that is your call, but you aren't a cleric anymore. You are just some dude with 1/5 the spell list of a cleric and can't turn or rebuke undead. If we are going to go with this subtle difference then I would change my vote to Druid. However, the cleric build that I would advocate doesn't involve extreme changes to the base class. They are just having the right 2 domains for teh cleric. In this sense a cleric is more customizable than many classes. I agree with Xeven about Magic being an extremely helpful domain but I deliberately avoided magic/travel because the two don't occur together in a diety that I know. There is precedent for other classes having this sort of "build dependence". A bard can really reduce his survivability with poor picks for spells (as could a Sorcerer if a solo sorcerer makes it alive out of first level). A rogue with low intelligence and a foucs on social skills would also have a lot of the same troubles. If you wanted an "average" memeber of a class then I have to agree with you as a cleric (of say Pelor) would have definite issues as a solo adventurer. Many of the ways I envision handling upper level challenges involved the travel domain (and luck was essential for the one bad save). But this build would use all cleric spells on the main list plus have a bunch of wizard movement based domain spells. The only issue is a holy symbol. Here I'd go with the "humble" holy symbol (think of simple wooden crosses in Christianity). This would be appropriate for the god of travellers. A cleric of Pelor who requires a gold disk made to exacting requirments is in a lot more trouble.
Xeven the Mighty 02-05-04, 09:28 PM	"If built right..." Which is exactly not what we are talking about. We are not talking about the most survivable build. The question is what is the most survivable class (under any and all circumstances). And if you want to not be able to cast 80% of clerical spells, then that is your call, but you aren't a cleric anymore. You are just some dude with 1/5 the spell list of a cleric and can't turn or rebuke undead. Oh my god! You didn't just say that, did you? Any class run by an idiot isn't gonna survive past level 1. Not even your precious ranger. The strength of a class depends on how you build a character. Thats why we have people called 'munchkins' 'min/maxers' and 'powergamers'. Or do all of your players (or if you are not a DM, your comrades.) build their characters the same way every time? Furthermore no you can't just pick up any old rock. Read your players handbook. If you look up the definition of holy symbol it says (regardless of what substance it is made out of) that it is used as a focus for spells (and almost all the clerical spells require one) and turning undead. It then goes on to say that each religion has "its own holy symbol." Please to note the quoted portion of the previous sentence. You can't just pick up any old rock wherever you are and expect that to function as a holy symbol. If your religion used a rock as its holy symbol, then it might work, but that isn't the case with any of the deities in the PHB. Damn, never did see that one. But I would like to point out the fact that in the classes chapter it does not specify that a cleric needs a holy symbol and none of the clerical spells have the descriptor Divine Focus: Holy Symbol. Oh, an the description of the Holy Symbol still doesn't say that the symbol needs to be made in a certain way or out of a certain material. So this still boils down to opinion. I stick by what I said. Banking on the DM being nice to you when this entire thread is about survivability is contrary to the goal of this thread. See top of post about builds versus class distinction. Well, I, personally, wouldn't play with a DM that was a prick. It's no fun. Just like I wouldn't play with a group that were pricks. That would be no fun either. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want the DM to go easy on me, but you seem obsessed that my cleric will be naked through the whole campaign. I mean, seroiusly, do you run a campaign like that (or play in a campaign like that.). :confused: Just to tell you, I'm talking survivable in a terms of a normal D&D campaign, not whatever you're talking about. And I thought that was what the original poster ment...I don't get the point of this thread if your talking about situations that normally wouldn't come up in a regular D&D session... You seem to have trouble distinguishing what falls under survival and what falls under knowledge nature. You know what a rasberry and blackberry are because it is "common knowledge." Common knowledge is what can be used in an untrained knowledge check. You do not possess knowledge nature, but it is common knowledge what a blackberry is in our culture. I can't say any DM I have ever had would allow a character to go without ingesting protein, but I won't discount the possibility. There is nothing stated that rules that someone when they eat needs to ingest protein. Of course no rule states that humans need to eat for that matter. Nextly the eating of insects for protein is almost definitely NOT common knowledge. If you mean to collect insects for nourishment, then you had better have knowledge nature. And just where exactly in the desert do you mean to find a blackberry? Know any edible cactus specieis? Well, 'common knowledege' can get you pretty far. I know that ants are edible. I know that certain types of berries are edible. I know certain types of berries are poisonous (those round red ones that grow on sticker bushes...dunno what they are called.). The best way to put it is what one of my friends said: "Just because you don't have a skill doesn't mean you can't do it or don't know anything about it, you just can do it as well as someone who has the skill." Don't underestimate the f***ing Survival skill either. If I remember the description right, it says that you can feed yourself by hunting and foraging with a check DC 10 or higher. Seriously, that isn't that hard. I could make a DC 10 50% of the time untrained. And natural hazards are easy too, 15 or higher.... 25% of the time untrained. Add in my bonuses from ranks and Wisdom and I'm set (At level 1 with a 15 or 16 Wis and 4 ranks in Survival with skill focus I have a +8 or +9. I need a 2 or high to feed myself.) Find traps? Nice 1 minute per level duration. Gonna have find traps up when there are traps around I'm sure. Nice insight bonus (half caster level, which means at low levels the cleric is still behind the ranger) to find traps too. Whereas the ranger who has the search skill will be able to locate traps normally until much higher in level. And detect snares and pits has an actual duration 10 minutes per level, and is auto success. I will grant you it doesn't find all traps, but this is a very nice bonus in all non-city non-dungeon environments. Ok, so I might be overestimating Find Traps, but you seem to underestimating the whole cleric class. Is it that you have never played one, or is it that you hate magic? What is it? Seriously, give their spells a read over...a really gods damned indepth look. If you are as smart as you think you are, you'd realize that even though I am overestimating a few spells, the cleric's spells are nothing to sneese at. Some of them are truely powerful in ways a ranger can never be. The whole point of this thread is what class is the hardest to kill in a 1-20. The DM is trying to be a "prick;" we are testing survivability after all. After all you have said, I still say cleric. When it you get right down to it, you have to realize that there are several ways to wipe out any class. You seem to be thinking that the DM will do what ever he can to kill my cleric while leaving you ranger completely and totally alone. This is not the case. A ranger can be killed as easily as a cleric.
Geethree 02-05-04, 11:15 PM	And I thought that was what the original poster ment...I don't get the point of this thread if your talking about situations that normally wouldn't come up in a regular D&D session...Of course. If you play a Druid, your DM is not going to go out of his way to take away your animal companion and ruin your spellcasting ability. If you play a fighter, the DM isn't going to strip you naked and make you fight ghosts just to tick you off. However, this isn't to say that your Druid will never be seperated from his or her animal companion or that the fighter won't find himself without any equipment. If you, as the player, make smart enemies, these enemies will know how to hit you where it hurts. And chances are you will make smart enemies.
ManTimeForgot 02-06-04, 03:44 AM	No I think the cleric is the most fundamentally overpowered class in the books. But do I think he can do it all by his little lonesome? Not quite. The cleric requires time to spell up. The cleric requires food, which he is not going to be able to supply himself with in all situations (protein). The cleric, while he is a damage monster at high levels, is not as capable at lower levels. And since I don't think the cleric survives low levels as often as the ranger does, then I don't think the high levels are as relevant. This thread is about pushing the limits of the classes. How far does it take to break the class? The answer is for most environments the ranger is going to take a lot more to break than the cleric. The druid is harder to break environmentally than the ranger even, but I think the ranger makes up for this in other areas (better skill set and skill points, social bonus, and better fighting potential early on). This isn't about idiots. This is about looking at the strengths of the class. Average all the builds and take a look at what's there. The majority of your ranger builds share certain common characteristics, all of which are conducive to survival. Just how many clerics can survive that well? Actually it does say Divine Focus Holy Symbol; you just didn't bother to read the section on Divine Foci. Please note in your player's handbook that it specifically states that a divine focus is a holy symbol appropriate to the religion of the cleric. You cannot just use some rock you pick up off the ground. The only way you could do this is if you worshipped the elemental god of earth, and created a religion which used rocks as holy symbols. Well I have had my characters stripped naked, tossed into an arctic wasteland with little to no gear between the party members, and told to survive. Happen often? Nope. Happen some times? Yep. And just so you know I was level 1 the first time this happened to one of my characters. I have however had this happen to as high as a level 17 character. Common knowledge gets you bunk. Can you identify which ants are edible? You try to eat "army" ants (argentine ants here in SoCAL) and you will just poison yourself with the ant's toxins. Can you tell the difference between edible plants and poisonous ones? I can tell you that there are some berries which look a lot like poison sumac. And no I am not under estimating the survival skill. You fail to understand that the survival skill assumes that you have food and water available. If there isn't because the food is all poison, then there are only two things which can occur: you starve or you poison yourself. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
NZCardinal 02-21-04, 04:18 AM	Best single-player core class? Make one up :D The Divine Munchkin D12 HP/Level Fighter advancement on attack rolls Monk saves +... Paladins divine grace at first level 8 skill points/level, rogue skill list Wizard AND Cleric spell lists, all considered divine spells ie, can use armour and still use full repertoir of attack spells :D Spontaneous casting, Sorceror spell progression Spell statistic is Charisma This should do...
Solidcobra 02-21-04, 08:24 AM	i say: ALL HAIL THE DRUID! at the lowest of the lowest levels (1-4) he will be able to use his 1d10+1 superclub and his wolf buddy to win over monsters he meets, at higher levels more good things for him to do open up, after a while he will be wearing a rhino hide, wildclasped, while charging as a legendary tiger, and the enemy is: PWNED! or he could be himself with better stats by playing a legendary ape..... and at that point he has a dire bear buddy, that is double normal size and made of pure kickass...... he also gets spot, listen, diplomacy and survival as class skills..... (he will also pump his cross-class search as high as possible).... wouldn't that work the best? he heals, he attacks, he owns, he casts spells, he commands a small army of animals, he can turn into a tuna or a shark or something if he has to swim, he can turn into a eagle or a hawk or something if he has to fly nothing he can't do!
Xavim 02-21-04, 10:30 PM	Wizard. Hands down. Any wizard worth their salt can handle virtually any situation that he will ever encounter, simply because the wizo is that smart. A lone wizard will look into every situation quite thoroughly before committing himself to danger. Though his hp are low, that's not a problem if you don't get hit. Stranded in the wilderness? You have a familiar for a reason. IT knows how to survive, just have it bring you food. Or hell ray of frost some birds. Magic missile will nab you a rabbit. If you're in the desert find something that crawls, cast prestidigitation on it and chow down on bugs that taste like roast beef. The more powerful the wizard becomes the less and less he cannot handle. Room filling with water? Rope trick and prepare a way out. The wizards ability to research new spells means that he will always be able to adapt to any situation. If he encounters something beyond his abilities he is the one character best equipped to run away. Polymorph is a nice way to leave those little deserts, fly high as a vulture until you find an oasis. or hell eventually you can just teleport. While many people will tell you that your wizard will never live past level 1 since all you need to do is throw a potato at him to kill him, his AC is often higher than the fighter, his manuverablity is second to none, and he IS the damage dealer of the game. Plus, that 15+ INT has got to be good for something right? There is NO way a wizard will never go to a city. THe moment he is in one, is when he can really shine. He can triplicate his low level spells with scrolls and craft any magical item he might need. At high levels there is nothing he can't research, no limit to the amount of devils/celestials he can bind, and once you get up to 8th level spells he can no longer die. If he does his clone wakes up and he's safe and sound again. So yeah I vote the wizard. Since any character embarking on a solo campaign needs to have their wits about them. And there is no character class that benefits more from a cleaver player than our happy little wizard.
PhaedrusXY 02-22-04, 12:09 AM	Cleric with the Trickery Domain, especially if you can take the Cosmopolitan feat from Forgotten Realms, and get a couple more of the "rogueish" skills needed for dungeon crawling as class skills. Use a combination of low level summoning spells and Find Traps (coupled with a good Search skill via Cosmopolitan) and you can be as good or better than an actual rogue at dealing with traps. You'll need a high Int for skill points, though, and should be a human for the extra feat and skill points. I agree that a Wizard is very versatile, and might actually deal with alot of things better than a cleric, but he doesn't have the hit points, he only has one good save, and he can't wear armor.
Xavim 02-22-04, 12:26 AM	Ah but spells can be made to overcome all of that. Only 1 good save? Make a spell that uses your will save for everything. Rogues have a feat that does it, why not make a spell?
PhaedrusXY 02-22-04, 12:35 AM	Originally posted by Xavim Ah but spells can be made to overcome all of that. Only 1 good save? Make a spell that uses your will save for everything. Rogues have a feat that does it, why not make a spell? Rogues have an Epic feat that does it. Or are you talking about something else?
Votan 02-22-04, 12:38 AM	Originally posted by Xavim Ah but spells can be made to overcome all of that. Only 1 good save? Make a spell that uses your will save for everything. Rogues have a feat that does it, why not make a spell? I think the rogue feat is epic. That means that a spell that did the same should be either very high level or epic. At epic levels I suspect that any class is getting pretty independent because their strengths are so overwhelming they can apply them to nonstandard problems and still succeed. I agree that a wizard is a noble choice if he is at least 5th level and becomes a decent pick at level 11 or 12. But at low levels a cleric does a lot better. Actually, all by oneself, I tend to suspect that the Druid is the best choice. Once wildsahpe shows up the Druid has a lot of options to handle traps and obstacles. But you did point out one of the core issues here -- thoughtful playing can trump ANY class abilities.
merciless 02-22-04, 07:00 PM	Most of the arguments for my choice, Cleric, have already been made. Good spellcaster, a little strength/armor makes him good fighter, domains can make him better rounded. But very importantly i want to point out the Find Traps spell. Assuming you've got the slots to spare to prepare it a couple times, your cleric wisdom score should make you pretty decent at finding traps.
merciless 02-22-04, 07:00 PM	Most of the arguments for my choice, Cleric, have already been made. Good spellcaster, a little strength/armor makes him good fighter, domains can make him better rounded. But very importantly i want to point out the Find Traps spell. Assuming you've got the slots to spare to prepare it a couple times, your cleric wisdom score should make you pretty decent at finding traps. -:b:
Kilsek of Sheverash 02-22-04, 08:58 PM	Any class could do it, it's really how you role-play and react to each challenge. Any intelligent person "solo-ing" naturally learns that he or she needs help. Hercules needed Eolus, Xena needed Gabrielle, Buffy needed the Scoobies, Angel needed the Angel Investigations crew, and so on. I guess my main point is, it won't be all "solo" - you'll need help, any reasonable "hero" will learn that and pick up an NPC ally or cohort or several through his travels and tribulations. Unless he wants to live a very short life. And I don't think you and your DM want that right? I'd think your DM realizes this, and you might both want to talk about you playing multiple characters (two, not ten), or have an NPC ally or two helping you out. Either you work out something where an NPC(s) join you up temporarily or long term - from friendship to a specific goal or favor to divvying up treasure to out and out mercenary hiring - or the Leadership feat. Makes for a great role-play and story heavy game - which, honestly, is something that really comes to light naturally in the 2 player game. I know, I've done it once and am about to be in that type of game again - this time as a player and not DM!
Geethree 02-22-04, 09:16 PM	Any intelligent person "solo-ing" naturally learns that he or she needs help. Hercules needed Eolus, Xena needed Gabrielle, Buffy needed the Scoobies, Angel needed the Angel Investigations crew, and so on. I guess my main point is, it won't be all "solo" - you'll need help, any reasonable "hero" will learn that and pick up an NPC ally or cohort or several through his travels and tribulations. Unless he wants to live a very short life. And I don't think you and your DM want that right?But, by that logic, wouldn't the bard be the best? Bards are, by far, the best class to take if you want to win people over and attract help. Their social skills are only rivaled by the rogue, but even then the Bard has the advantage.
Kilsek of Sheverash 02-22-04, 09:54 PM	Originally posted by Geethree But, by that logic, wouldn't the bard be the best? Bards are, by far, the best class to take if you want to win people over and attract help. Their social skills are only rivaled by the rogue, but even then the Bard has the advantage. Sure, the Bard has the best total skills, class abilities, and spell selection that can easily be geared toward making and keeping friends and allies. Other classes can do those things well, but not as well and not in as many ways. And the bard class is a little bit of everything, so when you're alone or in a small party, it does help to know a bit of a lot of things in order to be more resourceful. The other thing to keep an eye out for is the "actual" style of game you end up playing. The DM's personal style might favor a little more combat than you expect, or a little less, or about the same. Talking about what to expect before the campaign is always good to do, and at the same time, you'll both also have to see how the game, setting, NPCs, monsters and adventures actually end up playing out. That said, keep your mind open to mult-classing. If more combat comes up, a good warrior class dip of a level or two would sure help round out a base bard character, for example. On the other hand, if combat doesn't come up as much as you both thought, staying bard or dipping into more magic- or skill-based classes might be fun too.
khyron1144 02-22-04, 10:14 PM	Originally posted by Xavim Wizard. Hands down. Any wizard worth their salt can handle virtually any situation that he will ever encounter, simply because the wizo is that smart. 100 orcs at first level. I cast magic missile at the leader! He's dead. Now the others are very mad. I cast my magic missile. What else do I have? Oh yeah, a stick, a BAB of 0, and 2 HP. I'm screwed.
Votan 02-22-04, 10:35 PM	Originally posted by khyron1144 100 orcs at first level. I cast magic missile at the leader! He's dead. Now the others are very mad. I cast my magic missile. What else do I have? Oh yeah, a stick, a BAB of 0, and 2 HP. I'm screwed. Well, I'd cast sleep. And I'd have more than one spell memorized. I'd also have a couple of scrolls that I scribed as backup. I'd go down but harder than that. And 100 Orcs is the "Kobayashi Maru" scenerio for pretty much any first level character. It's just how long does it take for our hero to go down.
khyron1144 02-22-04, 11:02 PM	Yeah I know wizards got a bit of a boost in 3e, so they get more than one first level spell at first level, but they still don't get much. And yeah, 100 orcs is unfair for any lone first level character, but a first level fighter or barbarian might be able to take down, say fifty of them.
Sheer_FALACY 02-22-04, 11:52 PM	You must be joking. 100 orcs will kill a 1st level character in the first round of combat unless they start 3 miles away.
khyron1144 02-22-04, 11:58 PM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY You must be joking. 100 orcs will kill a 1st level character in the first round of combat unless they start 3 miles away. Or unless they all only have mellee weapons, so only about ten can effectively attack him at any one time. I think a first level fighter might just have a decent enough AC to avoid ten attacks.
Sheer_FALACY 02-23-04, 12:04 AM	Originally posted by khyron1144 Or unless they all only have mellee weapons, so only about ten can effectively attack him at any one time. I think a first level fighter might just have a decent enough AC to avoid ten attacks. ... A first level fighter will probably have an AC of around 12, because they can't afford armor. The orcs hit 1/2 the time. The only way he could stop 10 orcs from hitting him is with an AC of ~24 and up, and even then he only kills 1 every other round and they hit once every 2 rounds.
Votan 02-23-04, 12:28 AM	Originally posted by khyron1144 Yeah I know wizards got a bit of a boost in 3e, so they get more than one first level spell at first level, but they still don't get much. And yeah, 100 orcs is unfair for any lone first level character, but a first level fighter or barbarian might be able to take down, say fifty of them. I agree wrt to the wizards. A first level wizard is in a lot of trouble in melee and it is hard to avoid it completely. Heck, even an archer is really bad news. 3E Orcs are pretty terrifying for a first level character. They only have 5 hp and AC 13 (so a tough fighter or Barbarian can drop them fast) but that 17 strength gives them an attack at +4 doing 2d4 + 4 points of damage. A character with AC 20 (very good for first level) is hit on a 16+ for an average of 9 points of damage. A barbarian will drop in 2 hits if you aren't careful. With a CR of 1/2 you would think that 2 Orcs are a good challenge for a party of 4. But brutal experience has taught me that one unfortunate critical can make the battle spiral out of control unless the party is very melee oriented. Now 100 goblins or Kobolds is another matter . . .
TaisharMalkier 02-23-04, 12:45 AM	Zug Zug. For example above of wizard, expeditous retreat and run =P. Summoning Druid. You get decent spells (including healing, damage, and utility). The major thing is you can get around some of the major problems with having only 1 character - with the animal companion, and the nature's allies, you can actually have a decent sized force out there at later levels. As for traps, I'm fairly sure with wild shape and having a summoned monster lead when I'm suspicious would work fairly well. You get solid melee ability, and never have to leave wild shape form =P. Cheers
Ithilorien 02-23-04, 12:53 AM	Best solo character for a dungeon/wilderness adventure? Rogue 16/ Ranger 4 take the Cosmopolitan feat and make survival a class skill so you can keep it maxed. You now have full survival, stealth, and awareness skills, good social skills, use magic device, sneak attacks (boosted with TWF), an animal companion (have it assist you), the ability to deal with traps, tracking, +16 BAB for four attacks, strong reflex saves (with evasion), a favored enemy bonus, etc, etc, etc . . . Seems pretty surivable to me. Just carry around a wand of searing light for undead.
mercurywyrm 02-23-04, 01:16 AM	NOT 3rd ed KOBOLDS! Their favored class is sorcerer! I would pick for a lone adventurer the ranger or rouge, their diversity in skills is what you need more than any other thing, spells are nice but need to be supplemented with real hp and saves (RANGER!) and traps have you got unless you know about them and have a way to bypass them (ROUGE!) If multiclassing were allowed I would go ranger/rouge and focus on taking as much diversity of skills as possilbe and bringing scrolls and potions for various situations and be real carefull. Bard can also be nice but you REALLY have to know what you are doing. Clerics have several flaws in that they are limited by strict philosiphies and low skill points which are the most valuable resourse to a lone character because they have to supply all the needed skills(or at least be able to replace them regularly with spells without giving up combat capablility). It really depends on setting, lots of simple terrain combat leads to clerics being good, dungeons raids, traps and steath favor the rouge, outdoors with lots of diffuclut terrain far favors the ranger and any amount of social interaction or using social skills favors the bard. However a mix of all favors the ranger the most with the one problem being he lacks the automatic trapfinding ability of the rouge. Traps arn't as much of a problem because of his good for and reflex save though, the problem is that his will saves will stab him in the back almolst every time he encounters a spellcaster, this leads to more value for Iron Will and Mage Slayer Feat. Speaking of Mage slayer feat... The Miniatures handbook has some classes that are nice in combat strategically but poor when left alone, some of the most specialized and non worthy of lone adventuring classes I have ever seen! If you are clever the wizard is the best way to take advantage of it as long as you don't wear out your spells to quickly and keep an out availible. The only thing is that they can't fight properly untill they learn 3rd or 4th level spells because they don't get good spells for multilple targets untill then except sleep which is a bad choice for lone adventuring because you have no meat sheilds... I mean fighters to stand in front of you and guard you from enemy attacks and thus concentration checks that you are bound to fail at low level without min/maxing. Ranger's styles also favor negating DR by allowing you to have an arsenal of different arrows or two weapons for instance one adamantine and one cold iron with the enchantment to allow it to become a silver weapon temporarily on it. Finally rangers are one of the best classes for lots of encounters at odd times of day because of endurance feat and can keep enemies from getting away with their track skills. After two levels of rouge, three of ranger, and the iron will feat, you are a pretty versitile character who can take on a wide range of encounter types. Adding bard to the mix makes you even better but isn't neccesary if you have a high enough INT and use your leftover rouge skills for Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive and Gather Information. Tip, gather info combined with bardic knowledge is often better than what magical divinations can get you because it gives it from a more interested and long term point of view. If someone knows the bard can often know too. Intimidate could be nice too if you aren't against using it, but I generally detest the use of it as it is more of a temporary fix and tends to create enemies of the people you use it on later on. Enemies are bad for loners. Don't make enemies, the more friends you have the less likely someone will think they can kill you without reprecussions. If for instance killing you would make both the Zentarhim and the Harpers seek revenge then even Elminister would be worried about killing you. FR is the setting lone characters do best in because it is high magic and the more magic offered by items and NPCs the less you need to have it yourself and the less benificial it is to have it yourself. Also it is way cooler to be a lone rouge or ranger than any other class except maybe an arcane caster.
ids the bum 02-23-04, 01:23 AM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY I think that anyone would throw something summoned at anything. An exalted wizard would throw a summoned humanoid at a crushing trap, and should not be penalized for that. Remember, nothing that happens to a summoned creature is real; it has no effect on anything. There is no difference between sending a summoned creature to die and waiting a few rounds for it to vanish. Also, there is no difference between sending it to die in combat and sending it to die by several thousand tons of falling rock. Technically, you are actually summoning a living, breathing creature. The only difference between this summoned creature and any other creature of its type is that it is with you for a limited time, and then it goes back home. So, it would be best to put yourself in their shoes out of game. If your a simple human, and you enjoy your life, and then you're summoned to go into certain bloody doom, you are not going to be a happy person.:behold: By the way, I think the best class to be alone is the bard, since technically you can hire people to join you for limited adventures, and since you would be singing songs while beating the bejeesus out of monsters (a la A Clockwork Orange), and casting spells, and being able to do pretty much whatever you need to do to survive. After all, the idea behind the jack-of-all-trades archetype is they don't need help.
Votan 02-23-04, 09:18 AM	Originally posted by mercurywyrm NOT 3rd ed KOBOLDS! Their favored class is sorcerer! Well, obviously I was not considering Kobolds with class levels. Any humaniod with class levels vs. a first level character is going to be pretty scary. I just wanted to avoid Orcs because their high strength makes them much more siutable vs. 2nd level characters (who can shrug off a couple of lucky hits).
Kilsek of Sheverash 02-23-04, 09:52 AM	A quick aside on the inane 100 orc vs. 1st level character example: A fighter with starting AC of 12? Because they can't afford armor? Last I checked the starting package for fighter, they certainly had better armor and AC than that. This isn't old school D&D anymore where you start totally broke with a suit of "cloth" for armor. Back on topic... Anyway, I am starting to lean more towards the bard, but as I said earlier, any class can solo as long as they realize they can't solo - i.e. they'll need help and friends to survive and succeed. So I can see where the Bard, with his social skills and abilities, is a more natural choice. The other thing you need to consider is what level you're starting off at. If you're starting at 1st, and I think that's what most ppl are assuming, then it looks as though bard is one of the better choices. At higher levels, however, you can certainly be more resourceful without "needing" anybody, because your power is to the point where you're not all that concerned about running out of spells or hit points in one combat. There's a small but cool section in the DMG that talks about the characteristics of Low-level and High-level characters and play, and the major differences. If you and your DM haven't yet committed to what level you're starting at, it's worth the read.
Druid Roxors 02-23-04, 04:49 PM	To point out a few misconceptions on the cleric/ranger issue. Rangers CANNOT search for traps with the search skill. Thats a class ability of the rogue, check the phb if you dont believe me. The spell clerics use lets them search for traps like if they were rogues. A simple fix is crossclass your ranger with 1 level of rogue. Another fix is buy an inexpensive wand of SNAI and send them to their doom. (summoned creatures do not die) In my opinion Druids are the best for low level survival (animal companion) and high level survival (healing, summoning, companion, nukes, buffs). Anyways, The survival skill lets you "Survive" with whatever is on hand. Oh, and the lack of Protein does not kill you, what do you think vegetarians are? (not all of them take proteinic suplements you know?) Besides, you might be forgetting the vegetable protein like beans. (I am a medical student, i know what im talking about) - Thats for "The man Time Forgot"
Sheer_FALACY 02-23-04, 05:25 PM	Originally posted by Kilsek of Sheverash A quick aside on the inane 100 orc vs. 1st level character example: A fighter with starting AC of 12? Because they can't afford armor? Last I checked the starting package for fighter, they certainly had better armor and AC than that. This isn't old school D&D anymore where you start totally broke with a suit of "cloth" for armor. Fighters start out with what, 4d10 gp? Assuming they roll all 10's, that is enough for studded leather armor. Of course, if they buy that then they don't have enough for a weapon AND food. And assuming the average roll of 22 total, they can't even afford the studded leather armor. This is close enough to old school D&D for that, unless you are the TWFing finessing fighter with 18 dex. Rangers can search for traps. They just can't find traps with a DC higher than 20.
PhaedrusXY 02-23-04, 05:30 PM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY ... A first level fighter will probably have an AC of around 12, because they can't afford armor. The orcs hit 1/2 the time. The only way he could stop 10 orcs from hitting him is with an AC of ~24 and up, and even then he only kills 1 every other round and they hit once every 2 rounds. Not that I'm arguing that a 1st level fighter has a snowball's chance in hell against 100 orcs, but he sure as heck can afford some kind of armor. Maybe not what he'd like, but he doesn't have to run around naked. He can at least afford some scale mail and a heavy wooden shield, unless he absolutely insists on getting a Masterwork Composite Longbow with a Str bonus, or something. Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY Fighters start out with what, 4d10 gp? I am pretty sure it was more than that, but I don't have my books on me and can't find anything about starting money in the SRD. Go look it up for us, if you have your books handy. :D I thought it was 4d4x10 or something.
Sheer_FALACY 02-23-04, 05:47 PM	Ok, so if it is 4d4 x 10 gp, then the average is 100. So, they could get scale mail. That gives them an AC of 15 if they have decent dexterity. This means that they kill one orc before they die, because every round enough orcs will be attacking them that the orcs have enough man-rounds to essentially take 20. This is assuming that they win initiative.
Kilsek of Sheverash 02-23-04, 06:15 PM	Don't forget a shield, and anyone can afford a large *wooden* shield in 3.5. That's a respectable increase of +2 to AC, and ability to afford scale mail for +4 AC. So you're talking AC ~16-18 for the average 1st level fighter PC. Just look at the starting dwarf and human fighter packages in the PHB. They have decent equipment, but they do give the human version of the fighter a 2-H weapon, so that's 2 less AC off the bat, so you could have an average Dex fighter going 2H in scale mail for an ehh AC of 14. No, he probably won't live long at all. How did it come to this? lol Sorry for hijacking the post!
Raging Halfling 02-24-04, 06:01 PM	Wow! Sheer_Fallacy, how long has it been since you made a 1st level character? 1st Edition? A level 1 fighter gets 6d4x10 gp. That means, depending on your combat style of choice, that you will probably have an AC somewhere in the 15-18 range. I do agree with you about the 100 orcs though. Whoever posted that must have been suffering from temporary pizza deprivation.
DarkRogue 02-24-04, 10:29 PM	I played a multiclassed bard/fighter (16bard,4 fighter ), race Human or dwarf of course, no need to lose exp over it. This would allow you to get up to 6th lvl bard spells and a 4th attack (although at a low BAB). This would also allow you to take weapon spec, and give you a lot of extra proficiencies. I know its kinda munchkiny, but its a pretty good build if you wanna have the versatility of a bard, but get some meat on ya. I was a bard in a campaign, but due to lack of melee I was forced to the frontlines a lot and decided to take a few lvls in fighter to bulk up. IMO this is a great build for a solo character. Cleric is also good if you can find the time to buff yourself up =P
Sheer_FALACY 02-24-04, 10:59 PM	I don't make 1st level characters. I prefer characters who aren't going to die in 1 hit from an orc. Regardless, most fighters don't use shields over THF or TWF, because the boost to AC isn't worth it and you can get an animated shield eventually. Also, your AC could be 3,000 and you would still die, because 1 or 2 hits kill you and those orcs are going to be rolling more 20's than you can shake a quarterstaff at.
khyron1144 02-29-04, 05:16 PM	Originally posted by Raging Halfling I do agree with you about the 100 orcs though. Whoever posted that must have been suffering from temporary pizza deprivation. I was just pointing out that a wizard can't wizard his way out of every situation. Especially at first level. Now a first level Sorceror with Magic Missile, Color Spray, and Expeditious Retreat might make it out alive. Just barely.
Sheer_FALACY 02-29-04, 05:24 PM	Um, no. The only way to make it out alive is expeditious retreat, and the wizard is more likely to have that then the sorc is because the wizard has 2 spells per day and doesn't have to live with a poor decision until 4th level. The sorc doesn't have that many spells known, and the offensive spells would be worthless in that case (lvl 1 sorc knows 2 1st level spells).