Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phaseroth 02-03-06, 10:33 PM	I'm going to be filling if for our regular DM next week, and I'll be running a short standalone adventure. I'll be pregenerating characters to save time, rather than spend a lot of game time rolling them up. The problem is, I'm only going to have two players. So I'm wondering what will be most efficient: rolling up four separate characters (cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard, say 5th level each) and have each player run two of them, or rolling up two multiclass characters (cleric5/fighter5 and rogue5/wizard5, 10th-level characters but with 5th-level gear). I figure it will be a more equal split of the characters if each player runs one caster and one non-caster. I'm leaning toward the multiclass approach, as it will entail less paper shuffling for the players.
imperialjunkie 02-03-06, 10:36 PM	I'd go the route of one player, one character. Personally, I'd really dislike it if my DM made my character for me beforehand. Are your players fine with this? An alternative is letting them create PCs on their own with a point buy or just trusting them to roll.
WCH 02-03-06, 11:13 PM	How about lvl 5 Gestalt characters? Gestalt is an alternative rule from Unearthed Arcana that allows you to level up in two classes at once, taking the better base attack bonus, better saves, larger hitdice, more skills, etc of the two. Thus, a lvl 1 fighter//rogue has d10 HD, 8+Intx4 skill points, good Fort and Ref saves, a bonus Fighter feat, sneak attack +1d6 and trapfinding. Result is characters that are far more powerful, and have two classes, but without doing your Cleric 5/Fighter 5 thing, which would result in far too many hitdice, etc. And I agree that you shouldn't pregen unless you have no other choice; character creation is half the fun of the game! Just use a point buy and tell them to make their characters before coming, using only books that you allow (Core and Complete, or just Core, or whatever. Up to you).
Phaseroth 02-03-06, 11:25 PM	I'd go the route of one player, one character. So, you like the multiclass idea, then? Personally, I'd really dislike it if my DM made my character for me beforehand. Are your players fine with this? An alternative is letting them create PCs on their own with a point buy or just trusting them to roll. It's not a matter of trusting them - no problems there. It's simply a matter of saving time on game day. Frankly, judging by the insane amount of time it took one guy to advance his ranger from 7th to 8th level last week, it would be time to go home by the time he finished rolling up a character and then advancing it to 5th or 6th level. This is just going to be a one-shot time filler to tide everybody over until the next week when the regular DM comes back (in fact, pregen PCs were the regular DMs suggestion), so I may even make it a 12th- or 13th-level adventure. We haven't had much in the way of high-level play - I swear my own fighter in the regular campaign was stuck at 6th level for two months - so it might be fun to tackle some monsters we haven't seen before. But yeah, the players are OK with playing pregenerated characters in situations like this. When it's just a one-shot adventure, they (and I) would rather spend the available time actually playing and completing the adventure instead of rolling up characters. After all, the characters won't likely be seen again after this session anyway. If everybody could roll a character up quickly, that would be one thing, but I'm dealing with a couple slowpokes.
Phaseroth 02-03-06, 11:31 PM	How about lvl 5 Gestalt characters? ... Result is characters that are far more powerful, and have two classes, but without doing your Cleric 5/Fighter 5 thing, which would result in far too many hitdice, etc. Hey, I like the sound of that! Unfortunately, Unearthed Arcana is one book that none of us own.
Lord Zeb 02-03-06, 11:38 PM	Hey, I like the sound of that! Unfortunately, Unearthed Arcana is one book that none of us own. Here ya go buddy, it's in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)
ecienavxela 02-04-06, 12:49 AM	I would like to know more about the advantages and/or disadvantages of one player running two characters. I'm playing with players somewhat new to DnD, but we got combat and other stuff pretty much okay. My problem is, only 2 players can make it consistently, and in fact are asking if they can do this 1-player,2-PCs thing since I usually don't want to play with less than 4 PCs. The group isn't too strong on roleplaying yet (which would obviously suffer if one player controls more than one character), and they prefer a hack-and-slash game, so I guess the roleplaying aspect of the game is not too much of an obstacle. Besides, I'm thinking I can still "force" them to roleplay, even if it is just one of the two characters. Also, we're still in the very low levels (read: level 1) so, again, not much problem with "learning the game and might be hard if playing with more than one character" idea. Thanks!
Louist 02-04-06, 01:10 AM	A big problem with running two characters for a player is highly favouring one over another. Say a player has a rogue and a cleric. Don't be surprised if the best loot and the gold goes to supplying the rogue, while the cleric is a walking heal-bot. Since your players aren't big on RP (yet) they will likely skimp on all the possible character interactions, and settle instead for an implausable dou who always agree with one another, support each other, etc, etc. Although with just two players, chances are they will survive a bit better with a balanced party as opposed to just two characters. No one likes playing a cleric in a party of two!
Phaseroth 02-04-06, 02:02 AM	Here ya go buddy, it's in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) Thanks! I would like to know more about the advantages and/or disadvantages of one player running two characters. It's definitely an advantage when there are 3 or few players. In our regular campaign, we had eight players for a while. Five of those dropped out, but unfortunately our DM hasn't adjusted the CRs to compensate. So to maintain party power, one player has taken over the ranger formerly belonging to one of the dropouts, in addition to his own original character. The ranger character was so integral to the party, having been there since the beginning, that we didn't want to just abandon it. The lack of an arcane caster in the party prompted me to take on a second character as well - a warmage. One player with two PCs can be a hassle in ways other than those already mentioned. For example, if one of your players isn't all that bright, he or she can end up taking up a lot of game time on his or her turns. For example, our bard-rogue/ranger player isn't real quick with the math part of the game. The 8th-level ranger PC is a two-weapon fighter with two attacks per round, which means he actually makes six attacks per round (sword/dagger/dagger + sword/dagger/dagger). Even more attacks if his Cleave feat comes into play. His main character is a bard 5/ rogue 3, with both classes being heavily skill-focused. So whether it's a barrage of attacks or some kind of skill check, this guy's turns take quite a while; we all wait while he uses pencil and paper or his fingers to add the d20 result to his attack or skill modifiers.
WCH 02-04-06, 02:11 AM	The 8th-level ranger PC is a two-weapon fighter with two attacks per round, which means he actually makes six attacks per round (sword/dagger/dagger + sword/dagger/dagger).You might want to double check that one... TWF+Improved TWF and BAB of +8/+3 nets you a total of four attacks. Your offhand weapon never strikes more often than your main hand.
Phaseroth 02-04-06, 03:56 AM	You might want to double check that one... TWF+Improved TWF and BAB of +8/+3 nets you a total of four attacks. Your offhand weapon never strikes more often than your main hand. TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. 1 attack = sword/dagger IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it ... 1 attack = sword/dagger/dagger This is made especially clear when you read the description for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting: Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon ... I agree, though, that it seems kind of silly that the off-hand weapon sees more action than the primary weapon. I wasn't getting it at all when our party's ranger was stepping through the whole routine. I suppose the attack procedure would go something like this: Assuming the primary weapon is in the ranger's right hand, I see a big sweeping slash with the sword, downward from left to right. The ranger's body turns from left to right as he slashes, and this brings his off-hand weapon directly at his opponent: stab stab stab. And while he's stab-stab-stabbing he's keeping his opponent off-guard while he brings his sword into position for another slash. With that kind of fun, why on earth would anybody choose Archery as his ranger's combat style? This is why I've given the ranger the nickname, "Lawnmower Man" (yeah, an anachronism for sure, but hey ...) Frankly, I think this makes rangers a bit overpowered. It's kind of frustrating when every combat goes like this: 8th-lvl Fighter: Whack! Whack! Bad Guy: "Oo, ouch! Not." 8th-lvl Ranger: Slice and dice and dice and slice and dice and dice ... Bad Guy: "Urgk!" *flop* Ranger: "XP! XP!" Fighter: "Gee, that was certainly exciting ..."
DMintheRealms 02-04-06, 04:13 AM	Originally Posted by ecienavxela I would like to know more about the advantages and/or disadvantages of one player running two characters I, too, have the problem of only having two regulars show up for gaming sessions. I have allowed both to have an additional character. Fortunately, my gamers are very strong role-players and are able to handle the situation rather well, frequently arguing with themselves. One player even had his characters attack each other over a matter of faith. Seriously, though, this is not something I would recommend for inexperinced players. It is difficult to pull off with any believability, and most players will favor one character over another. An alternate solution might be to only allow 1 char/player and have the DM run a multi-class NPC that is along for a fair share of the loot or even in the employ of the characters.
Salty_Boy 02-04-06, 10:50 AM	You might want to double check that one... TWF+Improved TWF and BAB of +8/+3 nets you a total of four attacks. Your offhand weapon never strikes more often than your main hand. WCH is right on this one. The feats are designed to make two-weapon fighting go as such: Two-Weapon Fighting: (per the SRD: "You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon".) If BAB = +3 Full Attack = Sword/dagger If BAB = +7/+2 Full Attack = Sword/dagger; Sword Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: (per the SRD: "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty".) If BAB = +7/+2 Full Attack = Sword/dagger; Sword/dagger If BAB = +14/+9/+4 Full Attack = Sword/dagger; Sword/dagger; Sword Essentially, if you take the entire Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree, you are simply tacking a corresponding second attack onto each normal attack at the usual progressively lower BAB.
Phaseroth 02-04-06, 01:22 PM	Huh. You make sense. I guess it needs to be spelled out a little better in the PHB, then, because everybody in my group read it the same way, as did our previous DM, who was very experienced. It definitely makes more sense the way you guys have explained it. Six weapon-thrusts per round was really looking overpowered to me, especially in comparison to my fighter, and especially considering the magic weapons this ranger has. The other players in the group are far more experienced than I am, though, so I tend to take their word for it on things like this. Is there an official "Two-Weapon Fighting for Dummies" -style article on this topic (or is it explained elsewhere in the core rules or SRD) that I could share with the rest of the group? It doesn't really matter for our current campaign, as the ranger-player and his wife (playing a druid) are moving out of town on March 1, which is going to end the campaign and leave the DM and I looking for new players. But it will be good for future reference, because I have no doubt that we're going to encounter another "I wanna be Drizzt" player somewhere down the line ;)
celtredleg 02-04-06, 01:40 PM	I much prefer the 2 player 4PC route. This is my groups normal way to play, even when we have 4-5 players. I very much dislike DMPCs,, and the permanent NPC can become one if you are not careful. Alot will depend on your group. You say they are mostly hackers anyway, so give them the extra bodys and let them hack away. If they are not RPing much, it wont hurt much. And sometimes, haveing to manage 2 personalitys will help them grow a bit of RP skill.
imperialjunkie 02-04-06, 02:46 PM	So, you like the multiclass idea, then? Yeah. Or Gestalt. A party of 2 can be fun, and it reduces the confusion of running two characters. It's not a matter of trusting them - no problems there. It's simply a matter of saving time on game day. Frankly, judging by the insane amount of time it took one guy to advance his ranger from 7th to 8th level last week, it would be time to go home by the time he finished rolling up a character and then advancing it to 5th or 6th level. This is just going to be a one-shot time filler to tide everybody over until the next week when the regular DM comes back (in fact, pregen PCs were the regular DMs suggestion), so I may even make it a 12th- or 13th-level adventure. We haven't had much in the way of high-level play - I swear my own fighter in the regular campaign was stuck at 6th level for two months - so it might be fun to tackle some monsters we haven't seen before. But yeah, the players are OK with playing pregenerated characters in situations like this. When it's just a one-shot adventure, they (and I) would rather spend the available time actually playing and completing the adventure instead of rolling up characters. After all, the characters won't likely be seen again after this session anyway. If everybody could roll a character up quickly, that would be one thing, but I'm dealing with a couple slowpokes. OK. I didn't catch that it was a one-shot. That changes things quite a bit.
ecienavxela 02-05-06, 02:11 AM	Thanks for the advice, guys. I guess I'll be doing a 2-PC per player option. Better play with that than not play at all. I'm not really sure why, but I never want to play if it is less than 4 PCs, and don't really want to have a DMPC myself, too much work for now. Besides, we split gold per PC, not per player, so each PC will get his fair share of loot, even if the player neglects to buy new stuff for that PC.