Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RecycledDM 07-20-06, 01:00 PM	I am going to be DMing a new campaign soon, but there will be only two players. The campaign will start from 1st level. Given there are only two players, I am trying to figure out which of these options to go with regarding party size / character power / class coverage: 1) Each player gets one 1st level character; if they need broader class coverage, characters either multiclass or get hirelings or convince NPC's to temporarily join the party. Where appropriate, encounters get scaled back by 1 or 2 EL's to account for the relative weakness of the party. 2) Each player runs two 1st level characters, making up your typical 4-character party. Encounter EL's as normal for a 4-character party. 3) Each player gets one 1st level gestalt character. Encounter EL's as normal for a 4-character party, accounting for the relatively high individual power of each character. I have a personal preference for one of these three options, but I'm not saying which it is at this point...I am asking, what do you see as the pros and cons of each of these options; also, what other options can you suggest for a two-player party?
Inigo Carmine 07-20-06, 01:14 PM	Keep in mind that any way you do it, balancing encounters will be difficult. With less individuals in the party, combat will be much more swingy; ie the margin between the characters defeating the enemy without any trouble, and the PCs getting steamrolled without a chance gets thin (and can change from one to the other with a single (un)lucky roll). Also, D&D is balanced for a 4 person party where all your bases are covered (tank, arcane caster, divine caster, skills person). #1 is, imho, the best option. I myself wouldn't put together a group with less than 3 people (coincidentally, my favorite sized group), but that's just me. I believe the correct balance point for a 2 person party is EL = party's level -2 (instead of = to party's level), but as I said before, this balance point becomes thinner and more difficult to hit just right. #2 I like the least. Mechanically it balances things, but in my opinion the roleplaying suffers something fierce. Then again, it depends on your type of campaign. If you have a more comat-heavy RP light campaign it would work just fine. (My group used to always run one like this over the summer). #3 This might be slightly unbalancing too. While gestalt no doubt makes you more powerful, I don't believe it makes you twice as powerful. You'd still need to do something to power the party up or scale encounters back.
KJW 07-20-06, 01:16 PM	I would not do #2 because it is best for the players to focus on one character. With only two players there will be more roleplaying opportunities, as there are fewer players, and having to juggle multiple characters will be very difficult. As for #3, gestalt does increase the potency of players, but not enough to equal four characters. Remember just because you are gestalt does not mean you have twice as many actions, it is still one character. Also if these are newer players I would avoid gestalt as it really once again can be overwhelming handling the mechanics of two classes at once. There is nothing wrong with the standard classes. I would suggest you try #2. This gives control of the party to the players, if they have a weakness they will need to address it. If you are cautious and they are smart then they can form a pretty effective party, plus this will be the easiest situation for the players to handle. Also If you add new players the transition in this scenario will be a lot easier. As for some ideas, design your campaign around the characters. If you have a bard and a rogue then I would suggest an urban adventure with thievery, intrique, and plenty of opportunities for them to flaunt their skills. If you have a wizard and sorcerer then play up the mystical parts of your campaign, have them face magical challenges and riddles. If you have a fighter and a ranger then a more militaristic campaign is the way to go, maybe they serve a kingdom's army along its most dangerous border. In roleplaying there is a continuum, large parties are driven by the broad campaign arcs, small parties are driven by personal story arcs. They overlap, of course, but the feel and focus is different. I love large groups to give me a chance to craft an interesting saga, but I also love small, and solo, groups to craft more personally compelling stories driven by the actions of the PCs. It can often be the same story, but the presentation and focus is very different in both situations.
Abulafia 07-20-06, 01:16 PM	I vote for #1. It's easier to roleplay when you have your own character. It's easy for the DM to add NPC helpers or scale the encounter. This is the simplest thing to do. #2 takes some of the roleplay verisimilitude out of the game. Plus there's the chance that the players will make "main" characters (who get all of the good treasure and do the fun things) and "backup" characters, and you'll have to police inter-character balance. Never fun. Gestalt games are fun, but two gestalt characters aren't a match for a thoughtfully designed four-character party. The gestalt rules recommend reducing EL's by one for a four-character gestalt party (by two if the encounter features a saving throw-dependent creature such as a medusa); running a two-character gestalt party against normal EL's is going to be rough sledding. It looks like three of us all said substantially the same thing at almost the same time. Aren't the boards great?
Tembo 07-20-06, 04:52 PM	RecycledDM, I have been DMing a two-player campaign for about four years now (characters are 14th level). I run mine in a manner similar to your first option and I have hit few snags, and the players are having alot of fun. Fortunately, one of the characters has cleric levels. The way I see it the players have two options here: 1) One (or both) take levels of a class capable of casting curative magics, or 2) They spend a large portion of their treasure on healing magics. I did run into a few snags that I feel I should give you the heads up on. I used NPCs sparingly (using them only as essential plot elements and NEVER as a spare sword or spell provider). I felt that using NPCs to "assist" the players provided a crutch that often detracts from the game and adds to metagame thinking ("I don't need to worry about my hit points because the NPC cleric will heal me.") The other (and probably biggest) difficulty I had was balancing the Encounter Level. In a group of two a DM must be especially careful not to place too challenging an encounter or too many encounters. I wish I could give you a formula, but in all of my adventures I still wonder if an encounter is too difficult. As a rule of thumb, a single creature with a challenge rating two lower than the "party" level should suffice, multiple creatures in one encounter or multiple encounters require even more finesse by the DM (be aware of exactly what your PCs are and are not capable of). Be especially cognizant of special abilities such as damage reduction, spell resistance, and multiple attacks,(these can make quick work of a party of two). As a final disclaimer I will say this. My players (and myself) are highly experienced (over fifty years combined) and they work together exceptionally well. They understand the rules and the nuance (such as teamwork) of the game thuroughly. They also know EXACTLY what the strengths and weaknesses of their characters are, and have a thurough knowledge of their spells. Another option I would consider (one we are using in another of our campaigns- my brother is running his first campaign and had the same concerns you express) is our house rule for multiclassing. If both players agree to be multiclass, use it like 2nd Edition; the players get one level of each class every time they level up. EX. a fighter/cleric would be 1/1 yet still be a first level character. At level two he would gain one level of fighter and one level of cleric. This system does have some drawbacks, but does cover most of the issues you brought up (specifically the challenge rating). A Rog1/Ftr1 and Clr1/Wiz1 is (roughly) the same as 4 level one characters. I won't go into detail now, but if you like the sound of this option and would like to hear how we do it (specifically), just lemme know!!! Best of luck!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Inigo Carmine 07-20-06, 05:45 PM	I thought of some more helpful pointers: Don't purposely exploit the party's weakness. In fact, I'd go a little bit out of my way to avoid the party's weakness. IE: if the party lacks a rogue, I would use either no traps, or forewarn them about the trap or make it obvious. I would highly recomend the group use one divine caster and one skillsy class. Divine Caster: Clerics and Druids are generally viewed as being too powerful anyways. They are decent spellcasters, they are healers (this is practically required in a party) and are decent in melee as well. The clerics domains really give them an area to specialize in (like elemental for good offensive spells or something to boost fighting ability), and the druid's animal companion would be nice to split the enemy's attention in a party with low numbers. Skillsy: The one place where the divine casters fall short is skill-type stuff (especially the cleric). A rogue is an excellent compliment to a cleric, as between the 2 of them there's little that can't be done. UMD as a class skill means he can use arcane magic items from time to time to help as well. Ranger is decent (and has the animal companion to split enemy attention). Combined with a druid, you could do a wilderness type adventure where they're most at home and use their mutual abilities like woodland stride together. Monks are all around survivalists and not to be overlooked. Bards are generally best reserved for a larger party (imho they are the perfect 5th wheel so to speak), but they are good with the skills and would fill in some of the gaps left by a divine caster.
RecycledDM 07-20-06, 07:28 PM	Thanks for all the suggestions. I favor option 1 also. Here's why: I've DMed these players for a few months in another campaign. In that campaign, there were four players (each with their own character) when it started, but two dropped out a few sessions ago. The two remaining players took over and wound up with two characters each...all true role-playing immediately ceased, and the campaign got boring quickly. Plus, I had this big, over-arching plotline going on in which each character had a personal stake and personal quests to fulfill. When each remaining player suddenly had two such "personae" to juggle, it just got less...personal. These are young, relatively inexperienced players, and I want to harness the remaining two players' expressed interest in getting back into more role-playing...without the big, over-arching plotline, but rather with simpler, shorter plotlines that require no more than two or three sessions to complete. So, by mutual consent, we all three agreed to scrap the old campaign and start a new, fresh one. They have expressed an interest in playing a: -CN Human Rogue (who might multiclass into sorcerer or wizard); and -CG (Race=???) Fighter or Ranger (who might multiclass into druid or cleric) I think I'll start them with a short pirate-themed adventure (gee, I wonder where I got that inspiration from...)
RecycledDM 07-21-06, 12:48 AM	Update: The characters got made, using option 1. To give this 2-character party a leg-up at survivability at first level, I gave the players: 1) The option of 28 pt buy (I normally use 25 pt) OR roll (4d6, drop 1 die; roll 7 times, drop lowest stat; rearrange as you like); both opted to roll. 2) One extra feat 3) 8 extra skill pts One is Leif the Fair, CN human rogue (aka "skillmonkey"): rolled equivalent of 31-pt buy; took Improved Initiative, Endurance, and Diehard (endurance is lame, but diehard was a pretty smart choice in this 2-man party, IMO). He is planning to max out on UMD in order to be able to use wands and scrolls (although multiclassing into wizard would probably serve him better, as his Int is good). The other is Chicle, CG half-orc barbarian (aka "killkill"): rolled equivalent of 28-pt buy; took Power Attack and Cleave. He might multiclass into cleric (Wis is decent). Let the pirate adventure begin (Aaarrrr!)
sneak_Blast 07-21-06, 01:34 AM	pirates Of The Carribean!!!!