Well if your trying to think up a solo adventure to run through with a friend, any class could work so long as the encounters are built properly. So I'd go with which ever class fits the adventures theme.
If however your talking about starting a game but you've only got one person playing, I've done this with 4e but not without a DMPC. If you or your DM does not want to play a DMPC then it's a tough choice. Something versatile to be sure.
In the end it really depends. More info would help.
Well if your trying to think up a solo adventure to run through with a friend, any class could work so long as the encounters are built properly. So I'd go with which ever class fits the adventures theme.If however your talking about starting a game
You'll have to define 'solo game' a little better. If you mean one DM/one player, that's one thing. If you mean 'just me, myself, and my books" then thats something else altogether.
1-on-1 adventuring, I'd have to say a paladin, a rogue, or a battle cleric would probably work best.
In a typical party (multiple PCs) you need someone with face skills (Diplomacy, etc), someone who can deal damage, and someone who can heal/mitgate damage.
Alone, you'll need the same set of abilites.
A paladin has the best armor/shield/weapon combo in the game, some self healing theough lay on hands and certain powers, can be based on CHA (allowing excellent face skills, good WIL defense), and is an easily recognized hero-type "the knight in shining armor". You lack stealth skills, and your offense is not great (early in your career), but you are as durable as they come, and you can always build for exploiting radiant vulnerability. This would probably be my first choice, a CHA based paladin of Pelor/Amaunator, probably human or half elven.
A rogue has excellent damage output, lots of skills, can be built around CHA (the artful dodger build is very survivable), but lacks self heals unless you multiclass, hybrid, or invest in some skill powers and gear. Most importantly, rogues have stealth and the ability to scout/avoid many fights if they are traveling solo, which they don't usually get to do in a group with non-stealthers. This would be my second choice, and take either an elf, a drow, or a half elf.
A battle cleric is very similar to a paladin, with less armor and weapon options, but more healing. this would be my third choice, as a dwarf, human, or half elf.
You'll have to define 'solo game' a little better. If you mean one DM/one player, that's one thing. If you mean 'just me, myself, and my books" then thats something else altogether.1-on-1 adventuring, I'd have to say a paladin, a rogue, or a battle c
You could also go for a Valorous Bard -- similar in concept to the battle cleric, but with the added advantage that you can poach a variety of other classes for features you might want.
Leaders in general are a good idea, as you can grant yourself two of your healing surges per encounter (three at higher levels) with barely any action cost. You do want to be careful with your leader selection, though; some of them 'waste' a lot of features and powers if you have no allies around. (SC warlords are an example of this; your 'presence' feature goes by the wayside.)
I've seen an interesting assassin build, also; I think it was ShakaUVM's creation, that could take on four equal-level standard monsters and survive without even using any dailies. Did a lot of hiding and vanishing, etc.
You could also go for a Valorous Bard -- similar in concept to the battle cleric, but with the added advantage that you can poach a variety of other classes for features you might want.Leaders in general are a good idea, as you can grant yourself two
I like the Panther Shaman. It's one of the few leader builds that aren't primarily focused on giving bonuses to allies (of which you'll have none). Plus, if your DM is merciful he might take some swings at your spirit companion instead of you.
I know I've posted this a hundred times, but you could also Hybrid Beastmaster Ranger and have yourself a party (pun intended).
I like the Panther Shaman. It's one of the few leader builds that aren't primarily focused on giving bonuses to allies (of which you'll have none). Plus, if your DM is merciful he might take some swings at your spirit companion instead of you.I k
I'd like to echo the Paladin statement that Corman makes. In addition to his points (High durability, defenses, face skills, healing, and radiant vulnerability builds) the a paladin also has some ranged options. In addition, with the release of Divine Power he has some real damage-boosting powers that can give him a strikerish feel.
Basically you're a little bit of everything except controller. The only issue is not having anyone to defend with your challenge. If your DM throws in a Controller/Artillery companion NPC to aid you you have all of your roles semi-covered and have someone to protect.
I'd like to echo the Paladin statement that Corman makes. In addition to his points (High durability, defenses, face skills, and radiant vulnerability builds) the apaldin also has some ranged options. In addition, with the release of Divine Power
play a bard. I really don't think any other class is going to give you as much versatillity, and the bard sacrifices very little power for that versatillity.
bard. play a bard. I really don't think any other class is going to give you as much versatillity, and the bard sacrifices very little power for that versatillity.
Paladin with warlock multi - for the thievery skill. You have all the benefits of a durable defender, multiple forms of healing through lay hands and powers, radiant sources of damage which will you can put the smack down on most undead, and you have a decent array of both physical and social skills to choose. The warlock multi will give you thievery which you may need for traps and locks, as well as a eye bite! that synergies so well with divine challenge...top that off with the ability to use warlock implements for extra options and you're golden.
I like the bard for a lot of reasons but after playing one, they're so versatile that then end up being too thin across the board for my taste. Damage being the main concern, sure you can heal but you may not be able to heal enough to make up for the lack of damage you'd be dishing out. While they do aid a group immensely that's just it, they are great additions to a group. Most of their powers are "when an ally" or "the next ally who hits" etc.
Paladin with warlock multi - for the thievery skill. You have all the benefits of a durable defender, multiple forms of healing through lay hands and powers, radiant sources of damage which will you can put the smack down on most undead, and you have
It takes a lot of work to set up, but yes. You end up with a lot of randomization (either in monster responses or in your own actions) but if you are the kind of person who never cheats at Solitaire, its doable.
It takes a lot of work to set up, but yes. You end up with a lot of randomization (either in monster responses or in your own actions) but if you are the kind of person who never cheats at Solitaire, its doable.
It takes a lot of work to set up, but yes. You end up with a lot of randomization (either in monster responses or in your own actions) but if you are the kind of person who never cheats at Solitaire, its doable.
Would probably be useful for testing monsters or builds out.
Would probably be useful for testing monsters or builds out.
With one DM and one PC, the best options probably are: 1. Leaders (who are not too stuck on helping allies) since they can heal during the combats 2. Dwarves since they can second wind as a minor action and keep going during combat 3. Rangers because they can attack at long range and in melee, have Twin Strike for either which gives a bit of control (can kill two minions a turn), and have a solid list of useful skills
You could even be a Dwarven Ranger with the MC Warlord feat FTW! Lots of healing, lots of damage, lots of skills. Dwarf isn't the best for Ranger generally because it doesn't boost STR or DEX, but some things have to be flexible for a solo game.
With one DM and one PC, the best options probably are:1. Leaders (who are not too stuck on helping allies) since they can heal during the combats2. Dwarves since they can second wind as a minor action and keep going during combat3. Rangers beca
Picking up on the Shaman idea (which I think is great because it gets you that extra token), it might be interesting to look at other 'buddy' classes and builds.
Beast Ranger could be interesting. Even if you just do the 'standard archer + animal for quarry' type build, it helps you pick your target better and gives you a body to block people off with. In some cases you could select beast powers instead of melee powers to get away with not having a good strength. I don't know if I totally recommend this because obviously being ranged-dependent puts you at a disadvantage if the monsters are in your face, but it depends on how your DM runs the game. If he lets you sneak, stalk, and snipe, it could be viable. A pure melee beast guy would at gain a built-in flank buddy, or someone to go stick on a ranged attacker to slow it down a bit. We know that TWF damage is much better, but in a solo game the tactical advantage to the second token on the field could be helpful.
In a similar line of thought, there are the various new summoning options. Summoner Druids have Daily summons that create encounter-long allies that can act on their own. And because these are based on powers not on a class feature, you could choose your Druid build to taste depending on what looked better for your game. There's now an article out with more (and much better) Wizard summon powers that function similarly to the Druid ones, so once again you can get allies that will last the whole fight and possibly fight on their own. Wizards are low on HP, but you can build them to be very high on defenses. Indeed, with multiple encounter reactive teleports, you could outright avoid several hits each fight.
Picking up on the Shaman idea (which I think is great because it gets you that extra token), it might be interesting to look at other 'buddy' classes and builds. Beast Ranger could be interesting. Even if you just do the 'standard archer + animal f
Paladin with warlock multi - for the thievery skill. You have all the benefits of a durable defender, multiple forms of healing through lay hands and powers, radiant sources of damage which will you can put the smack down on most undead, and you have a decent array of both physical and social skills to choose. The warlock multi will give you thievery which you may need for traps and locks, as well as a eye bite! that synergies so well with divine challenge...top that off with the ability to use warlock implements for extra options and you're golden.
I like the bard for a lot of reasons but after playing one, they're so versatile that then end up being too thin across the board for my taste. Damage being the main concern, sure you can heal but you may not be able to heal enough to make up for the lack of damage you'd be dishing out. While they do aid a group immensely that's just it, they are great additions to a group. Most of their powers are "when an ally" or "the next ally who hits" etc.
A well built melee bard can actually dish out fine damage, while being really hard to put down. They are a little better for a duo campaign(or solo with a dmpc or somesuch), where the second person is a striker, but they can definately be done solo.
I'd probably make a cha, dex, con build and do some crazy mcing with a couple of striker classes, and power swap maybe one or two powers for rogue or monk powers.
A bard|rogue is also a very solo friendly build, but takes some specific power layout. bard|monk is a bit easier in terms of powers and playstyle.
A well built melee bard can actually dish out fine damage, while being really hard to put down. They are a little better for a duo campaign(or solo with a dmpc or somesuch), where the second person is a striker, but they can definately be done solo.
Action-denial will present a disproportionately huge problem to a solo PC. He needs to be durable, have high NADS, have respectable damage output, have the skills for social interactions and for traps, and be able to cope with debilitating effects. The Paladin is perfect for this, but some more sneaky Striker would be perfect. Divine Challenge isn't very important, since you have no one to defend, so going Hybrid has little disadvantage. So, poach ShakaUVM's Save-generating build!
Be a Human or Half-Elf Paladin|Warlock who takes Hybrid Talent: Armor Proficiencies, Starfire Womb, the White Lotus Riposte feats, and the At-Wills Virtuous Strike and Eyebite. If you're a Half-elf, take Blazing Starfall from the Sorcerer as your Dilettante. At Paragon you can Student of Caiphon or Morninglord, probably the latter.
With Divine Challenge and Eyebite, your damage is good, and gets great in Paragon when you can take White Lotus Master Riposte. This makes up for the limited number of attacks you get each round. Starfire Womb lets you make a save whenever you deal radiant or fear damage. You have great NADs, great AC, lots of hp, lots of surges, and ways to use them. You have great damage and you generate saves en masse. You have social skills with stat support and thievery training. You even have access to warlock mobility powers like Ethereal Stride/Step that you can use to mitigate your -4 armor check penalty. In short, you're set.
Action-denial will present a disproportionately huge problem to a solo PC. He needs to be durable, have high NADS, have respectable damage output, have the skills for social interactions and for traps, and be able to cope with debilitating effects. T
I'm with those who say "any class." The rules are, as the WotC folks have said on their podcasts, a "baseline." I experimented DM'ing a solo adventure with a wizard, and it worked out fine. Doing something as simple as ensuring a second wind a minor action, allowing SW multiple times per encounter, or buffing the surge value (1/3 vs 1/4 of max hp) is gold for non-healing classes. Or you as DM can play some insubstantial ancestral guardian spirit that occasionally grants temp HP to the player or something.
I've played in RPGA games where the combat experience turns out dull, surprisingly, but battles as a whole tend to hold the player's attention. The non-combat stuff turned out the be the most work-intensive in my experimental game. Meaningful skill challenges require thought already, but for an audience of one you really need the creative juices flowing. I ended up yielding quite a bit of authority to the player while the adventure progressed, and it made for an intimate, rewarding game.
I'm with those who say "any class." The rules are, as the WotC folks have said on their podcasts, a "baseline." I experimented DM'ing a solo adventure with a wizard, and it worked out fine. Doing something as simple as ensuring a second wind a minor
It takes a lot of work to set up, but yes. You end up with a lot of randomization (either in monster responses or in your own actions) but if you are the kind of person who never cheats at Solitaire, its doable.
Would probably be useful for testing monsters or builds out.
If you're playing against yourself, I'd think you might as well roll up a full party, no?
Actually, that's not a bad idea for the one player + one DM scenario, either, except that the roleplay can get a little strange. One way to handle it might be to have one main character that the player controls at all times, plus four others controlled by the player during combat/skill challenges and by the DM at all other times.
Would probably be useful for testing monsters or builds out.If you're playing against yourself, I'd think you might as well roll up a full party, no?Actually, that's not a bad idea for the one player + one DM scenario, either, except that the rolepl
I would recommend the most broken class i have come across so far,the Rune priest.
Make him a Goliath witha Craghammer and you can heal amazingly well and hit for around 20 points of damage with just MBA's
I would recommend the most broken class i have come across so far,the Rune priest.Make him a Goliath witha Craghammer and you can heal amazingly well and hit for around 20 points of damage with just MBA's
With one DM and one PC, the best options probably are: 1. Leaders (who are not too stuck on helping allies) since they can heal during the combats 2. Dwarves since they can second wind as a minor action and keep going during combat 3. Rangers because they can attack at long range and in melee, have Twin Strike for either which gives a bit of control (can kill two minions a turn), and have a solid list of useful skills
You could even be a Dwarven Ranger with the MC Warlord feat FTW! Lots of healing, lots of damage, lots of skills. Dwarf isn't the best for Ranger generally because it doesn't boost STR or DEX, but some things have to be flexible for a solo game.
I second Dwarves.
I personally would suggest a Dwarf Hexhammer though. It was my first character in solo pvp play(yes its not pve but a lot of the same rules apply) and it was flexible, optimal, and durable. It takes a few levels to get into its own, but it would wreck serious faces even before it hit its prime-time.
For those who don't know to make a Hexhammer you make a Dwarf (Con-based) Warlock, set up your stats so in the not to distant future you can get yourself plate armor(easy since you pretty much ignore Int), get a Pact Hammer for easy feat/power synergy, grab a Cloak of the Walking Wounded when you can for extra healing, and when all else fails spam the living hell out of Hellish Rebuke.
They used to recommend grabbing a MC in Fighter, but that was before Melee Training(Con) and the Battlemind class which gives options for MCing without any wierd stat acrobatics.
I second Dwarves.I personally would suggest a Dwarf Hexhammer though. It was my first character in solo pvp play(yes its not pve but a lot of the same rules apply) and it was flexible, optimal, and durable. It takes a few levels to get into its own,
"If you're playing against yourself, I'd think you might as well roll up a full party, no?" --Andrelai
I've tried it, but found the bookkeeping tedious. If I'm trying to keep track of decisions for a five-person party AND an appropriate number of monsters, I'm apt to start forgetting marks and saves and power options. Running a solo character through encounters is a bit more relaxed. (Summoner wizard is my favorite for that, by the way. Oodles of tactical fun.)
Although . . . using the companion rules in the DMG2, I might find a full party with most of the characters in "8-bit mode" feasible.
"If you're playing against yourself, I'd think you might as well roll up a full party, no?" --AndrelaiI've tried it, but found the bookkeeping tedious. If I'm trying to keep track of decisions for a five-person party AND an appropriate number of mon
Maybe a halfling monk/fighter with small warriors defense and/or hafted defense, unarmored agillity, etc?
Your secondary stat won't be great, but you'll be versatile in what you can do in combat, and you can build it to have many options out of combat as well.
really defensive monk. Maybe a halfling monk/fighter with small warriors defense and/or hafted defense, unarmored agillity, etc?Your secondary stat won't be great, but you'll be versatile in what you can do in combat, and you can build it to have man
*Performs Raise Dead (Thread) Ritual* Well, in the game my dad runs, I'm the only player, but we have a couple of different rules- we multiclass more like in 3.5, so I have a Rogue/Shaman/Monk character who seems to work pretty well, although I haven't used him much yet...
In our other game, I run a player party of 1 Kender Rogue (main character) and 1 Dwarf Fighter/Warlord. The problem with solo campaigns is that all the monsters are made for an approximate group of five. So, say, Orcus, poses a fair threat to a party of five characters, but a solo character would need to have either a few levels on the party of five, or a dragon's hoard of magic items.
*Performs Raise Dead (Thread) Ritual*Well, in the game my dad runs, I'm the only player, but we have a couple of different rules- we multiclass more like in 3.5, so I have a Rogue/Shaman/Monk character who seems to work pretty well, although I haven'
My vote (as usual) is a monk or monk Hybrid. Mostly cause the monk comes with plenty of powers and some neat abilities. Its pretty easy to flavor it however you'd like. Defense are rather good if you build correctly (lower stats and Superior defense feats makes a great high defense barrier in time) may feel a little weak to start but rapidly gains power as you go up in tier.
Also many of the abilites and skills are useful for out of combat siutations. Very fun in my opinion
Ps: Also It did look lonely and its a neat discussion. Why not bump it some more? Right Tristantak?
My vote (as usual) is a monk or monk Hybrid. Mostly cause the monk comes with plenty of powers and some neat abilities. Its pretty easy to flavor it however you'd like. Defense are rather good if you build correctly (lower stats and Superior defense
Barbarian/Sorcerer Hybrid aka the ultimate striker. I agree that you could be anything. Another fun hybrid is the Druid/Shaman for out of combat. As mentioned earlier, the Runepriest is so broken that it's not allowed in any campaign that my friends and I run. Overall, I would be a Seeker for sure. They're a very fun class.
Barbarian/Sorcerer Hybrid aka the ultimate striker. I agree that you could be anything. Another fun hybrid is the Druid/Shaman for out of combat. As mentioned earlier, the Runepriest is so broken that it's not allowed in any campaign that my friends
Leaders in general are a good idea, as you can grant yourself two of your healing surges per encounter (three at higher levels) with barely any action cost. You do want to be careful with your leader selection, though; some of them 'waste' a lot of features and powers if you have no allies around. (SC warlords are an example of this; your 'presence' feature goes by the wayside.)
Definitely, with a one-character party you do NOT want ANY warlord. And a Cunning Bard isn't great either. These builds and a few others really work by what they do to/for allies, and there are no allies.
Definitely, with a one-character party you do NOT want ANY warlord. And a Cunning Bard isn't great either. These builds and a few others really work by what they do to/for allies, and there are no allies.
If it's just you and a DM, then I assume that the DM is going to have to tailor the adventures to you, regardless. Concept-wise, I'd go with a stealth based character (for reasons put forth above), and I've found City-based adventures (either as an Assassin or a Thief)--e.g., climbing the ladder of the local Guild-of-Choice--to be quite fun. I've done this more than once over the years, and if you focus more on role-playing and stealth and less on the hack-and-slash, these can be truly one of a kind adventures.
If it's just you and a DM, then I assume that the DM is going to have to tailor the adventures to you, regardless. Concept-wise, I'd go with a stealth based character (for reasons put forth above), and I've found City-based adventures (either as an
