D&D 4E How to Build 4E Solo Adventures?

[Nathal]

Any advice out there on how well 4E handles solo adventures for a single player and a GM? I know the new edition is more balanced than ever for the core classes, and I've heard assumes some mixture of the 4 main archetypes. So is it a poor choice of game for solo play?

I was thinking 4E may work as well for solo as a group because of the sheer number of player options and the more intricate rules for tactical combat. I'm not sure because so far I've played only a few Dungeon Delves at a local comic shop...but I had fun.

Thoughts on encounter building for a single 4E character? Is is necessary to fill in the "gaps" (as in encounter roles) with allies?

 

[Hejdun]

Well, the typical mechanics of the game start to get pretty wonky once you go lower than 3 or 4 PCs. We tried running 2 PC test sessions when 4e first came out, and the battles were considerably lower quality than they are with 4+ PCs. If you only have 2 PCs (say one defender and one ranged striker/controller), then the defender ends up getting flanked and getting murdered because all of the enemy's attacks are concentrated on just him. It also precludes the possibility of flanking, and tactical positioning is nearly impossible.

I don't think it'd be possible to have high-quality battles with just a single character. It just kills so many interesting combinations and tactics that I can't see it being too fun. I could see it working somewhat with 2 PCs so long as both are melee. You can make that work by either having the player run 2 PCs or giving him an NPC to help him out.

 

[Turtlejay]

I mentioned this in another thread about low numbers of party members, but the houserules forum has a nice thread about pumping up PC's when there are only 2 in a group. I imagine with some careful encounter building and smart role choice (Striker/Controller? Striker/Leader?) you could pull it off. I think if it were me I'd be more comfortable using the Gestalt rules in that houserule thread and letting the player control 2 PC's, so you can get better role coverage.

It could go either way, but I'm leaning towards this being less fun.

Jay

 

[Nathal]

It could go either way, but I'm leaning towards this being less fun.

Jay

Hmmm, not good. I guess that's a "weakness" of 4E (problems with a PC group under 3 players...in this case one), though the number of solo games is probably so low as to render consideration in R&D a moot point

...and I don't know why it seems odd to me allowing a player two characters (rather than a max of one) when the DMs control dozens of characters, both major and minor. Probably just a bias based on past games I've run...

I'll have to think about this and read over the new 4E DMG a bit more.

 

[N0Man]

Hmmm, not good. I guess that's a "weakness" of 4E (problems with a PC group under 3 players...in this case one),

There was a version of D&D that was just as fun and playable with 1 or 2 characters as 4 or 5? I mean, if it's a specific weakness of 4E, then there must be a version where it was stronger, right? Which one was that?

 

[Tai]

If you're playing with one player, then naturally the games will be less exciting than with multiple players. For starters, you pretty much have to play a defender, just from a survival perspective (fighters make a very good choice, since you can spec them for pretty impressive damage output without compromising their survivability too heavily). However, it is worth mentioning at this point that 4E has very good NPC ally rules. They're simple enough that the player(s) can control them in addition to their own characters without getting lost in a sea of power cards. If you have one player, I'd strongly suggest giving him an NPC tank of some kind. If you have two players, you could give them an NPC cleric, and maybe an NPC paladin. It really depends what they want to play, but from what I've seen of them in play, NPCs do better in healer and defender roles (they have a more limited set of powers than PC characters).

 

[Garthanos]

There was a version of D&D that was just as fun and playable with 1 or 2 characters as 4 or 5? I mean, if it's a specific weakness of 4E, then there must be a version where it was stronger, right? Which one was that?

Well I dont recall any advantage to having more than 2 players up through AD&D ---as imagination synergy (where joint imaginings are cooler) was often over come by the more players you had the less DM attention they got (and the more terse less vivid the dms descriptions get) the more people end up not paying attention to the action --- etc. Interesting team work / game synergy in 4e means more players have more positives to offset ...

In other words the weakness is that (one of) its new strengths does not exist at lower numbers of players.

 

[Nathal]

There was a version of D&D that was just as fun and playable with 1 or 2 characters as 4 or 5? I mean, if it's a specific weakness of 4E, then there must be a version where it was stronger, right? Which one was that?

I've played solo or two person games in other editions without any trouble. It wasn't hard to adjust the challenges on the fly. I don't know why 4E would be any different, unless the monster design is so carefully balanced toward a 4 person team that running solo adventures would require extra prep work (to tweak numbers). I can't imagine any version of D&D requiring more prep time than 3E, and I've heard 4E is easier in that regard anyway.

 

[Nathal]

Interesting team work / game synergy in 4e means more players have more positives to offset ... In other words the weakness is that (one of) its new strengths does not exist at lower numbers of players.

"More positives to offset"? Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Nathal]

If you're playing with one player, then naturally the games will be less exciting than with multiple players.

True, and I do prefer group play, but I'm trying to get a solo game going with my wife for lack of time and players (we'll be lucky to get an hour session in at an odd hour after the kids are in bed on random nights).

For starters, you pretty much have to play a defender, just from a survival perspective (fighters make a very good choice, since you can spec them for pretty impressive damage output without compromising their survivability too heavily).

I can see why a Warlord class wouldn't do much good solo...

However, it is worth mentioning at this point that 4E has very good NPC ally rules.They're simple enough that the player(s) can control them in addition to their own characters without getting lost in a sea of power cards. If you have one player, I'd strongly suggest giving him an NPC tank of some kind. If you have two players, you could give them an NPC cleric, and maybe an NPC paladin. It really depends what they want to play, but from what I've seen of them in play, NPCs do better in healer and defender roles (they have a more limited set of powers than PC characters).

Thanks for the advice. It sounds like, although there's greater emphasis on group play in this edition than in others, allies can right any imbalances. A hero could always use an ally, and in any edition.