renau1g
First Post
Yeah, this is a part of why I went with the Paizo one (and the other part is that I haven't been impressed with the 4e modules so far).
2 person party Advice
- Thread starter renau1g
- Start date
Yeah, this is a part of why I went with the Paizo one (and the other part is that I haven't been impressed with the 4e modules so far).
shamsael
First Post
The melee training nerf is, worst case scenario, only 2 points of damage.
The avenger is all about critting anyway.
renau1g
First Post
Well, the Taclord changed her mind and wants to play a ranger now. The other PC has already built a dwarf great weapon fighter with a mordenkrad and doesn't want to change, having already created his backstory. I was thinking of giving them each one encounter heal power, i.e. like Inspiring Word, to cover the lack of a leader.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
samursus
Explorer
I would reiterate the usefulness of a companion character from DMG2, in your case to provide heals. My group of 3 players (1 2e veteran and 2 newbs) was too small to run War of the Burning Sky without making adjustments I had no desire to do. Following the guidelines in DMG2 I made up 2 characters to join them.
The nice thing is, they each took up only about 1/2 a page with the Monster Builder and eventually became important characters in their own right. When I was able to replace them with real players later, both of the newbie players were sad to see them go. And they seemed fairly easy for the players to control in combat... I just followed the DMG2's advice and handled their actions and RP'ing outside combat.
The nice thing is, they each took up only about 1/2 a page with the Monster Builder and eventually became important characters in their own right. When I was able to replace them with real players later, both of the newbie players were sad to see them go. And they seemed fairly easy for the players to control in combat... I just followed the DMG2's advice and handled their actions and RP'ing outside combat.
renau1g
First Post
I might try that now sarmusus, I'll re-read that section.
I know about the ranger, the warlord/fighter duo was pretty good, but she read the campaign guide and really dug the hippogriff riders/town guards so she wanted to try and be part of it, so beastmaster ranger was her choice.
I know about the ranger, the warlord/fighter duo was pretty good, but she read the campaign guide and really dug the hippogriff riders/town guards so she wanted to try and be part of it, so beastmaster ranger was her choice.
Shin Okada
Explorer
I too vote for using companion character rule in DMG2. Let them make whatever character they want. Then complement the lacking 2 roles (assuming they are not making hybrid PC) with companion characters.
That is far much easier than to let each player use 2 or more full-PCs. And, while companion characters are somewhat inferior to PCs in offense and healing, they tend to have better defenses, especially non-AC-defenses.
You need some special caution to create effective companions, because they don't have class features. Classes which relies largely on class feature don't work well.
In my experience, the following classes are suited for companion characters.
Controller .... Either Invoker or Wizard. Choose at least one power which gives "until end of your next turn" effect.
Defender .... Paladin with Ardent Strike and other powers which incur Divine Sanction (basically, all from Divine Power) works best. Because mark-related class features are lost. Thankfully, Divine Sanction itself is not a class feature.
Leader .... Artificer, Bard, Cleric & Warlord all works fine.
Striker .... Either Barbarian (melee) or Ranger (Ranged) work best IMHO. Melee Ranger may work fine, too.
Current companion character rule does not support psionic classes with power point at all.
Also, you may convert monsters into companion characters if you want. But it needs to be done carefully. You may either end up making totally crappy companion, or something even much stronger than PCs.
That is far much easier than to let each player use 2 or more full-PCs. And, while companion characters are somewhat inferior to PCs in offense and healing, they tend to have better defenses, especially non-AC-defenses.
You need some special caution to create effective companions, because they don't have class features. Classes which relies largely on class feature don't work well.
In my experience, the following classes are suited for companion characters.
Controller .... Either Invoker or Wizard. Choose at least one power which gives "until end of your next turn" effect.
Defender .... Paladin with Ardent Strike and other powers which incur Divine Sanction (basically, all from Divine Power) works best. Because mark-related class features are lost. Thankfully, Divine Sanction itself is not a class feature.
Leader .... Artificer, Bard, Cleric & Warlord all works fine.
Striker .... Either Barbarian (melee) or Ranger (Ranged) work best IMHO. Melee Ranger may work fine, too.
Current companion character rule does not support psionic classes with power point at all.
Also, you may convert monsters into companion characters if you want. But it needs to be done carefully. You may either end up making totally crappy companion, or something even much stronger than PCs.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
From my experiences in my campaign with the companion dwarf fighter... the companion defender ability (mark on hit) is terrible. We've replaced it with the defender aura from the Essentials preview (in a nutshell: all enemies adjacent to the companion are marked by it).
Works like a charm! Gives a nice defender-ish feel and is even less tracking than the DMG2 suggestion.
Cheers,LT.
Vartan
First Post
I agree with the companion character idea, and actually have a little experience with them. We had five players at the table at one point but one dropped out and two others have serious scheduling problems related to school and work, so only two players are certain to be there at ay given time. Companion characters are an easy way to compensate for absent players. I try to keep a current, companion character "backup" of each PC on hand and it works out well.
Companion characters, by design, are easy for a player to run in addition to their regular PC. I've had to run two full-fedged PCs at once (most recently at 30th level, which sucked) and it does make combat move slowly. But companion PCs are much easier to run...so easy to run, in fact, that I can usually give them one or two additional powers without blowing the player's mind.
I wouldn't suggest any particular character class or race for your players. So long as they make something that is legal and consistent within your campaign's guidelines they should be able to play what they want without worrying about balance. As DM you can work around their decisions (by tailoring encounters, throwing in companion PCs, or whatever else) so they can play the characters they want to play without getting creamed every time they get into a fight.
Companion characters, by design, are easy for a player to run in addition to their regular PC. I've had to run two full-fedged PCs at once (most recently at 30th level, which sucked) and it does make combat move slowly. But companion PCs are much easier to run...so easy to run, in fact, that I can usually give them one or two additional powers without blowing the player's mind.
I wouldn't suggest any particular character class or race for your players. So long as they make something that is legal and consistent within your campaign's guidelines they should be able to play what they want without worrying about balance. As DM you can work around their decisions (by tailoring encounters, throwing in companion PCs, or whatever else) so they can play the characters they want to play without getting creamed every time they get into a fight.
Similar Threads
