# Playing D&D with 3 people



## Rogun (Jul 25, 2010)

Originally we had 5 people(including me the DM). 1 for each type. Controller defender etc. But 2 people dropped out. While the other 2 are dedicated to play and getting more people is out of the question.

My question is there any way I can supplement the missing roles? or should I just keep encounters at a fairly weak level?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 25, 2010)

The Dungeon Master's Guide 2 includes rules and guidelines for creating companion characters: NPCs that can join the party temporarily or indefinitely.  These rules are based explicitly on filling out the primary party roles, so you can create a defender companion or a controller companion, etc.

Consider changing out the NPCs for each quest.  Maybe on one quest, your two PCs are on their own, and on the next, their patron travels with them.  A third quest might be an escort mission or involve another adventurer who happens to join them for a time.  You could have the players run the companion in combat (by design, they are only about as complex as a monster), while you role play them outside of combat.

This approach allows you to experiment with the rules and with different companions, to see what works for your group.  Who knows, maybe you'll find that things work perfectly fine with just the two PCs.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 25, 2010)

Rogun said:


> ...getting more people is out of the question.




Why? There's a Gamers Seeking Gamers board you could start a thread on here. Are you in school? Even if you're one of the unpopular kids, there are other unpopular kids that might be interested. Do you have a job? Try approaching some coworkers.

The important thing is, don't get all butt hurt when someone's not interested; just accept gracefully that not everyone is into the same types of thing and that D&D is definitely a niche activity. You are almost certain to get more Nos than Yesses if you ask around, but that's okay.

If you cannot get more players, you could consider allowing each player to run 2 pcs, or perhaps a pc and a companion character (also in DMG2, if you have it). 

You can also just lower the difficulty of encounters- use minions a lot and not usually more than 2 standard creatures or 1 elite.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 25, 2010)

I can think of two ways to supplement the missing roles:
a) Let each player play two characters, if they want to and can handle it
b) Give the players one or two companion characters as henchmen (rules for those are in DMG2)

I've run adventures for a party of 3 PCs that's missing the controller role just fine, including level+3 encounters. With a good combination of roles (e.g. defender/leader, striker/leader) even a 2-man party should be good, but I'd suggest using higher-level encounters sparingly until you've gotten a feel for what the party can handle. Although 4e PCs can take quite a beating, combats can be very swingy with less than 3 or 4 PCs, making TPKs more likely if the players' dice run cold.


----------



## surfarcher (Jul 26, 2010)

A topic close to my heart!

I highly recommend adding at least one companion character to the game!  It will do  a LOT to even out combat without having to adjust all your encounters.  They are also an easier option than having players running two characters, well for most players anyway.

You might find http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...ncyclopaedia-post-yours-here.html#post5231005 useful.

I hear you about not having more players to add.  I'd much rather play with friends than strangers.  But I'll probably be playing with folks I don't know soon because it's that or run 1:1 or 1:2 games with my wife or wife+daughter.  I'm trying to look at it as an opportunity to make new friends.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 26, 2010)

One of my longest-running campaigns- running since 1985- features dozens of PCs of various levels ranging from "epic" down to lowly 1st level PCs...99% of which were run, 2-3 at a time, by 3 players.  Over the years, we've had some others join in the fun, but usually only for short durations.

The main concern was that, as PCs advanced and their number of options increased, sometimes you'd lose sight of the details of the character sheet.  "Oh, dangit- I had _______________!" was not an uncommon sentence after a tough fight.

Despite aspects of 4Ed I greatly dislike, I think there's no question that its class & Power design would make running multiple PCs _MUCH_ easier.


----------



## babinro (Jul 26, 2010)

I've been running 4e with only three players for over a year now.  We've opted to play with 2 pc's per character.  This works fine so long as your players can be organized enough to play multiple characters without bogging the game down.  A task that is rather easy when starting the campaign at a low level.

Likewise, I've played a bit of D&D with 2 players each playing 1 PC.  This game came across as quite boring comparative to the above option.  The reason being there was much less synergy in the party and fewer options as a DM to throw at the party.  The DM part of this can of course be fixed via many modifications and adjustments.


----------



## ourchair (Jul 26, 2010)

I wouldn't even bother trying too hard to find new players. If by chance I meet another person who wants to play, then sure, they can jump on in and fill in those missing roles.

But take it from someone who has run as little as TWO player parties, and run for several newbie groups: Parties don't suffer that bad if they are missing party roles are lacking in numbers. Not unless you want them to.

I had a party with a Lvl 2 striker and controller and they made short work of the bad guys, whether they were a 1 Lvl 3 warforged captain and 2 Lvl 2 shifter thugs or a Lvl 3 Solo. You don't need to keep encounters at a 'weak' level, just try to abide by the DMG rules. 

I ran a Dark Sun pregen adventure designed for 6 players and I bumped up all the encounter levels by 1 despite running for 5 players and they totally trounced all the skill challenges and combats. It wasn't very 'Dark Sun' in that sense.

See, a 'standard' encounter really means 'easy' for anyone who knows how to play chess, Monopoly, Magic or any hobby game (and I don't even mean 'winning' it). At worst, it's 'challenging' for people who split up so that they're alone and defenseless or 'difficult' for people who are consistently rolling low.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 26, 2010)

Rogun said:


> Originally we had 5 people(including me the DM). 1 for each type. Controller defender etc. But 2 people dropped out. While the other 2 are dedicated to play and getting more people is out of the question.
> 
> My question is there any way I can supplement the missing roles? or should I just keep encounters at a fairly weak level?



IMHO, the hardest party size to deal with from both the DM and player perspective is two.

In a party of 4+ you can cover all the roles, and there's no problem.

In a party of 3, you can skip the Controller, and the DM can be a little more cautious about what he throws at you and you'll do fine.

In a party of 1 you can play a striker (or, oddly, I've theorized, a controller) and handle the relatively weak encounters that would be apropriate to you.  You avoid the Leader and Defender roles because they have features designed to benefit allies - and you don't have any.


I've never been able to think of a really good combination for a party of two.  Do you include a leader or defender?  They're powers are relevent, since there's an ally, but with only one ally the return isn't that great.  Maybe a Striker & Leader or Striker & Defender?.  Maybe emphasize secondary roles?  A paladin (leaderish defender) + Sorcerer (controllerish striker), for example?


----------



## Aulirophile (Jul 26, 2010)

Leader/Striker is probably the best 2-person party. Make both melee based, capable of doing damage, and have a Ranged option. Ranger/Warlord you have Str, Dex, Wis, and either Int or Cha based skills covered decently. Leaving only Int or Cha and Con based ones. Both can use Heavy Thrown weapons effectively.  Both can be optimized defensively (the Ranger more-so, he won't really have a weak NAD, unlike the Warlord who will either have a low-ish Will or Reflex). A Pathfinder Longtooth Shift Ranger (regeneration while bloodied every encounter) is _hard _to take down even without support for most standard monsters. Add in the fact he can one-round a standard every encounter, and at least one elite per day (without any help, mind) it gets to be devastating when you toss in Leader buffs. 

Kind of curious to see how a Runepriest/Ranger combo would do. Just wish one of the leaders that came with Ritual Casting by default was suited to the group.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 26, 2010)

I believe the good thing in a 2 person party is that you can use any characters that you like. 
Even when your marking mechanic isn´t use most of the time, you have decent standing power if you are a defender.
A striker has power to focus fire on a single monster, usually has no fear of beeing focus fired.
Leader... heal yourself and be happy...
Controller... usually you can find powers to greatly disable one or two monsters... should be enough... or you are facing minions a lot... happy times!


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2010)

Rogun said:


> Originally we had 5 people(including me the DM). 1 for each type. Controller defender etc. But 2 people dropped out. While the other 2 are dedicated to play and getting more people is out of the question.
> 
> My question is there any way I can supplement the missing roles? or should I just keep encounters at a fairly weak level?



Your two options are:

Find a companion character (basically, a character build like a monster) to fill the missing role (Controller -> Controller; Striker -> Brute, Artillery or Skirmisher; Defender -> Soldier; Leader -> Leader).

Tailor encounters to account for the missing role. No Controller? Don't use lots of minions.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Jul 27, 2010)

If you really can't get any other players, I recommend the companion characters.  My group can usually only get three players reliably, so we've been running with a companion leader (based on the Warlord) and striker (based on the Avenger) for quite a while.

They don't get all the bells and whistles of a full character.  At the same time, they cover the basics and have minimal bookkeeping.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jul 27, 2010)

I remember back in the 2nd ed days I ran a campaign with two players. We had a 7 man group and I invited two of them (the two most dedicated) to do a campaign on the side as a sort of experiment, as I was theorizing that we were getting bogged down.

That campaign is still lauded to this day by the three of us as the best campaign ever! It was just awesome. As a DM there was less to track, for players, far less downtime. Challenges were just more challenging because you didnt always have someone with the right skills. Overall, there was just a greater feeling that the guys playing were the heroes.

We didnt run it for long, it was just an experiment and it did alienate the other players a bit, but what a success we had. Let there be no doubt : small parties can be great fun.

So as an alternative, have you thought about scaling the adventures to a smaller party size?


----------



## gjnave (Jul 31, 2010)

We have this problem all the time... the PHB3 has given, what i consider to be, one of the best gifts to the small party - the Hybrid.
This way you can cover two roles with one... ie. Defender, Leader.

As for how to run a published adventure: you need to just make the encounters easier - you can use the DM1 to do that. 

Cheers!


----------

