so, my situation's going to be different from probably most other players', but I'm hoping knowledge of effectiveness of pvp in general could be helpful. I'm running myself a solitare campaign (not looking for reasons not to play solitaire, thanks in advance) and I'm looking to build my bbeg and potentially some major npcs as pcs, rather than using creature stat blocks, mostly for narrative reasons but also just to see what will happen. Obviously, this complicates things, because 5e wasn't designed with pvp in mind, and a pc's level doesn't represent their cr (which would then have to be rebalanced for 1-2 pcs anyway). Not that I'm necessarily looking for a flat equal 1:1 balance, either, though. I'm mostly interested in what classes are better foils against some than others, in or out of combat, in head-on fights or using stealth.
for context, my main pc is a tiefling with 1 level in bard. I'm playing in a world roughly the same as the forgotten realms, though with entirely made up locations and characters. I'm not sure whether I want to commit to it fully or multiclass into something like warlock or paladin or sorcerer. I'll likely build a second pc to join his party who might compliment him, something like a barbarian/ranger or barbarian/rogue or a circle of the moon druid. But none of this is set in stone and will deviate depending on where I go narratively, so any advice is helpful (even if not for this solitaire, for any others I play).
tldr I'd love either just general opinions on which classes tend to have advantages over others, or opinions on which classes would be a challenge for a charisma caster to counter. Thanks!
Bard is extremely weak in pvp combat, so pretty much every BBEG you make will need to be several levels lower than your solo PC in this situation. I'd suggest designing multiple NPCs for them to ally with for different arc of the campaign as that is really where bard shines - making friends - so play into that! Have the "challenge" of the campaign to be building up their team of allies. Have each NPC have something they require the player to do before they will join them, and have them start out only willing to join the player for their particular arc - e.g. a ranger will help the PC investigate and kill a werewolf if the PC convinces the blacksmith to give them some silvered weapons - but in the PC talks to and befriends the ranger maybe they learn the ranger has a crush on a girl in town and if the PC helps them get together then the ranger will help the PC whenever the PC needs them. I'd even suggest giving control of those allies to your solo player once they have befriended them sufficiently.
But that's sort of an aside, back to your main question about the rock-paper-scissors of classes:
Cleric is effective against druids, warlocks, fighters; weak against sorcerers, wizards, paladins and rangers Druid is effective against fighters, rogues, warlocks and sometimes bards; and weak against paladins, sorcerers, wizards, clerics and rangers Monk is very effective against bards, warlocks, and rangers; effective against rogues, clerics, druids, and wizards; and weak against Barbarians, Paladins and Sorcerers. Rogues most effective against fighters, paladins, and warlocks; and weak against monks, druids, and sometimes bards
I’d suggest not using PCs for the bad guys. The way characters are built, they don’t last long against other PCs (the hit points vs damage vs AC numbers are not designed for it). And the reality of turn based combat in such situations is, whoever wins initiative wins the fight (almost every time), since they will always get one more turn than the other PC.
So, just use traditional monsters for the enemies, and it should work out way better.
Yeah, classes were not designed for PvP combat, and a quick perusal of statblocks shows most enemies are weighted more heavily towards HP and AC than attack and damage relative to level appropriate PC's. There's NPC blocks in various books you can use for a baseline, and I believe both the Monster Manual and DMG have some guidelines for how stats relate to approximate difficulty. Although keep in mind there that the difficult is based on the assuming of a party of 3 or 4 PC's, not 1.
so, my situation's going to be different from probably most other players', but I'm hoping knowledge of effectiveness of pvp in general could be helpful. I'm running myself a solitare campaign (not looking for reasons not to play solitaire, thanks in advance) and I'm looking to build my bbeg and potentially some major npcs as pcs, rather than using creature stat blocks, mostly for narrative reasons but also just to see what will happen. Obviously, this complicates things, because 5e wasn't designed with pvp in mind, and a pc's level doesn't represent their cr (which would then have to be rebalanced for 1-2 pcs anyway). Not that I'm necessarily looking for a flat equal 1:1 balance, either, though. I'm mostly interested in what classes are better foils against some than others, in or out of combat, in head-on fights or using stealth.
for context, my main pc is a tiefling with 1 level in bard. I'm playing in a world roughly the same as the forgotten realms, though with entirely made up locations and characters. I'm not sure whether I want to commit to it fully or multiclass into something like warlock or paladin or sorcerer. I'll likely build a second pc to join his party who might compliment him, something like a barbarian/ranger or barbarian/rogue or a circle of the moon druid. But none of this is set in stone and will deviate depending on where I go narratively, so any advice is helpful (even if not for this solitaire, for any others I play).
tldr I'd love either just general opinions on which classes tend to have advantages over others, or opinions on which classes would be a challenge for a charisma caster to counter. Thanks!
Bard is extremely weak in pvp combat, so pretty much every BBEG you make will need to be several levels lower than your solo PC in this situation. I'd suggest designing multiple NPCs for them to ally with for different arc of the campaign as that is really where bard shines - making friends - so play into that! Have the "challenge" of the campaign to be building up their team of allies. Have each NPC have something they require the player to do before they will join them, and have them start out only willing to join the player for their particular arc - e.g. a ranger will help the PC investigate and kill a werewolf if the PC convinces the blacksmith to give them some silvered weapons - but in the PC talks to and befriends the ranger maybe they learn the ranger has a crush on a girl in town and if the PC helps them get together then the ranger will help the PC whenever the PC needs them. I'd even suggest giving control of those allies to your solo player once they have befriended them sufficiently.
But that's sort of an aside, back to your main question about the rock-paper-scissors of classes:
Cleric is effective against druids, warlocks, fighters; weak against sorcerers, wizards, paladins and rangers
Druid is effective against fighters, rogues, warlocks and sometimes bards; and weak against paladins, sorcerers, wizards, clerics and rangers
Monk is very effective against bards, warlocks, and rangers; effective against rogues, clerics, druids, and wizards; and weak against Barbarians, Paladins and Sorcerers.
Rogues most effective against fighters, paladins, and warlocks; and weak against monks, druids, and sometimes bards
I’d suggest not using PCs for the bad guys. The way characters are built, they don’t last long against other PCs (the hit points vs damage vs AC numbers are not designed for it). And the reality of turn based combat in such situations is, whoever wins initiative wins the fight (almost every time), since they will always get one more turn than the other PC.
So, just use traditional monsters for the enemies, and it should work out way better.
Yeah, classes were not designed for PvP combat, and a quick perusal of statblocks shows most enemies are weighted more heavily towards HP and AC than attack and damage relative to level appropriate PC's. There's NPC blocks in various books you can use for a baseline, and I believe both the Monster Manual and DMG have some guidelines for how stats relate to approximate difficulty. Although keep in mind there that the difficult is based on the assuming of a party of 3 or 4 PC's, not 1.
The paladin could probably beat casters past level 6 ( aura of protection ).