To solo or not to solo. Thoughts?

[Inevitability]

So, I've convinced someone I know to give 5e a try, but there isn't anyone else who'd like to play right now in my area.

The player will be playing a Wood Elf Rogue (1st level, still working on details), whose strategy is to sneak into a good position, sneak attack stuff, and then shoot/hide until everything's dead.

Assuming the LotCS (http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/LoCS_Stats_Next.pdf) and maybe the final playtest's monsters are used, would this be doable? Or will the player get stomped the first time the dice aren't in his favor?

Any other advice on running 5e? Advice for the player?

[rlc]

I haven't played, so you might want to take what I say with a grain of salt, but:
-At least right now, 5e seems to be pretty simple to both play and DM at the same time, so you could probably do that.
-Or, you'll want to test out some stuff like level/4 encounters until you figure out what exactly is the best power level for your encounters (maybe go a little video gamey and have hobgoblins attack a couple at a time instead of all just bumrush him).

[1337 b4k4]

5e, like all modern versions of D&D suffers from the same "kill things = XP" problem that makes solo play difficult. The game is designed around the idea of a small party of adventurers going off a killing small parties of monsters. To really do a solo game justice, you're probably going to have to downplay the combat a bit, and implement some other XP scheme. That said, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to do it, just stay aware of the fact that any combat involving more than 1 monster is by definition going to be an unfair fight, and not in your player's favor. One possibility if you really want to run lots of combats or combats with multiple enemies might be to treat AC as both the target to hit and as cumulative damage reduction. So basically all the monsters need to hit the AC, and then the total damage dealt by all the monsters must be > the AC to do more than 1 damage. This does make some solo low challenge monsters fairly easy, but at the same time allows your player to go up against more than one monster at a time and not get slaughtered in the first round. Just depends on the type of game you want.

[Inevitability]

Hm... I'll add in some alternative ways to earn XP.

Thanks for the heads up on combat difficulty. If I want to make combat harder, I guess I'll do so with stronger individual monsters, instead off hordes. Maybe I'll add in some traps. He's an elven rogue, so traps will obviously not be that much of an issue.

[Envyus]

5e, like all modern versions of D&D suffers from the same "kill things = XP" problem that makes solo play difficult.

Nope it straight up stated in basic that you get xp for overcoming a challenge. No killing needed.

[akaddk]

I'd pick up the Starter Set if I was you and maybe also try and get into some D&D Adventurer's League (http://dndadventurersleague.org/) either at a local venue or just the materials from the website (once they become available) for your home game.

The reason being that the playtest materials are significantly different from the final product especially in respect to the monster statistics. Monsters are far deadlier in the final version than they were in the playtest.

[Inevitability]

I'll pick up the starter set for sure. When those Adventurers League things come online, I'll download them for sure, but I can't actually join in in such a game (there isn't any of those games where I live).

[Envyus]

I'll pick up the starter set for sure. When those Adventurers League things come online, I'll download them for sure, but I can't actually join in in such a game (there isn't any of those games where I live).

I am in one online.

[Inevitability]

Well, I'll keep an eye out for the games then.