I ran my 1st game tonightand for the mot part stuck with 1/2 CR encounters and I used the Horde of the Dragon Queen monsters specifically the Acolytes, bandits, Scout, Kobolds, Goblins and a single Orc.
Most of the traditional D&D low level mooks pack a punch, even ye olde basic Kobolds have +4 to hit and deal 1d4+2 damage and if they swarm you the follow on ones get advantage. In AD&D terms let Kobolds deal 1d8 damage and give them a +4 bonus to hit. I had to fudge a few dice rolls to keep the PCs alive while the Orc deals 1d12+3 damage but he died before he got an action. The highest encounter I gave them was CR 1.5 or so- an Orc and 6 Kobolds.
The humanoid bonuses to hit and damage are kind of insane when trying to use Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds, Bugbears and the various assorted creatures from Keep on the Borderlands. Monsters are dealing 4E levels of damage and bonuses to hit with 3rd ed levels of hit points. The only redeeming feature seems to be 3 or 4 encounters and you level up.
Once you hit level 2 things are a bit more survivable but the encounter erm short rest healing kicks in such as second wind and the clerics channel divine ability that heals PCs up to 50% health. PCs wanted to start dragging their feet at this point (not that I blame them) so level 1 really seems to be rocket tag either way. In AD&D AC was higher and most monsters only had +1 or 2 to hit you not +4 on average. An Ogre is really a 4E elite.
Generic humans from the DM PoV seem to be the safest way to fo. Bandits, acolytes things like that who do not get much from special abilities. 8 Kobolds are a CR1 encounter depending on how initiative goes you could be seeing several PCs put down on the 1st round as 2-3 hits focus fire and advantage on attacks 2,3,4,5 etc are nasty and thats from weak Kobolds.
Assumig you survive an encounter healing is somewhat easy but it seems to make pacing difficult and seems to draw attention to the rocket tag type fights. Level 2 and 3 may be easier but then again looking at CR 2 critters like Ogres or combinations like 8 kobolds and a pair of Hobgoblins I'm not even convinced about that. Shields are a lot better than I would have thought and chainmail seems really really good as the Dwarf cleric in the starter set gets it. The difference between 18 AC and 14 AC on the Rogue is quite signifigant and I'm not convinced a dual wielding fighter is the best way to go as they wiill also have a low AC at level 1.
It was still kind of fun, easy enough to DM, not a fan of the healing and level 1 seems worse than 3rd ed where you will only encounter around half the numbers of mooks that for the most part lack powers although the Pathfinder Orc for example is a very nasty low CR beastie. Kobolds, Orcs, Hobgoblins do not bother me to much but I am scared of one shotting PCs in this one even though it is harder to die once you go down I suppose. If all the PCs get KOed its not hard for a TPK to happen though.
In addition to fudging dice rolls for the 1st encounter I had the bandit raiders loitering about as well sitting down, asleep, resting baiscally all prone (advantage on PC attacks) as they were not expecting harmless townsfolk to react so quickly to a raid on a sacred tomb of a champion of Pelor.
I ran the Starter Set and found no problem with level 1. It's dangerous, but not OMG everyone just died dangers li as many on the boards here claim.
I think it's important to remember that Level 1 in 5E isn't what Level 1 was in previous editions. It truly is a pseudo-apprenticeship level where care needs to be taken when designing encounters. On top of that, numbers DO matter in 5E. Caves of Chaos-esque rooms with 17 Giant Rats or 12 Kobolds are killers for first level groups. Portion control early (and even throughout) will be important to monitor.
Maybe the biggest adjustment, though, will have to be on the players' side. Charge! without thought of consquence and no consideration to defenses will get players in more trouble now than in recent editions (from what I have seen so far).
This is "working as intended" and no surprise for anyone, right? I am not a fan personally, but that level one PC are super fragile has been well known for some time now.
I think one of the things we need to do is realize that critters are balanced a little differently and as a result we need to balance our encounters, perhaps going as far as doing a few mock combats with a party equal to our players just to see how the bttle might turn out so we can adjust accordingly
Yeah, my players are used to AD&D where avoiding encounters and running away were viable tactics. In fact they were often preferred since xp was given out more for treasure acquisition than killing monsters. I may even go back to using that model for 5E because IMO it created more strategic approach to encounters rather than just the tactical option of mashing them (of course there was still plenty of that as well).
i can definitely see how DM's and players whose main experience was 4E are in for a challenge. It's been suggested before, but starting characters at third level may be a viable option since level 1 and 2 only last for a couple of sessions. The OP suggestion about using bandits and the like are also a good suggestion. No mater how epic your plot, there are always goons among your enemy! I'd just say err on the side of caution for the first couple of sessions. Use them to establish your narrative and let the PC's develop their character's identities...
...unless you WANT to go oldschool and make it an achievement to even reach third level! It's quick to make new characters anyway... 
With only an average of 9 hit points and just 300 XP to level up, one way or the other 1st-level is a short term prospect.
Plan accordingly.
Zardnaar wrote:
Every?
How many is that?
Ive done 3, and everyone's made it to level 2. Even if some drop, they don't die.
I'm experiencing lots of drops, but few deaths in the games I've DMd and played in. Only 1 death by bugbear in about 6 sessions. (ShadeRaven, you monster - of course, I'm just kidding)
Lots of fear and excitement though.
I do prefer XP given out from completed missions than enemy kills. Less murder-hobo, more tactics.
I've run or played in almost 10 5e sessions so far, including 3 at level 0. So far, my one real complaint about the system is that combat is too easy, not too challenging. Many times the players have gone through an entire adventure taking little to no damage. We are all a group of veteran players who, despite being heavy on the ROLEplaying side, still use smart tactics. YMMV
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Even just a quick glance at the monsters will tell you the balance is completely off, with monsters that are the same XP presenting a very different amount of challenge.
The funny thing is you have to play the monsters only sorta dumb. You can't go really stupid with attack closest or someone will die. You can't go 10 INT smart, or someone will die. You really have to play them like they're their own worst enemies and intentionally spread damage, ignore that they're experienced combatants and not use good positioning etc.
Thunaer wrote:
@OP:
It's no suprise that there's a lot of fragility in the apprentice levels. That's all that zero-to-hero action that some people said they wanted. It sounds like the apprentice levels are working as intended.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Easy to start at level 2 or 3 if you want.
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Prepare for Contrasting Experience:
I had a party of 4 1st level characters (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) end up in an encounter that started with a trap hurting the fighter, and then involved 6 goblins, a wolf, and a bugbear.
Because of how the party approached the encounter (everybody but the fighter sneaking in to try to get surprise... while the fighter player decided to say "Nah, I'm just gonna run over there and start trying to talk to the bugbear so that we don't have to fight" only to find out that the bugbear would rather threaten to make his bones into furniture than chat) not a single one of the PCs died, and only one of them even came close (the fighter, who for some reason didn't use his Second Wind before going toe-to-toe with the wolf) by hitting 0 HP, and then being healed back to full after the end of the encounter.
And then, everyone had gained enough XP to be level 2 thanks to the few even easier encounters they had breezed through before this one.
The key to surviving 1st level in my experience? Stop acting like your character has to take on all challenges head-on and with violence. Always try to find the "easy way" through an encounter: Feeding the hungry and agitated animls that might attack you some jerky from your rations, for example, is a much easier way to defeat the challenge they represent than trying to fight them while they are trying to eat you.
Yeah I have pretty much decided to start all my 5e play from level 3. This also has the effect of giving everybody access to their interesting class features. Some classes are fairly bland until around level 3. My dice tend to roll hot when I DM, I TPKed the party twice (we just rewound the first time and flat out quit after the second) when we tried to play through the starter set last week, so the extra levels are very neccessary for me.
Honestly have not had any problems. Either the groups are having tactics issues, DM is over doing it, or very bad rolls. Even with very bad rolls we have come out of the fire fine several times with solid planning.
5E is not 4E. Most of the time you will not have 15+ HP at level 1. There are no 'minions' so they all have some HP. If you do see lots of bad guys, prepair for it. You can always do something besides rush in and die.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
In my (limited) experience, 1st level is beyond brutal. In the LMoPh, my group has had a hell of a time with the 4 goblin snipers waiting in the woods... You nearly are forced to metagame to not die instantly to 4 focus-fired sharp-shooters. Lost half the party the first time we met them, and decided to just start over, since we didn't know the rules very well. On our second go, we lived, but used every single spell and healing our group had and still had 3 on the ground. The rest of the goblins ambushed us after we tried to hide the wagon and rest, which we were barely able to stave off. Later we lost half our party in a skirmish against bandits who were accosting a halfling family.
I even started calling it Dungeons and Death-Saving-Throws™ because I spent the first 4 out of the first 5 battles on the ground from turn 1. I don't know if Mearls and Co. intended it to be this brutal, but Death saves start losing excitement after 80% of your turns are spent not contributing. Combine that with poor rolls when I _am_ alive and kicking, and it's made my experience with 5e kinda dismal already.
I'm not giving up though. Gonna keep slogging through it and see what kind of character I can make of my fighter/mage.
Brimleydower wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Well everyone complained monsters are to weak but wouldn't 1d6 bonus damage from Hobgoblins and Bugbears be enough?
Brimleydower wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Project_Vile wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
The game was desinged for that old school feel where level one charecters can slip on a banana peel and die, and you should not even bother comeing up with a back story for them becuase the have the life expectancy of a comminist soilder in a Chuck Norris movie.
I don't really see point of this, but this what the game desiners wanted level one to play like.
But hey it's fun when the party is made up of charecters named Bob 5, Ted 3, and Carl 6, right?
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm finding it to be about 3-4 encounters to go to level 2, it feels about right.
h347h50 wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
I'm guessing the OP definition of 'rocket tag' is 'you might go to zero HP'
I'm always surprised when I hear people say 'I died!' and I go 'What, really?', then they reply 'oh...I mean I went to zero'.
Because going to zero is like a massive thing. Apparently.
h347h50 wrote:
Noon wrote:
R_Dragoner wrote:
Noon wrote:
After playing 1st lv characters in 2,3 and 5th edition,I don't think that 5th is that horible. Yes,some monsters can one shot you and if 3-4 monsters gang up on one PC he is in the world of pain. But that was the case in all the previous editions i have played. So far,I think that 5th ed 1st lv chars have best chance of surviving. For comparison,lets take 2ed and 5th ed fighter. Human vulgaris. Same equipment,same stat array.. 5th ed fighter has: better stats due to +1 on all ability scores,better ac,more hit points,better to hit,second wind abillity,hp recovery via hit dice. 2ed fighter rolls for hp at lv 1 (no max hp on first lv),more damage due to specialization and that is it. Also,on 0 hp,2ed fighter is dead. No death rolls. And don't get me on the wizards. 2 hp lv 1 wizard in 2ed is not uncommon.
All things considered,5th is not that bad. You only need to play it smart. Runinig is always an option. Charghing head first into melee is not always the best one. Playing smart at lv 1 is the name of the game. You chose your fights and control battlefield conditions as much as you can. Remember,at lv 1 you are not a hero. You are slightly better than Joe Average,the town guard. So don't act a hero.
Haytam wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I can see some of both sides and to me it is a combination of DM preference and bad rolls that scale the difficulty.
Let's use the Lost Mines first encounter. I've played it and watched other people play it, andI think everyone is familiar with it.
4 goblins with bows set up an ambush for the party. The ambush has an obvious distraction (dead horses with arrows sticking out of them) that a lot of player's will recognize as a warning sign. Not all, but we can assume at least one guy. Goblins are good at hiding though, and using the starter pre-gens you don't seem to have a good chance at spotting the ambush.
If you do, initiative. If you don't surprise round with the goblins having advantage on their shots.
Now we get to what I'm calling DM preference. If the goblin's get surprise do they focus fire? They are obviously expeirenced at fighting so it would be a reasonable tactic. With advantage on the rolls they have a decent chance of all four shots hitting. Even with static damage that's 20 hp which can drop any of the characters, and depending they might even drop two of them (10 each wizard and rogue). Then they use their bonus action to hide again, which will give them advantage next turn and protection from the players if they don't spot them. This fight, with bad perception rolls on the player's end, could end very, very badly.
When I played this in a demo the DM did not have the goblins use their bonus hide, because it really changes the nature of the fight. He also had half of them run in with swords instead of staying in cover and sniping. I've also rarely seen the focus fire, instead the goblins seem to each pick a diffeent target, or have two of them attack the heavily armored dwarf who they have the least chance of hitting.
If the goblins don't get surprise the fight is more even, but comes down to initiative in a very real way. If some ranged players can go before the goblins, likely but not assured, they can take a chunk out of the goblins and reduce their focus fire by half (best case). But it is important to note the goblins do have cover from the brush and are decent at Dex saves against cantrips like sacred flame.
And I'd like to point out, none of the player's "charged in blindly" to this fight. I've seen this fight where all the spellcasters are out of daily spells and a large section of the party has been injured, and the adventure seems to expect you will continue to the cave here you face at least 3 more encounters (I've never actually seen the cave fully played through). It is also possible with some luck that the fight ends without serious effort on the player's end.
Personally? With a house-rule of no instant death (dropping to negative max is just an auto failed death save) and not focus firing on the wizard (who unless they burn the shield spell has the least chance of living through that) this becomes a pulse-pounding fight that I actually kind of like. However, as a player I would feel a little miffed if I was dropped to 0 early in the fight because then A) I'm no longer playing the game I came to play and B) I either have to ask for a heal (when the cleric only gets 2 spells) or we have to rest until I naturally gain back some hp which is a little unrealisitic to me (5 hours later, nothing has changed except you have now awoken and spent a healing die). Tht's the kicker for me, I don't want to slow down the game with healing and resting when we should be exploring and facing challenges. I'm planning on starting my groups at either 2nd or 3rd (depending on consensus and feel of the game) fo some of these reasons.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Session 1 of LMoP saw several players drop. Session 2 of LMoP and Klarg one-shotted my wife's character. It was brutal.
It was actually the source of a lot of fun in the 2 subsequent sessions. Often character death ≠ BAD.
smacintush wrote:
So far in the in our first weekend. we've had 2 TPKs. One of those was at level 1, and the other at level 2. So yes, 1st level is awful, and 2nd is just about as bad. Don't get invested in your characters before level 3 at least.
I get that some people actually seem to like this unforgiving level of lethality where one poor tactical descision or unlucky roll can kill your character, but this is completely contrary to actual game design. Starting you off at the hardest part of the game is only going to turn new people off from playing, as many times they'll die before they really get a feel for the way the game works, and even if they already know they can still get downed before they can act and spend the entire fight feeling useless and bored. I would have been ok with them including it in the game, perhaps as optional "apprentice levels" or whatever, but making it the default starting place is a detriment to the game.
It also encourages meta-gaming when your party TPKs multiple times. We still want to get past these awful levels, but now we know the encounters that start the campaign, so the DM is forced to do more work to change things up, and we the players have a hard time pretending to be surprised by "Oh look, yet more rat swarms 1-shotting us". We also have a harder time caring about the consequences of any given fight, and it's impossible to get invested in any sort of story when at any time your character could simply fall into a hole and die. You quickly reach a point where you just stop having fun and are just rolling away your dice in the hopes that eventually you'll get past this level.
Essentially, this means that the low levels fail on both sides of the experience. They're too lethal to be fun from a gameplay persepective (unless you really like making death saves and rolling up new characters, which... I guess some people legitimately do?), and there's no way to actually feel like the protagonist of a story when you get killed by every Joe Stormtrooper. It feels more like Call of Cthulhu than D&D at this point. Granted, we've been playing the Dragon Queen adventure, which may just be an inherantly unforgiving campaign due to the fact that you're not allowed to rest. Still, one weekend has already been enough for me to get really frustrated with these low levels, and I already can't imagine ever running a game of my own that started before level 3.
TempestRime wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Project_Vile wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Haytam wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Since it *is* a new system, starting PCs off at 3rd level seems to be missing the point. I think most PC deaths at 1st level (and, maybe 2nd level) are caused by inexperience with the rules and/or characters. Some of the rules from the playtest are no longer applicable and have changed. People who played the playtest need to learn the system again because there is much that is different in it.
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
I just finished reading Episode 1 of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure, and while I love the epic feel of the story line, I am more than a bit concerned about the difficulty of the encounters. While I could certainly be wrong, I have a sneaking suspicion that most level 1 parties will get their asses handed to them unless the DM employs a lot of mitigating tactics, such as having opponents run away when they are knocked down to half their numbers. I will be most interested to hear some actual accounts in order to determine whether it plays the same way it reads.
I'm not terribly happy with the Phandelver goblin encounter. I haven't played it myself, but I flipped through a friend's copy to see what's what. Overall, it's a pretty good adventure and serves as an excellent how-to guide for both playing and DMing. Obviously this encounter is problematic if people are getting such wildly different results with it.
The encounter specifically states that two goblins will draw swords and advance while the other two remain at bow range. Having all four as archers isn't the encounter as written.
The hidden archers would get advantage on their first attack, while the two swordgobbos would not (and are also exposed to counterattacks). The goblins have an ability that lets them hide at the end of their turn as a free action. The archers are described as attacking from woods so it's easy to assume that they can find enough cover to hide after attacking each round, but the encounter guidelines don't specifically say so. The hiding rules say that [in combat] "if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you", but this doesn't address ranged attacks*. You could argue effectively that this rule covers all attacks or just melee attacks. The section then goes on to reference the DM's discretion in allowing a character to approach a creature while remaining hidden (I gather to facilitate rogue backstabs). Unfortunately, none of this addresses the first combat. The DM, in effect, must make a judgement call on how stealth and hiding will work at their table in their very first round of running a combat. That's a bit harsh, especially since perma-stealth goblins are far more dangerous than the average run-of-the-mill ones. A note on how to run stealth in this encounter would have been very useful.
The other lapse is the focus fire one that has been mentioned previously. The DM is directed to make attacks for the goblins, but isn't given any guidelines on who the goblins should attack and why. Focus fire? Focus fire on the wizard? One attack each on a different PC? Advice on how to choose targets for monsters would have been helpful here.
The adventure believes this to be an easy encounter: "In the unlikely event that the goblins defeat the adventurers, they leave them unconscious..." This alone will probably prevent a TPK, though it doesn't specifically say to NOT make death saves for the PCs or that they shouldn't be killed if they reach the death threshhold in one attack, so a TPK is possible.
All in all, I would have designed a simpler tutorial encounter with easier monsters and no ambush or hiding mechanics at play. I also would have preferred more advice on how to stage and run combat, particularly the more complicated mechanics such as the hiding rules. I think WotC dropped the ball on this one.
*It also doesn't address vigilant PCs who are expecting an ambush. No provision is made for PCs who spot a horse corpse festooned with goblin arrows and eye the woods for any sign of movement. But the surprise rule doesn't reference a hiding force and an obvious ambush situation. It's either "Hey, let's fight!" or "Roll to detect ambush" with no player agency. Not a fan.
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Nothing wrong with a few PCs dropping to zero at level 1, or even dying. Sets the tone. 
Undrhil wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
In my group's LMoP experience, I believe the only thing my DM did was attack the closest person to the horses when the surprise was won for the goblins. In subsequent re-runs of the encounter, people were terrified to go near the horses, but couldn't meta-game to do anything except for using an action to make a check to see the goblins. The second time, I was the only one willing to get remotely close to the horses, and of course, failed to notice the goblins in the woods.
I dropped instantly.
I think we might have made it through that round with only a couple deaths. Our rogue was actually untouched, and managed to kill every single goblin we faced. We actually talked about returning to the city because goblins were just too damned scary.
The bottom line is: I don't think it's too meta-gamey for a DM to choose to attack the closest person with ranged weapons. It seems entirely reasonable to me that these goblin snipers would want to remove anyone that gets too close to their hiding spot.
I remember in our third of fourth run-through trying to jump and lay prone between the horses to spring the trap. I think I got laid out quickly in that fight as well. There just isn't alot that can be done except for walking into the trap if you don't roll well enough to spot the goblins.
Wuzzard wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Project_Vile wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Project_Vile wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
When we played the goblin ambush encounter, two of the goblins rushed at us while the other two fired arrows. I think a few PCs took 3 or 4 points of damage from arrows. Then, the fighter who was engaged with one of the little buggers suffered a critical hit in the first round taking him down to 2 hit points. Immediately, he used his second wind and gained back all of the lost hit points. We were all amazed at how dangerous the situation was, but also how dramatic it was when the figher successfully used his second wind. Eventually we finished off the goblins, but the fighter was knocked down to about 4 hp and a couple of other PCs were low on hp too.
We loved the experience.
Rhenny wrote:
quindia wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
CR 1 and below look like according to XP build are based on a group of four adventures so I would assume CR at higher levels to do the same. When the math is put through for monsters a party of four works good per monster. Encounter building you would have to look at XP given out to see where that falls to gauge. Lost Mines looks to be built for a party of four by the math. A total of 350 xp can be gotten per PC if four through the first part so you would level. A party of 5 would not level up. Just something to think about.
edwin_su wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
and it's impossible to get invested in any sort of story when at any time your character could simply fall into a hole and die.
Orethalion wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Noon wrote:
I like - love - the overall look and feel of low level 5e. I love the ability for most characters to get some play before they pick subclasses. I love goblins and kobolds and animals.
I don't love random character death when there's insufficient resources for resurrection.
So my house rules:
1. Eliminate instant death for damage. I just got rid of the rule. It's devastating when players are still learning their characters, irrelevant once they have a pile of HP, and a pain in my butt. The only way to die is death saves.
2. Creatures with a challenge rating less than 1 don't score critical hits. A 20 is still an automatic hit, but not a critical.
3. This isn't a house rule, but a design approach: I aim to design encounters so that focus fire, from both sides, is either a subpar or impossible approach. This avoids the focus fire wipe-before-you-act problem.
I think my house rules and design approaches are awesome.
It's funny but I got hooked on D&D when I was ten back in 1e days. The box got me to by it and the stupid Carrion Crawler wiped my and my friends characters. And those stupid Rust Monsters. But it was good times and somehow we kept coming back. So much so that we played everything that I could get my hands on. Now 30 years later I intro my son. He started with 4th. He liked it but found it boring by 7th lvl. So now this edition comes out and he wanted to try it as he watched a buddy and I play the playtest. So he made a fighter and I ran him, my buddy and an NPC. They got through Doom of Daggerfall pretty good. He got beaten up here and there but started liking it. The climax though made him feel epic but it wasn't until the start of a new adventure with him being 2nd level where he is now hooked. What happend? The party got a random encounter of 6 wolves. A little possible overkill but my son invoking a Barbarian like rage asked if he could rage out, scream act big to try and scare the wolves. I allow the check and he drives off 2 wolves. The remaing 4 charge him. The Wood Elf archer and Rogue spread out to maximize their bows. My son gets pummeled and taken down to 0 hp. Death saving throws. He succeeded by a 3 to 2 margain. Afterwards when the night was over he comes up to me and goes "Dang 5th blows away 4th edition badly. I never thought it would be so fun to roll to see if my character lived". He is now hooked and playing in that campaign and has now made a Monk to play in another. Point is that I think it's more the DM then the player. Any game that is lethal can be great if the right DM is on board. I sucked at running 4th. The miniatures threw me off. I couldn't run combat the way I have for years. It just wasn't my style and my son picked up on it. Now he got a taste and felt that rush you can get in an exciting movie and where his character means something besides stats and he's hooked. He also knows the worlds dangerous and looks for ways to not go in and just smash things.
I love the old school feel of low levels. I don't know why butI think it was because we had to reset the battle in the caves for the mines adventure. The large group of goblins in the room wiped the party when I rolled well for the goblins and all three of the saved vs the wizard's sleep spell. At first my brother and my friend complained that the goblins AC was too good due to cover and their to hit rolls were too high. We redid the battle and they won.
Later that night my brother had us roll 2nd level characters and I decided on a rogue to see if he worked. (People were surpised as I always despised rogues in previous editions. ) My brother set up a similar encounter in the caves and I ran my rogue in using the dash bonus feature while dodging. The goblins missed me due to disadvantage and the rest of the party followed suit. We ended up moping the floor with the goblins once we meeled them. It was a blast. It taught the group that sometimes you need to use tactics and not take hardened positions head on. Try to get around an enemies defenses. It felt heroic and I really liked that feeling. The low levels help you to define your character. I kinda wish the casters had more spells or an easier mechanic to get them back similar to the warlock but it is amazing the power jump from 1rst to 2nd then again to 3rd. I actually enjoy low level again because there is not exactly a rocket tag feel to the game. (Most lowbie monsters need to hit a PC twice if you use the average damage roll system. ) I think the thrill of the dice roll and they chance that you may get knocked down is a big draw of the play. Besides now that we have the PHB I can't wait to play my human cleric in heavy armor with damage reduction! Bring it on skeletons, zombies, orcs, goblins and kobolds! I am ready for you!
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
CVB wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Had a bunch of lapsed 3rd edition players and some newbies. They all seemed to enjoy 1st level just fine. I wouldn't call it awful.
Bluenose wrote:
Noon wrote:
Improv theatre and D&D are extremely different. In the former, one develops a character and situation on stage, playing out the scene in real time with seconds of preparation. In D&D, the character already exists and the DM has created the scene in advance. Improv creates a scene, D&D manages a pre-set scene.
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
CetteHamsterLa wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
First, I'll say that all this looking down on newer players as just being made of fail and having no creativity and that they obviously can't plan to have advantage on every fight is disengenuous. We started playing 3rd in middle school in 2000, and we've always taken interesting approaches to battle. Even in 4e. When we introduced my wife to the game a little bit ago, the adventure ranged from talking down a village of goblins to let us pass peacefully, to completely avoiding traps set by kobolds because of carefully using objects to trigger them before we were in range, my wife using Light to illuminate rocks and stones to reveal hidden goblins, and taking out a large, dangerous number because we stealthed up on them, and one player's rat familiar snuck up and chewed through bow strings and moved small weapons away so that when my wife's wizard dropped a pillar of fire into their midst, they were mostly disarmed. Creativity can be alive and well in 4e.
Cake walks are also not what everyone wants. In fact, it is the fights that you barely scrap through that can be the most memorable. In the above adventure, the end of the dungeon had a black dragon that dropped the entire party below 1/2 with a single breath attack and we spent the rest of the fight scrambling to stay alive, using the best tactics and cover we could to win. It was great. Even back in 3rd, we used the LotR soundtrack as our background music, and every time the part where Gandalf falls in Moria came on, someone got crit or dropped to zero.
What is tough is when you get dropped from full in a single hit before you ever get the chance to do something. It may be realistic (how many soldiers die in battle never even knowing where the bullets flew from), but for many it's a miserable feeling because, as a game, there was nothing you could do to avoid it. You also can't solve every issue with "well player better and L2Scout." Sure, there are occassions where scouting is possible and you can plan an ambush. But, unless your DM is catering to you for that specifically, that is not how battles would occur organically. More often you get wandering monsters, village raids, bandit attacks, or alerting the next room when you successfully ambush the first. Heck, scouting in a dungeon-esque location is more likely to just avoid being surprised as opposed to getting surprise. Also worth noting is that it takes a LOT of extra prep time to make sure that the world and location where every single fight could be held is written in fine enough detail that the party can plan an elaborate ambush. Some people here, like Emerikol, spend incredible amounts of time fleshing out their worlds to the finest detail. It is quite impressive. On the other hand, most DMs I have met are like myself - working and studying at the same time, with a wife/girlfriend/non-D&D friends to work in, and that means that while DM prep happens, it can never be to that level, and to say that the DM has to do that or the game fails is no good.
Just look at the above scenario with the four goblins. Playing smart and being cautious won't help against the goblins, and a single failed spot check (easy when no one was trained in perception) means you get dropped on. Conversely, when trying to pull off an ambush, Rogues are okay, but the cleric, fighter, and even wizard have good chances of blowing it. And focus fire makes absolute sense. If you failed to notice, PCs focus fire all the time, as turn order means that you can see if you ally manages to drop a target before moving to the next - you don't have the party declare all attacks before anyone moves or attacks. So, why would that be any different for the goblins? They have their own initiative counts. Just like PCs, they are perfectly capable of having the first make an attack, and the second sees the result before making their attack, etc. Of course, I suppose the old school honor code of don't focus fire if it would drop the player, generally attack the fighter even if it makes more sense to attack the others, etc, could apply. Never bought on to that (and nor has any DM I have ever played with).
As presented, low levels are a total death fest, or just random luck.
Now, I will say that there are some - especially amongst the older players -who desire this. They want the feel of characters that don't get names til the mid levels as a "badge of honor." And 4e did NOT have anything to givethem that. In that regard, I think it's fine that the early levels are a veritable D-Day, as those people should have something that caters to them.
However, nowadays people get attached to a character from the very beginning - they come in with a concept of what and who they want to play. This is not the era of a stack of 12 nameless protagonists of whom one should (hopefully) make it. In fact, I am used to seeing DMs ask players for a half page or more background on player characters before the game starts. Players are really invested in their characters now. Experienced players can start at higher levels to ensure that, but to have this in the starter set where you will get a bunch of youngsters all excited to play Balthor the Drunken, 3rd son of a noble dwarf, off to make his name and come out of the shadow of his older two brothers, and his party, only to get butchered before they know what happens, with no real idea on what went wrong. They just seemed to lose initiative. THAT is not good. Intro adventures should be very aware that new players are the target audience, and so should keep the gloves on. There also needs to be a LOT of advice in the DMG on how to handle encounter building and how to make sure not to accidentily TPK your group, because not everyone has been playing for 40 years.
TLDR: clever tactics are not missing universally from modern players, and should always be rewarded, but, unless contrived, the circumstances to do that are very much not always present. Modern players also putting effort and attachment into their characters and backgrounds is not something to be looked down upon - there are those that would even say it should be commended for RP. Thus, having super brutal low level play is legitimately rough for many. Since there are groups that want it though, I do not necessarily advocate changing things, but more making it VERY clear how randomly lethal low levels are to players - especially new players - so that they know to move to higher or know what to expect if they continue at 1st. Also, I think that intro sets should keep this in mind to be a little forgiving of new players and DMs and definitely include plenty of advice there and in the DMG on encounter design and things to be careful of.
viper5 wrote:
I think there is nothing wrong with the power of first level characters. The only edition of D&D I didn't play (other than OD&D) was 4th. I only know what I read about it, and what I read I didn't care for. Since I didn't play it, I can't comment on it, except to say that from other people's comments, 1st level characters were pretty powerful and had very good survivability.
Comparing 1st level characters in 5th edtion to the other editions I know, I feel like they are on a par with 3rd edition characters. They are certainly far more powerful than 1st level characters from BECMI or 1st and 2nd editon AD&D. Let's compare:
Higher starting attack bonus in 5th. For most characters, their primary stat will be around 16 at first level. Combined with the proficiency bonus, attacks are made at +5. Also, bows are more useful because you can add your DEX bonus as a damage bonus, where in previous editions you could not.
Spell casters have more spells to cast at first level. Two 1st level spell slots, plus unlimited cantrips. Sure beats the hell out of casting one spell and being done for the day.
Max HP at first level. Imagine playing 1st edition and rolling a 1 for hp. Granted, I'm sure many people house ruled that you take max HP at first level anyway, but here it's in the rules.
Higher starting ability scores overall with point buy. Rolling randomly (especially the old school 3d6, in order) can result in some pretty weak characters.
Some cool powers even at first level. Rogue sneak attack. Fighter second wind. Cantrips. I only know the basic rules so far, so I can't comment on other classes.
Easy to get up when knocked down to 0 hp. In early editions, even if you didn't die at zero, recovering was a long process and could take you out of the action for a long time.
So that seems pretty good to me. Granted, the monsters can be pretty tough, but if the players play smartly and don't just rush in with guns blazing, they have a great chance at survival. I am a DM, and I ran a game of LMoP with a bunch of noobs. They made some mistakes and had some bad luck, but overall they tried to play it smart (sneak around, have the rogue scout ahead, think about their tactics), and they did just fine. They had a great time and survived to second level.
It's challenging, but I think that's a good thing. Sometimes the dice will cause the players to fail, but that's by design, and it has been in every edition. Poor player skill should mean failure more often than success. Skilled players who think about what they're doing and play smart have a great...but never certain...chance of success. Without that chance of failure, the game would present no challenge, and it wouldn't be fun.
BTShire wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Monsters are stronger but knowing that as a DM you should not force a ton of monsters on the players. With the new encounter guidelines and playing around with them it's easy to balence out. And looking at from that standpoint it works at least on my side as I see it. I've even been able to update Lost Mines for 2 players easily and it's tough but manageable. I've had a player who has constantly been injured (rogue) one who hasn't been touched yet (ranger and he is a D&D hater but likes 5th) and a Dragonborn fighter who has had fights were he's been awesome and others where he's acted as a meat shield. It really is gonna come down to the DM on what they want to do and how creative they will get.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
viper5 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
About TPK. I buy that's it's happening but to just to say I've read all these TPK's and sure enough it's happening so much that this edition is just bad at 1st level is kinda disingenuous IMO. Why? Well there's no true details and the few that have I've seen ways it could have gone another why by the DM not being a sadist and still going by RAW. We here of ambushes going south and it sounds like the whole party got right into the middle of a huge cave and seemed to fail on every roll. I find that hard or the DM only allowed 1 roll. Or never allowed a roll. It seems no DM has gone soft, even though the very first encounter in Lost Mines says the Gobos aren't out to kill you just knock you out and take your stuff. And some of the TPK's from that one alone do bother me. No one has ever tried a flank before they approach the horse or DM it where the characters see it at a safe distance in relative terms. Again it seems like the whole party's just troop up to a dead horse in the middle of nowhere on a road and just go weird then act surprised there all dead. Again sadistic DM'ing
The monsters are tough and that's good. Goblins can last several levels, you'll just see more of them. A horde of Hobgoblins will work well at level 10 now ( I just made that up but off the top of my head the math seems to work). Which means my sandbox as a DM is open wide and for that I say good. Is everything perfect in this edition. No but I have house rules for that but I can see lots of enjoyment in organized play if I ran one.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
BTShire wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Here's the thing: We have different categories of difficulty for encounter guidelines, and the definition of those categories has absolutely nothing to with character level; level just determines the particular enounter builds that would fall into each category. Thus, a 1st-level encounter and a 10th-level encounter that are each described as "hard" should have approximately the same meaning in context, notably that things could go very badly for the players with some poor luck or circumstances. Were the system to give some kind of different meaning to a "hard" encounter based on level then all you've done is reduce the usefulness of encounter guidelines.
There is no reason to make low levels inherently more or less brutal than other levels. Difficulty in D&D is always a relative concept. And there is absolutely nothing preventing DMs from making death more frequent at low levels if desired; just use a higher ratio of hard and deadly encounters.
Pyromantic wrote:
Noon wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
Back when 4E was first released, there were a lot of groups slaughtered by a goblin called Irontooth...
My impression is that 5E at first level can be pretty deadly, but a lot of that deadliness comes from a general unfamiliarity with how the game plays. It's very easy for the DM to kill characters when the players aren't playing in an informed way, but once their skill level develops and they understand what they're facing - even if they're on yet another set of new characters - they'll likely find it easier.
When I started playing D&D - using the AD&D system - my wizard was only given the shocking grasp spell... you can guess how useless he was! (Yes, once a day, I could do as much damage as the fighter with a 16 strength and a longsword and still be worse at hitting the opponent!) The DM used the random tables for initial spell selection in the DMG because that's what the system said, despite the fact that a first level magic-user in AD&D should always know the sleep spell. (Or possibly, charm person).
In the early 3E days, I ran a gladatorial fight where my player's 3rd level ranger came up against a first level half-orc barbarian. It ran in and one-shot killed him. Triple damage on a critical hit? Nasty! Note that this was a 3rd level PC we were talking about... there were some swingy results in 3E!
I've run the first encounter from Phandelver twice now, with different parties each time. The very first time, I didn't read the encounter closely and so had all four goblins hanging back and sniping. That went badly for the party (the cleric was the first to be knocked unconscious), but the group still prevailed. The other group were more experienced with D&D (generally) and were able to do a much better job of neutralising the goblins. (And then they sneaked in and killed all the goblins in the lair without another character going down!) What I really would like to see is the encounter played with a wizard who understands the usefulness of the spell sleep. (It should be able to neutralise both archers even if they're still hidden).
What I feel about 5E low-level play is that there's much more tension than there was in most 4E combats as to the state of the party. At the moment, I'm enjoying it.
In a week's time, we'll start on the Hoard of the Dragon Queen encounters season. With 5-6 tables playing it at our store, it will be interesting to see how it fares.
Cheers!
Noon wrote:
TempestRime wrote:
I have one question for people who think lv is awful. Do your expirience come from playing published adventures,encounters and such or from homebrew campaigns? I'm interested since i have never played any of published stuff and i ran only two (Tomb of Horros in 2ed and We be goblins in PF). This is not trolling or flaming,just curiosity since i have no expirience with official stuff so my expirience may be very different that those that do play adventures. Thx.
My group did the first half of In Search of the Unknown last night. Three level 1 PCs, two level 3 (I wanted to get a hint of Aragorn/Moiraine/Batman starting the adventure with Frodo/Rand/Robin without a giant level gap). End result? No zeros, though when they decided to fight eight goblins at once I got worried. Good rolls on two Sleep spells, and decent initiative, got them through that one.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pluvious wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Played a session just yesterday. Five players, three of them completely new to D&D, and all of them new to the 5e rules. They chose between five pregens I had created, and we ended up with a human barbarian, human wizard, halfling fiend warlock, high elf rogue, half-orc paladin. Please note the absence of the cleric: only healing in the group was the paladin with 5 lay on hands hps.
I had prepared a feywild themed dungeon, to access which the PCs had to search some old ruins.
They encountered:
- 4 troglodytes (CR 1/4; 13 hp; three attacks per turn in melee).
- 2 troglodytes.
- mad spirits trap which dealt about 5 damage to each character.
- homunculus (homebrew stat, a strong CR 1 dealing 1 piercing + 3 poison with bite, hard to hit, and resistant to nonmagical weapons)
- six twig blights (CR 1/8), but the poisonous grass in the room made two PCs poisoned.
- a nightbark satyr, again homebrew, which I honestly found pretty powerful for a CR 1, being a construct (various resistances and immunities) with 27 hp and able to do attacks for 2d4 +3 and 2d6 +3 damage.
I always had the monsters deal average damage, because I really wanted to test the new creatures I had made.
During the entire session PCs only had 1 short rest.
Also, I never rolled less than 8 on my d20s, and an average of 12. On the contrary, the players saw many cold rolls.
Casualties and PCs down: no PC killed, the wizard went down in the first and last fight but was promptly healed by the paladin.
I think most of the fears about 1st level (which I initially shared!) are to be forgotten. PCs are full of resources, and even a non-optimized team with newbie players (such as this one) can do well!
Have fun everyone, 5e works quite fine! 
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
The Wizard went down twice and was easily healed by the Paladin?
Stabilization, wisdom(Medicine) vs DC10, seems to restore characters at 0 hit points to 1 hit point without death rolls. That makes it more powerful than Cure Wounds and rendering Revivify near useless. (Page 197 PHB)
The Healer's Kit doesn't even require death rolls or a wisdom(Medicine) roll.
Cure Wounds gives a character 1d8+1 hit points. But we know this does not work on characters with 0 hit points because Revivify, a 3rd level spell, does that.
Remember that stabilizing and first aid must be done quickly and costs actions meaning the healer is unable to fight. This puts the party at risk of being dropped.
So question. Does your Half-Orc Paladin have any of these things other than Cure Wounds?
The OP is trying to make a point that 1st level is too hard. It is hard to discuss that if people are not understanding the rules correctly and assuming that Players are making dumb mistakes or the Dungeon Master is inexperienced and that is why characters die.
You are also having the monsters deal average damage to keep the party alive. Why don't you try rolling full damage from the monsters and tell me if you think 1st level is too hard.
I too switched to average damage, but characters are still dropping.
We all need to keep in mind that Dungeon Masters all have different mastering styles and that one DM's opinion of the game is different from another DM's.
Sure! Nobody in the party died, after I fudged the rolls, gave characters extra actions so they could keep their allies from failing that last death saving throw, had 1 monster attack 1 character doing average damage and then attacking another character when almost dropping the first. Or better, having the monsters just wait around and do nothing. And the party was at 3rd level!
Fewer appologies and more solutions.
ren1999 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
ren1999 wrote:
Answering some doubts:
1. the PCs were outnumbered only by CR 1/8 creatures, yes, but if you take a look at the new encounter building rules, the troglodytes being in the 3-6 creatures range (4 of them) doubles the xp value of the encounter. 50 xp x 4= 200; 200 x 2= 400. 400 xp is in the encounter budget for a deadly fight for level 1 PCs. I'm just saying that, if you play by the rules and build encounters accordingly, you're kinda in the safe zone (you might be even if you challenge PCs with deadly encounters). In addition, I'd like to mention that troglodytes, with 13 hp, multiattack, a +4 to hit and three attacks that deal 5 damage, are on par with a CR 1 creature in 3.5. Here, we have four of them.
2. No, none of the humans had feats. Too complicated for newcomers, they had enough to learn already.
3. The paladin (and the group) had NO HEALING at their disposal except for the 5 hp pool of the paladin's lay on hands. As has already been said, a 0 hp character is NOT dead, and spending 1 hp from the pool allowed the paladin to bring them back in the safe zone.
4. I used average damage, which means no ultra high rolls, but no low rolls too. Also, I scored two crits against PCs, which I rolled (with above average results). And if you think average damage is there to protect the players, well yes, it can avoid max damage hits, but it also avoids low damage rolls. It's a 50/50 deal: no threat of cutting down enemies in a single hit (except for the wizard who did take 8 damage from a hit and went down immediately), but also no chances for the PCs to be attacked and take only 2 or 3 points of damage.
All rude insults aside, I did not know that Revivify brings people back from the dead who failed 3 saving throws. Nor did I know that Cure Wounds works on those with 0 hit points.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that Cure Wounds works on those with 0 hit points. That is your interpretation.
If Cure Wounds worked that way, it makes Death Rolls and Revivify pointless doesn't it. Instead of rolling to live or die, just have the Cleric cast 1st level Cure Wounds.
Ren, you seem to be equating at 0 hit points with dead, which are two different things. The Falling Unconscious section reads "If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious (see Appendix A). This unconsciousness ends if you regain any hit points." Nothing in the description of the Unconscious condition says you can't be healed.
ren1999 wrote:
Exactly. That is the point of Cure Wounds and other healing spells, to keep you on your feet, as opposed to prone and dying. If the Cleric has magical resources, an ally should not be lying there making death saves for very long.
The rules shouldn't need to explain that these spells work on characters with 0 hp. Characters at 0 hp are dying. Naturally, healing them, whether magically or with a healer's kit and Healer feat, is a good idea.
Characters who have failed 3 death saves are dead. If they are to be restored to life, more powerful magic is needed, such as Revivify.
When I posted above, I had not bothered to read the 5 previous pages. I had no idea I was stepping into some type of ongoing controversy. With no horse in this race, I encourage you to read again the death/dying rules. This is a very clear ruling, not one possible interpretation.
No, I do not equate 0 hit points with being dead.
The only controversy here is that those of you arguing with me seem to think that the rules on this are clearly understood when they are not. Tony even admitted that the rules are not clear in his response to me.
I understood the rules to mean that if the character drops to 0 hit points or lower, that character must roll death saves at the beginning of the character's turn. (p. 76) Allies have until the beginning of the character's turn to stabilize with the Medicine skill.
If the character drops to negative hit points equal to the character's maximum hit points, then the character can't roll death saves and is dead.
The rules do not say that Cure Wounds can restore hit points from 0. (p. 86)
If you have a Healer's Kit with your Medicine Skill, you can restore characters to 1 hit point without a roll. (p.49 of the basic rules). Spare The Dying Cantrip does the same thing. (p. 101)
The rules do say that if you have the wis(Medicine) skill that you can roll it versus DC10 to restore the character to 1 hit point. (p. 76)
Revivify only works on a character that failed to save vs death before 1 minute has passed. (p.100)
i think it's great that characters are now droping once again. Of course, droping isn't the same thing as dying.
ren1999 wrote:
ren1999 wrote:
Exactly. I'm not seeing how it can be interpreted any other way. Not that this matters, but hasn't it always worked similarly to this in every version of D&D?
I have no stake in an argument, and I've already contributed my views. Each can rule it how he or she feels it needs to be ruled at their table. I've already made clear how I interpret the RAW.
ren1999 wrote:
By my reading, you're correct, Abanathie, it just seemed like too much to get into while dealing with the healing at 0 issue.
ren1999 wrote:
ren1999 wrote: