The UA's have moved in the right direction with allowing you to flesh out your character at level 1 with feats on backgrounds and custom background and equipment rules. However, as it stands, I still highly doubt most tables will play at level 1.
Level 1 is the most dangerous and deadly level in the game. Making it a poor place for new players trying to learn the game.
My suggestion would simply be to have more health at low levels. Starting with level 2 health (wizard 6 + 1d6 +2xcon for example) would make those early levels less deadly.
In the same vein healing also doesnt typically scale well into higher levels with cure wounds typically only gaining 1d8 every 2 levels the party levels up IF the caster uses their best slot.
Perhaps, instead of giving you the same health as at level 2, they'll gain temporary hitpoints once per long rest, and take them off gradually:
Level 1: You gain temporary hit points as the maximum value of your hit die
Level 2: You gain temporary hit points as half the maximum value of your hit die (If multiclass, take the highest die)
Level 3: You acquire temporary hit points as number of classes
And I don't know about healing, although the magic doesn't scale well, maybe it's on purpose to encourage avoiding intensive damage in the group during a single fight, hurrying to finish it before (Damage the opponent more), reduce the damage, or look for alternatives to conflict
I’ve started every 5e campaign I’ve played in at level 1. We’ve only had one level 1 death, and that was because of bad choices the party made. And we’ve had a good number of characters die all throughout other levels. But that, of course, is anecdotal.
Coming it from the other side and getting rid of monster crits, if they follow through with it, will probably do more to decrease low-level character deaths than anything else. It will make enemy damage more predictable and lessen the chance of one roll dropping someone.
Level 1 players just shouldn't be fighting stuff. Level 1 should be role-play and creative problem solving to start getting a feel for who your character is and how they approach challenges.
My solution was to just give them a temp HP buffer equal to their HP total. Once it's gone it's gone for good. Could also give them a 'negate one death' rule but only have it apply to level 1 or 2 characters.
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
That's not a reasonable ask for every brand new table I feel. Most will want to start at level 1, both to more easily learn playing the game and to more easily learn DMing it.
So making level 1 more survivable is indeed the better choice. And they're doing that, via things like more classes getting a spell-slot agnostic method of healing in OneD&D (see the new Bardic Inspiration, Channel Nature and Channel Divinity) as well as experimenting with changes like Spare The Dying outright reviving people from a downed state.
That's not a reasonable ask for every brand new table I feel. Most will want to start at level 1, both to more easily learn playing the game and to more easily learn DMing it.
So making level 1 more survivable is indeed the better choice. And they're doing that, via things like more classes getting a spell-slot agnostic method of healing in OneD&D (see the new Bardic Inspiration, Channel Nature and Channel Divinity) as well as experimenting with changes like Spare The Dying outright reviving people from a downed state.
I'm not suggesting new players start at 3, just that if you want to start stronger, then start at a higher level.
I'm not sure how I feel about WotC making early levels easier. Personally, I enjoy being challenged, and having to make significant decisions. But I guess if I don't like 1DD, I can ignore it
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
I disagree. You shouldn’t learn the whole game within the first level. The first Tier of play is to help you understand the concepts of the game and slowly introduce you to new mechanics. By the time you are level 4 you have learned how to level up your character, chosen new sub class options, chosen a new ASI or feat, and if you are a spellcaster you have learned how to progress your Spellcasting. Expecting a player to learn all that in one level is unreasonable in my opinion.
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
I disagree. You shouldn’t learn the whole game within the first level. The first Tier of play is to help you understand the concepts of the game and slowly introduce you to new mechanics. By the time you are level 4 you have learned how to level up your character, chosen new sub class options, chosen a new ASI or feat, and if you are a spellcaster you have learned how to progress your Spellcasting. Expecting a player to learn all that in one level is unreasonable in my opinion.
So your suggestion is that experienced players should start at 5, and new players should start at 3? Because, again, unless you are not actually using ANY of the combat rules at level 1, level 1 is a poor teaching tool as the combat at that level is not representative of the way combat is actually ran at 3 or higher. It is fundamentally not the same game.
That's not a reasonable ask for every brand new table I feel. Most will want to start at level 1, both to more easily learn playing the game and to more easily learn DMing it.
So making level 1 more survivable is indeed the better choice. And they're doing that, via things like more classes getting a spell-slot agnostic method of healing in OneD&D (see the new Bardic Inspiration, Channel Nature and Channel Divinity) as well as experimenting with changes like Spare The Dying outright reviving people from a downed state.
not to mention that attaining level 3 feels pretty good when you're new and you really feel like you've earned it. you're getting the hang of what works and starting to become familiar with what other people's classes can do, and then level 3 puts your focus back on your character. back to what you can do with subclass features and maybe a new spell level. it's like the training wheels just came off. i understand why some not-new players would like to begin right there at training wheels off stage, but personally i'm not tired of that early game blossoming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
That's not a reasonable ask for every brand new table I feel. Most will want to start at level 1, both to more easily learn playing the game and to more easily learn DMing it.
So making level 1 more survivable is indeed the better choice. And they're doing that, via things like more classes getting a spell-slot agnostic method of healing in OneD&D (see the new Bardic Inspiration, Channel Nature and Channel Divinity) as well as experimenting with changes like Spare The Dying outright reviving people from a downed state.
not to mention that attaining level 3 feels pretty good when you're new and you really feel like you've earned it. you're getting the hang of what works and starting to become familiar with what other people's classes can do, and then level 3 puts your focus back on your character. back to what you can do with subclass features and maybe a new spell level. it's like the training wheels just came off. i understand why some not-new players would like to begin right there at training wheels off stage, but personally i'm not tired of that early game blossoming.
And I feel like that journey and character growth is worth telling and experiencing even for veteran players. Making level 1 and 2 more survivable and more playable just adds to the experiences and stories that can be told. None of this detracts from starting at 3, or 5. It just makes the idea of starting at 1 more viable for both beginners and veterans alike.
My belief is if it not good for a veteran because of survivability issues, than it's worse for a new player.
If it isn't FUN for a veteran player, why should we expect it to be fun for a new player. Make level 1 and 2 more fun. Steps have been taken in the right direction, just an inch more is needed.
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
I disagree. You shouldn’t learn the whole game within the first level. The first Tier of play is to help you understand the concepts of the game and slowly introduce you to new mechanics. By the time you are level 4 you have learned how to level up your character, chosen new sub class options, chosen a new ASI or feat, and if you are a spellcaster you have learned how to progress your Spellcasting. Expecting a player to learn all that in one level is unreasonable in my opinion.
So your suggestion is that experienced players should start at 5, and new players should start at 3? Because, again, unless you are not actually using ANY of the combat rules at level 1, level 1 is a poor teaching tool as the combat at that level is not representative of the way combat is actually ran at 3 or higher. It is fundamentally not the same game.
You can definitely have a combat at lvl 1. It teaches players the basics of combat. I’m not sure how you run your games, but it’s additive. What you learn at level one is how a combat round plays out.
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
I disagree. You shouldn’t learn the whole game within the first level. The first Tier of play is to help you understand the concepts of the game and slowly introduce you to new mechanics. By the time you are level 4 you have learned how to level up your character, chosen new sub class options, chosen a new ASI or feat, and if you are a spellcaster you have learned how to progress your Spellcasting. Expecting a player to learn all that in one level is unreasonable in my opinion.
So your suggestion is that experienced players should start at 5, and new players should start at 3? Because, again, unless you are not actually using ANY of the combat rules at level 1, level 1 is a poor teaching tool as the combat at that level is not representative of the way combat is actually ran at 3 or higher. It is fundamentally not the same game.
You can definitely have a combat at lvl 1. It teaches players the basics of combat. I’m not sure how you run your games, but it’s additive. What you learn at level one is how a combat round plays out.
Except it isn't. Level 1 combat is rocket tag. You get hit you go down, unless the GM is pulling punches and giving enemies super weak attacks and weapons on purpose. The GM has to be experienced enough to know to pull their punches pretty heavily. The mechanics work on a fundamental level, but it is a poor representation of what future combats will be.
What are you making people fight at level 1? Considering most people know the CR system doesn’t work (including WotC) a DM shouldn’t be putting their players in hard or deadly encounters at level 1. If you avoid creatures with multi attack and make sure you don’t have more than two creatures it’s a fine way to show combat without “pulling punches,” but technically the DM is always pulling punching. We could just pick the best monster combos at any level to make the combat above deadly, but say it’s fair because there was a way to win if the players make all the right choices and get nothing but great rolls. Also I’ve seen level 3 wizards get dropped in one it.
What are you making people fight at level 1? Considering most people know the CR system doesn’t work (including WotC) a DM shouldn’t be putting their players in hard or deadly encounters at level 1. If you avoid creatures with multi attack and make sure you don’t have more than two creatures it’s a fine way to show combat without “pulling punches,” but technically the DM is always pulling punching. We could just pick the best monster combos at any level to make the combat above deadly, but say it’s fair because there was a way to win if the players make all the right choices and get nothing but great rolls. Also I’ve seen level 3 wizards get dropped in one it.
Lets take a simple pack of wolves, CR 1/4. Like 4 wolves. They do 2d4+2 damage. The average class has a d8 health with 14 con that is 10 health. Max damage roll from a wolf is 10 damage, and thanks to pack tactics they have a greater chance to crit, the average crit deals 12 damage and drops everyone except the barbarian.
This is not a hard or deadly encounter this is moderate. Level 1 is the deadliest level of the game, by far. It is HORRIBLE for teaching players the game. Both new GM's and new players.
What are you making people fight at level 1? Considering most people know the CR system doesn’t work (including WotC) a DM shouldn’t be putting their players in hard or deadly encounters at level 1. If you avoid creatures with multi attack and make sure you don’t have more than two creatures it’s a fine way to show combat without “pulling punches,” but technically the DM is always pulling punching. We could just pick the best monster combos at any level to make the combat above deadly, but say it’s fair because there was a way to win if the players make all the right choices and get nothing but great rolls. Also I’ve seen level 3 wizards get dropped in one it.
Lets take a simple pack of wolves, CR 1/4. Like 4 wolves. They do 2d4+2 damage. The average class has a d8 health with 14 con that is 10 health. Max damage roll from a wolf is 10 damage, and thanks to pack tactics they have a greater chance to crit, the average crit deals 12 damage and drops everyone except the barbarian.
This is not a hard or deadly encounter this is moderate. Level 1 is the deadliest level of the game, by far. It is HORRIBLE for teaching players the game. Both new GM's and new players.
Four wolves at level 1 is beyond a deadly encounter. Two would be deadly. A single wolf is medium. Maybe you’re just designing your encounters unreasonably.
Is this an actual problem you’re having with lots of level 1 characters dying? Or is this just white room theorycrafting that it should be a problem?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The UA's have moved in the right direction with allowing you to flesh out your character at level 1 with feats on backgrounds and custom background and equipment rules. However, as it stands, I still highly doubt most tables will play at level 1.
Level 1 is the most dangerous and deadly level in the game. Making it a poor place for new players trying to learn the game.
My suggestion would simply be to have more health at low levels. Starting with level 2 health (wizard 6 + 1d6 +2xcon for example) would make those early levels less deadly.
In the same vein healing also doesnt typically scale well into higher levels with cure wounds typically only gaining 1d8 every 2 levels the party levels up IF the caster uses their best slot.
Perhaps, instead of giving you the same health as at level 2, they'll gain temporary hitpoints once per long rest, and take them off gradually:
Level 1: You gain temporary hit points as the maximum value of your hit die
Level 2: You gain temporary hit points as half the maximum value of your hit die (If multiclass, take the highest die)
Level 3: You acquire temporary hit points as number of classesAnd I don't know about healing, although the magic doesn't scale well, maybe it's on purpose to encourage avoiding intensive damage in the group during a single fight, hurrying to finish it before (Damage the opponent more), reduce the damage, or look for alternatives to conflict
I’ve started every 5e campaign I’ve played in at level 1. We’ve only had one level 1 death, and that was because of bad choices the party made. And we’ve had a good number of characters die all throughout other levels. But that, of course, is anecdotal.
Coming it from the other side and getting rid of monster crits, if they follow through with it, will probably do more to decrease low-level character deaths than anything else. It will make enemy damage more predictable and lessen the chance of one roll dropping someone.
I also think 1st level should be 2 Hit dice. The players characters are a cut above. Id expect the regular guard, the average joe to have 1 HD
Level 1 players just shouldn't be fighting stuff. Level 1 should be role-play and creative problem solving to start getting a feel for who your character is and how they approach challenges.
My solution was to just give them a temp HP buffer equal to their HP total. Once it's gone it's gone for good. Could also give them a 'negate one death' rule but only have it apply to level 1 or 2 characters.
1st level is only really meant for learning the game. Most characters move beyond it in one session. Usually session zero.
Or you could just start at 3rd level...?
[REDACTED]
And this is the problem. It is not a good teaching level, as it is poor representation of the rest of the game. The only way for level 1 to be a good teaching tool is if it is representative of the rest of the game. You take short rests, long rests without leveling up.
T1 of play needs to be an ACTUAL tier of play.
All of the solutions that just give temp HP are just my solution with less simulationist sense. It doesnt make sense to get weaker and lose the temp HP as you level up. But the current health level at 1 and 2 make those levels a poor teaching tool and poor representation of the rest of the game.
In addition, devs are already talking about making late level monsters stronger making that extra 6 to 10 extra health only truly relevant in the early game. (For those wondering where those numbers came from. Assumed 14 con wizard + average health given in book is rounded to 4 makes 6, all the way to barbarian 16con, average for d12 round up to 7 makes 10.)
That's not a reasonable ask for every brand new table I feel. Most will want to start at level 1, both to more easily learn playing the game and to more easily learn DMing it.
So making level 1 more survivable is indeed the better choice. And they're doing that, via things like more classes getting a spell-slot agnostic method of healing in OneD&D (see the new Bardic Inspiration, Channel Nature and Channel Divinity) as well as experimenting with changes like Spare The Dying outright reviving people from a downed state.
I'm not suggesting new players start at 3, just that if you want to start stronger, then start at a higher level.
I'm not sure how I feel about WotC making early levels easier. Personally, I enjoy being challenged, and having to make significant decisions. But I guess if I don't like 1DD, I can ignore it
[REDACTED]
I disagree. You shouldn’t learn the whole game within the first level. The first Tier of play is to help you understand the concepts of the game and slowly introduce you to new mechanics. By the time you are level 4 you have learned how to level up your character, chosen new sub class options, chosen a new ASI or feat, and if you are a spellcaster you have learned how to progress your Spellcasting. Expecting a player to learn all that in one level is unreasonable in my opinion.
So your suggestion is that experienced players should start at 5, and new players should start at 3? Because, again, unless you are not actually using ANY of the combat rules at level 1, level 1 is a poor teaching tool as the combat at that level is not representative of the way combat is actually ran at 3 or higher. It is fundamentally not the same game.
not to mention that attaining level 3 feels pretty good when you're new and you really feel like you've earned it. you're getting the hang of what works and starting to become familiar with what other people's classes can do, and then level 3 puts your focus back on your character. back to what you can do with subclass features and maybe a new spell level. it's like the training wheels just came off. i understand why some not-new players would like to begin right there at training wheels off stage, but personally i'm not tired of that early game blossoming.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
And I feel like that journey and character growth is worth telling and experiencing even for veteran players. Making level 1 and 2 more survivable and more playable just adds to the experiences and stories that can be told. None of this detracts from starting at 3, or 5. It just makes the idea of starting at 1 more viable for both beginners and veterans alike.
My belief is if it not good for a veteran because of survivability issues, than it's worse for a new player.
If it isn't FUN for a veteran player, why should we expect it to be fun for a new player. Make level 1 and 2 more fun. Steps have been taken in the right direction, just an inch more is needed.
You can definitely have a combat at lvl 1. It teaches players the basics of combat. I’m not sure how you run your games, but it’s additive. What you learn at level one is how a combat round plays out.
Except it isn't. Level 1 combat is rocket tag. You get hit you go down, unless the GM is pulling punches and giving enemies super weak attacks and weapons on purpose. The GM has to be experienced enough to know to pull their punches pretty heavily. The mechanics work on a fundamental level, but it is a poor representation of what future combats will be.
What are you making people fight at level 1? Considering most people know the CR system doesn’t work (including WotC) a DM shouldn’t be putting their players in hard or deadly encounters at level 1. If you avoid creatures with multi attack and make sure you don’t have more than two creatures it’s a fine way to show combat without “pulling punches,” but technically the DM is always pulling punching. We could just pick the best monster combos at any level to make the combat above deadly, but say it’s fair because there was a way to win if the players make all the right choices and get nothing but great rolls. Also I’ve seen level 3 wizards get dropped in one it.
Lets take a simple pack of wolves, CR 1/4. Like 4 wolves. They do 2d4+2 damage. The average class has a d8 health with 14 con that is 10 health. Max damage roll from a wolf is 10 damage, and thanks to pack tactics they have a greater chance to crit, the average crit deals 12 damage and drops everyone except the barbarian.
This is not a hard or deadly encounter this is moderate. Level 1 is the deadliest level of the game, by far. It is HORRIBLE for teaching players the game. Both new GM's and new players.
Four wolves at level 1 is beyond a deadly encounter. Two would be deadly. A single wolf is medium.
Maybe you’re just designing your encounters unreasonably.
Is this an actual problem you’re having with lots of level 1 characters dying? Or is this just white room theorycrafting that it should be a problem?