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?
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
1st level is great for new players. They shouldn’t be dying because the GM should be making it easy for them to learn. If they’re dying it’s a GM issue.
I prefer to start at 0 level, first, or third, though our one shots are often higher level because we don’t play normal games that high. 0 level (not my exact mechanics but a general idea) characters have 8 hit points. They are able to use simple weapons and one tool with proficiency. If someone wants to play a spellcaster they have a single cantrip. Proficiency bonus is +1. Then, when they hit level one (usually after completing a basic quest) they choose a class. They gain level one hit points and abilities for their class, but not starting gear. This means they have 8 extra hit points and spellcasters have an additional cantrip. Most characters have found some gear and all started with some basic stuff. In addition, all characters have proficiency with all simple weapons, which makes everyone’s life easier.
1st level is great for new players. They shouldn’t be dying because the GM should be making it easy for them to learn. If they’re dying it’s a GM issue.
I prefer to start at 0 level, first, or third, though our one shots are often higher level because we don’t play normal games that high. 0 level (not my exact mechanics but a general idea) characters have 8 hit points. They are able to use simple weapons and one tool with proficiency. If someone wants to play a spellcaster they have a single cantrip. Proficiency bonus is +1. Then, when they hit level one (usually after completing a basic quest) they choose a class. They gain level one hit points and abilities for their class, but not starting gear. This means they have 8 extra hit points and spellcasters have an additional cantrip. Most characters have found some gear and all started with some basic stuff. In addition, all characters have proficiency with all simple weapons, which makes everyone’s life easier.
GM shouldn’t be going easy on players. Just being smart enough to balance things slightly underleveled because the wizard may not realize that fire bolt is worse damage than say, burning hands, when fighting a horde, or the fighter took a club instead of a longsword because they thought it would make more sense with their character concept. Things like this happen with all levels of players, but low experience and low level players don’t yet have the ability to do these things well.
1st level is great for new players. They shouldn’t be dying because the GM should be making it easy for them to learn. If they’re dying it’s a GM issue.
I prefer to start at 0 level, first, or third, though our one shots are often higher level because we don’t play normal games that high. 0 level (not my exact mechanics but a general idea) characters have 8 hit points. They are able to use simple weapons and one tool with proficiency. If someone wants to play a spellcaster they have a single cantrip. Proficiency bonus is +1. Then, when they hit level one (usually after completing a basic quest) they choose a class. They gain level one hit points and abilities for their class, but not starting gear. This means they have 8 extra hit points and spellcasters have an additional cantrip. Most characters have found some gear and all started with some basic stuff. In addition, all characters have proficiency with all simple weapons, which makes everyone’s life easier.
This isnt bad, the idea that level 1 has the normal hit points +8. Which is even more health at one than I suggested.
Everyone is accounting for new players, but not new GM's. No is accounting for new PLAY GROUP. If the game is built right you do not need a veteran experienced GM to build proper encounters.
Edit: going to make this very simple. I am a big believer of the heroes journey. Of heroic adventures with people of humble beginning growing on their journey. I am a strong believer that MOST games should start at the beginning of that journey at level 1. If your game with veterans is not starting at level 1 why? And the better question, why should new players learn to play the game in a way no one actually plays?
No issues with level 1 at all, just no one wants to play at that level or spend more than a single combat there if any combat at all but no issues right, just going to go right back to starting at level 3 and ignoring the first 2 PERFECT levels of the game, because they have 0 issues, we are skipping them for no reason at all.
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?
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
You are wrong and now I see the problem. You aren’t adjust CR for multiple creatures. I made a similar mistake when I started dming 5e. 4 wolves vs 4 PC is a deadly encounter and 4 wolves vs 5 PCs is still a hard encounter at level 1. I already mentioned you shouldn’t be doing hard combats for PCs at level 1 anyway. Honestly wouldn’t run a hard combat until after level 3 and that’s only if I know my PCs are very competent and/or they created a situation through play that deserved a hard encounter. Like breaking into the fort instead of negotiating and then killing a guard and not handing the body. Now the fort is on alert and guards are all in groups looking for who killed William. Even if caught I give the option of surrender before a battle begins. If they choose to fight at least they know it will be a difficult battle. It sounds like you are actually throwing fair combatants at your level 1 PCs. You just believe they are weak because you didn’t under how CR works. Which is understandable because CR is bad. It actually doesn’t work all the time, but in this case it definitely calculates 4 wolves vs 4 PCs as deadly.
Wolves have 11hp. Most PCs are not taking down a wolf in a single turn. Wolves have pack tactics giving them a better chance of grouping up and dropping a PC faster than your PCs can drop a wolf.Also remember pack tactics works on a creature within 5ft of another wolf, so even if you spread the wolves attacks across your PCs (which is weird) they could still benefit from advantage if the party is close together. So initiative matters a lot in this battle. Also Wolves knock creatures prone on hit if you fail a Str saving throw. At lvl 1 many classes could easily fail a DC 11 save. So let’s imagine best case scenario and the party all go first. They combine their efforts, get really lucky on damage rolls and take out two wolves before the wolves even get a turn. Those two wolves can easily down a party member that turn especially if you use the flat damage. Yay its still 3 PC vs 2 wolves next turn. Now the question is how lucky is the party this round. If the party fails to down another wolf this turn another party member is likely to drop. The party can win and as long as the PC who is downed makes their Death saves or if you have a healer or potion this could be survived with no PC deaths.
Now if the wolves all win initiative consider this tpk. They are dropping one or two party members the first turn and without all 4 PCs damage this is a losing battle.
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?
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
You are wrong and now I see the problem. You aren’t adjust CR for multiple creatures. I made a similar mistake when I started dming 5e. 4 wolves vs 4 PC is a deadly encounter and 4 wolves vs 5 PCs is still a hard encounter at level 1. I already mentioned you shouldn’t be doing hard combats for PCs at level 1 anyway. Honestly wouldn’t run a hard combat until after level 3 and that’s only if I know my PCs are very competent and/or they created a situation through play that deserved a hard encounter. Like breaking into the fort instead of negotiating and then killing a guard and not handing the body. Now the fort is on alert and guards are all in groups looking for who killed William. Even if caught I give the option of surrender before a battle begins. If they choose to fight at least they know it will be a difficult battle. It sounds like you are actually throwing fair combatants at your level 1 PCs. You just believe they are weak because you didn’t under how CR works. Which is understandable because CR is bad. It actually doesn’t work all the time, but in this case it definitely calculates 4 wolves vs 4 PCs as deadly.
So it actually works pretty well then, that is cool. Also THIS is why playing to many different games at the same time can be problematic. I mixed up the rules for multipliers between this game and a different game I play. In that system action economy is important enough that it assumes that you have 1 less or equal number of monsters to your players. If you have less monsters you do a .75 multiplier or .5 if you only have one monster, if you have 1 more monster it is a 1.5 multiplier, but the multipliers don't start until the action economy is greatly different than the players.
Also ya, everything you said about the wolves is what I knew about the wolves, and I knew it wasn't a moderate encounter, so the encounter rules worked here cool.....
Still not sure something like 4 guards is much different, but no pack tactics makes it much more survivable. Moderate encounter.... not sure, but probably.
Still the idea that a group of 4 players is THAT threatened by a simple pack of wolves seems a little much to me. Kind of why I want level 1 to be a little stronger. I want my heroes to rise from humble beginnings, but that is a bit ridiculous.
Also remember your level 1 PCs are already pretty strong. Compare them to the average person of the world (Commoner). A group of 4 commoners are getting slaughtered by 2 wolves. Honestly 1st level PCs are stronger than the base guard. Usually for forts I use Veterans CR3 to represent skilled guards and base guards to represent fodder.
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?
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
You are wrong and now I see the problem. You aren’t adjust CR for multiple creatures. I made a similar mistake when I started dming 5e. 4 wolves vs 4 PC is a deadly encounter and 4 wolves vs 5 PCs is still a hard encounter at level 1. I already mentioned you shouldn’t be doing hard combats for PCs at level 1 anyway. Honestly wouldn’t run a hard combat until after level 3 and that’s only if I know my PCs are very competent and/or they created a situation through play that deserved a hard encounter. Like breaking into the fort instead of negotiating and then killing a guard and not handing the body. Now the fort is on alert and guards are all in groups looking for who killed William. Even if caught I give the option of surrender before a battle begins. If they choose to fight at least they know it will be a difficult battle. It sounds like you are actually throwing fair combatants at your level 1 PCs. You just believe they are weak because you didn’t under how CR works. Which is understandable because CR is bad. It actually doesn’t work all the time, but in this case it definitely calculates 4 wolves vs 4 PCs as deadly.
So it actually works pretty well then, that is cool. Also THIS is why playing to many different games at the same time can be problematic. I mixed up the rules for multipliers between this game and a different game I play. In that system action economy is important enough that it assumes that you have 1 less or equal number of monsters to your players. If you have less monsters you do a .75 multiplier or .5 if you only have one monster, if you have 1 more monster it is a 1.5 multiplier, but the multipliers don't start until the action economy is greatly different than the players.
Also ya, everything you said about the wolves is what I knew about the wolves, and I knew it wasn't a moderate encounter, so the encounter rules worked here cool.....
Still not sure something like 4 guards is much different, but no pack tactics makes it much more survivable. Moderate encounter.... not sure, but probably.
Still the idea that a group of 4 players is THAT threatened by a simple pack of wolves seems a little much to me. Kind of why I want level 1 to be a little stronger. I want my heroes to rise from humble beginnings, but that is a bit ridiculous.
A pack of wolves is a serious threat to a group of ordinary people. That is what level 1 is supposed to be. 4 players can take on a single black bear with easy, whereas for regular commoners would hesitate to take on something so fearsome as a black bear.
1st level is great for new players. They shouldn’t be dying because the GM should be making it easy for them to learn. If they’re dying it’s a GM issue.
I prefer to start at 0 level, first, or third, though our one shots are often higher level because we don’t play normal games that high. 0 level (not my exact mechanics but a general idea) characters have 8 hit points. They are able to use simple weapons and one tool with proficiency. If someone wants to play a spellcaster they have a single cantrip. Proficiency bonus is +1. Then, when they hit level one (usually after completing a basic quest) they choose a class. They gain level one hit points and abilities for their class, but not starting gear. This means they have 8 extra hit points and spellcasters have an additional cantrip. Most characters have found some gear and all started with some basic stuff. In addition, all characters have proficiency with all simple weapons, which makes everyone’s life easier.
no, sometimes players just really are that ....bold/stupid/etc. Leroy Jenkins and all....
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?
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
You are wrong and now I see the problem. You aren’t adjust CR for multiple creatures. I made a similar mistake when I started dming 5e. 4 wolves vs 4 PC is a deadly encounter and 4 wolves vs 5 PCs is still a hard encounter at level 1. I already mentioned you shouldn’t be doing hard combats for PCs at level 1 anyway. Honestly wouldn’t run a hard combat until after level 3 and that’s only if I know my PCs are very competent and/or they created a situation through play that deserved a hard encounter. Like breaking into the fort instead of negotiating and then killing a guard and not handing the body. Now the fort is on alert and guards are all in groups looking for who killed William. Even if caught I give the option of surrender before a battle begins. If they choose to fight at least they know it will be a difficult battle. It sounds like you are actually throwing fair combatants at your level 1 PCs. You just believe they are weak because you didn’t under how CR works. Which is understandable because CR is bad. It actually doesn’t work all the time, but in this case it definitely calculates 4 wolves vs 4 PCs as deadly.
So it actually works pretty well then, that is cool. Also THIS is why playing to many different games at the same time can be problematic. I mixed up the rules for multipliers between this game and a different game I play. In that system action economy is important enough that it assumes that you have 1 less or equal number of monsters to your players. If you have less monsters you do a .75 multiplier or .5 if you only have one monster, if you have 1 more monster it is a 1.5 multiplier, but the multipliers don't start until the action economy is greatly different than the players.
Also ya, everything you said about the wolves is what I knew about the wolves, and I knew it wasn't a moderate encounter, so the encounter rules worked here cool.....
Still not sure something like 4 guards is much different, but no pack tactics makes it much more survivable. Moderate encounter.... not sure, but probably.
Still the idea that a group of 4 players is THAT threatened by a simple pack of wolves seems a little much to me. Kind of why I want level 1 to be a little stronger. I want my heroes to rise from humble beginnings, but that is a bit ridiculous.
A pack of wolves is a serious threat to a group of ordinary people. That is what level 1 is supposed to be. 4 players can take on a single black bear with easy, whereas for regular commoners would hesitate to take on something so fearsome as a black bear.
I get the feeling that the issue isn't that a pack of wolves isn't a threat to ordinary people and, rather, that the rules are suggesting throwing FOUR of them at a group of level 1's when they can realistically TPK a level 1 party before they even get a turn. Like, maybe wolves are actually CR 1/2? Or if they did 1d4 less damage? It wouldn't be an issue then.
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.
Personally, I believe frontloading complexity into things is not a good idea, and it is one of the main reasons why GURPs is a disaster. However, the main complexity that has been added is optional: You can build your own background or choose a preexisting one; And you can at least somewhat control the complexity of the feat you pick, though I wish ASIs were an option at level 1 (IIRC, they haven't been in the recent playtests).
This is the right way to approach complexity, and it is a good approach that allows for more meaningful choices well not pushing a certain of the player base, -- or the potential player base -- away.
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.
I have never had problems like this in my games, and the extra challenge is what makes D&D enjoyable for a number of people.
Your character/the monster makes an attack roll to hit someone. And then you subtract the damage from the HP of the person you're attacking, to represent how you've A) Hit and damaged them with your attack, but B) possibly just nearly missed or scratched them and reduced their agility and stamina. Having both of those things potentially be true at the same time makes no sense to me, and giving character's more hit points at low levels so they take more damage doesn't really seem to help with the situation.
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
I enjoy being challenged too - but I've also been playing D&D for decades, and I post regularly on D&D forums. These changes they're considering aren't for me, and I'd wager they aren't for most of us posting here. We already have no problems getting through or skipping level 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not according to the rules it is not. 4 wolves for 4 people is a MODERATE encounter. One CR 1 creature is a moderate encounter for 4 level 1's not CR 1/4. One wolf to one player. Your math is assuming a singular player not a party.
There is a reason no one plays at level 1. It isn't fun, or effective. Nobody is dying in my games at level 1 because I am only throwing unrealistically weak encounters at them. Bandits with 12 dex and a d4 dagger and the armor my players have is usually high enough that they cant get hit on anything smaller than a 14 or 15. Meaning, of the attacks that actually hit 1/6 or 1/7 are crits.
Not to mention, we aren't spending much time at level 1. Usually a session at most, if not HALF a session. Like one encounter and some RP. It isnt a real level of play. If level 1 was their level 0 rules, sure. But it is not a real level of play. You dont adventure at level 1, you have an encounter or 2.
TL;DR
Based on the original post here is my input:
1st level is great for new players. They shouldn’t be dying because the GM should be making it easy for them to learn. If they’re dying it’s a GM issue.
I prefer to start at 0 level, first, or third, though our one shots are often higher level because we don’t play normal games that high. 0 level (not my exact mechanics but a general idea) characters have 8 hit points. They are able to use simple weapons and one tool with proficiency. If someone wants to play a spellcaster they have a single cantrip. Proficiency bonus is +1. Then, when they hit level one (usually after completing a basic quest) they choose a class. They gain level one hit points and abilities for their class, but not starting gear. This means they have 8 extra hit points and spellcasters have an additional cantrip. Most characters have found some gear and all started with some basic stuff. In addition, all characters have proficiency with all simple weapons, which makes everyone’s life easier.
GM shouldn’t be going easy on players. Just being smart enough to balance things slightly underleveled because the wizard may not realize that fire bolt is worse damage than say, burning hands, when fighting a horde, or the fighter took a club instead of a longsword because they thought it would make more sense with their character concept. Things like this happen with all levels of players, but low experience and low level players don’t yet have the ability to do these things well.
This isnt bad, the idea that level 1 has the normal hit points +8. Which is even more health at one than I suggested.
Everyone is accounting for new players, but not new GM's. No is accounting for new PLAY GROUP. If the game is built right you do not need a veteran experienced GM to build proper encounters.
Edit: going to make this very simple. I am a big believer of the heroes journey. Of heroic adventures with people of humble beginning growing on their journey. I am a strong believer that MOST games should start at the beginning of that journey at level 1. If your game with veterans is not starting at level 1 why? And the better question, why should new players learn to play the game in a way no one actually plays?
No issues with level 1 at all, just no one wants to play at that level or spend more than a single combat there if any combat at all but no issues right, just going to go right back to starting at level 3 and ignoring the first 2 PERFECT levels of the game, because they have 0 issues, we are skipping them for no reason at all.
You are wrong and now I see the problem. You aren’t adjust CR for multiple creatures. I made a similar mistake when I started dming 5e. 4 wolves vs 4 PC is a deadly encounter and 4 wolves vs 5 PCs is still a hard encounter at level 1. I already mentioned you shouldn’t be doing hard combats for PCs at level 1 anyway. Honestly wouldn’t run a hard combat until after level 3 and that’s only if I know my PCs are very competent and/or they created a situation through play that deserved a hard encounter. Like breaking into the fort instead of negotiating and then killing a guard and not handing the body. Now the fort is on alert and guards are all in groups looking for who killed William. Even if caught I give the option of surrender before a battle begins. If they choose to fight at least they know it will be a difficult battle. It sounds like you are actually throwing fair combatants at your level 1 PCs. You just believe they are weak because you didn’t under how CR works. Which is understandable because CR is bad. It actually doesn’t work all the time, but in this case it definitely calculates 4 wolves vs 4 PCs as deadly.
Further explanation:
4 wolves vs 4 level 1 PCs
Wolves have 11hp. Most PCs are not taking down a wolf in a single turn. Wolves have pack tactics giving them a better chance of grouping up and dropping a PC faster than your PCs can drop a wolf.Also remember pack tactics works on a creature within 5ft of another wolf, so even if you spread the wolves attacks across your PCs (which is weird) they could still benefit from advantage if the party is close together. So initiative matters a lot in this battle. Also Wolves knock creatures prone on hit if you fail a Str saving throw. At lvl 1 many classes could easily fail a DC 11 save.
So let’s imagine best case scenario and the party all go first. They combine their efforts, get really lucky on damage rolls and take out two wolves before the wolves even get a turn. Those two wolves can easily down a party member that turn especially if you use the flat damage. Yay its still 3 PC vs 2 wolves next turn. Now the question is how lucky is the party this round. If the party fails to down another wolf this turn another party member is likely to drop. The party can win and as long as the PC who is downed makes their Death saves or if you have a healer or potion this could be survived with no PC deaths.
Now if the wolves all win initiative consider this tpk. They are dropping one or two party members the first turn and without all 4 PCs damage this is a losing battle.
So it actually works pretty well then, that is cool. Also THIS is why playing to many different games at the same time can be problematic. I mixed up the rules for multipliers between this game and a different game I play. In that system action economy is important enough that it assumes that you have 1 less or equal number of monsters to your players. If you have less monsters you do a .75 multiplier or .5 if you only have one monster, if you have 1 more monster it is a 1.5 multiplier, but the multipliers don't start until the action economy is greatly different than the players.
Also ya, everything you said about the wolves is what I knew about the wolves, and I knew it wasn't a moderate encounter, so the encounter rules worked here cool.....
Still not sure something like 4 guards is much different, but no pack tactics makes it much more survivable. Moderate encounter.... not sure, but probably.
Still the idea that a group of 4 players is THAT threatened by a simple pack of wolves seems a little much to me. Kind of why I want level 1 to be a little stronger. I want my heroes to rise from humble beginnings, but that is a bit ridiculous.
Also remember your level 1 PCs are already pretty strong. Compare them to the average person of the world (Commoner). A group of 4 commoners are getting slaughtered by 2 wolves. Honestly 1st level PCs are stronger than the base guard. Usually for forts I use Veterans CR3 to represent skilled guards and base guards to represent fodder.
A pack of wolves is a serious threat to a group of ordinary people. That is what level 1 is supposed to be. 4 players can take on a single black bear with easy, whereas for regular commoners would hesitate to take on something so fearsome as a black bear.
no, sometimes players just really are that ....bold/stupid/etc. Leroy Jenkins and all....
Blank
I get the feeling that the issue isn't that a pack of wolves isn't a threat to ordinary people and, rather, that the rules are suggesting throwing FOUR of them at a group of level 1's when they can realistically TPK a level 1 party before they even get a turn. Like, maybe wolves are actually CR 1/2? Or if they did 1d4 less damage? It wouldn't be an issue then.
Personally, I believe frontloading complexity into things is not a good idea, and it is one of the main reasons why GURPs is a disaster. However, the main complexity that has been added is optional: You can build your own background or choose a preexisting one; And you can at least somewhat control the complexity of the feat you pick, though I wish ASIs were an option at level 1 (IIRC, they haven't been in the recent playtests).
This is the right way to approach complexity, and it is a good approach that allows for more meaningful choices well not pushing a certain of the player base, -- or the potential player base -- away.
I have never had problems like this in my games, and the extra challenge is what makes D&D enjoyable for a number of people.
Your character/the monster makes an attack roll to hit someone. And then you subtract the damage from the HP of the person you're attacking, to represent how you've A) Hit and damaged them with your attack, but B) possibly just nearly missed or scratched them and reduced their agility and stamina. Having both of those things potentially be true at the same time makes no sense to me, and giving character's more hit points at low levels so they take more damage doesn't really seem to help with the situation.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I enjoy being challenged too - but I've also been playing D&D for decades, and I post regularly on D&D forums. These changes they're considering aren't for me, and I'd wager they aren't for most of us posting here. We already have no problems getting through or skipping level 1.