D&D 5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

[Garthanos]

Pendragon

Loved the virtue and vice system in that at the time.

 

[Flamestrike]

Im not entirely sure how the party 'steamrolled' a CR 12 creature, other than the DM ignoring the guidelines for solo creatures (they should be legendary, and +3 CR above that of the party).

Like; here is an example of a CR 8 legendary creature. It's a normal CR 8 Green dragon, with legendary actions and saves tacked on from a different dragon (and the damage and saves modified for CR).

That probably bumps it up to CR 9 (in which case I would also increase HD by 4 to to 20 and HP to 170, and as its proficiency bonus increases by +1 due to increasing in CR, bump up its saves, skills. attacks and save DCs accordingly.

Young Legendary Green Dragon
Large dragon, lawful evil

Armor Class 18 (natural armor)
Hit Points 170 (20d10 + 60)
Speed 40 ft., fly 80 ft., swim 40 ft.

STR	DEX	CON	INT	WIS	CHA
19 (+4)	12 (+1)	17 (+3)	16 (+3)	13 (+1)	15 (+2)

Saving Throws Dex +5, Con +7, Wis +5, Cha +6
Skills Deception +6, Perception +9, Stealth +5
Damage Immunities poison
Condition Immunities poisoned
Senses blindsight 30 ft., darkvision 120 ft., passive Perception 19
Languages Common, Draconic
Challenge 9

Amphibious. The dragon can breathe air and water.
Legendary Resistance (3/Day): If the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Actions

• Multiattack. The dragon makes three attacks: one with its bite and two with its claws.
  Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 15 (2d10 + 4) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) poison damage.
  Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6 + 4) slashing damage.
• Tail: Melee Weapon Attack: +78to hit, reach 10ft., one target. Hit: 9 (2d4 + 4) bludgeoning damage.
  Poison Breath (Recharge 5–6). The dragon exhales poisonous gas in a 30‐foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw, taking 42 (12d6) poison damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Legendary actions
The Dragon can take 3 Legendary actions, choosing from the options below. Only one legendary action can be used at a time, and only at the end of another creature's turn. Spent legendary actions are regained at the start of each turn.

• Detect: The dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.
• Tail attack: The dragon makes a tail attack.
• Wing attack (Costs 2 Actions): The dragon beats its wings. Each creature within 5 ft. of the dragon must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or take 11 (2d6 + 4) bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone. The dragon can then fly up to half its flying speed (40').

You could get really nasty and give it the spellcasting trait, and the darkness (it's immune because of its blindsight trait) and mirror image spells, but no 5th level party could handle that without an almost certain TPK.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Slight exaggeration of infinite but it really could be damn close
Sentinel ... feat. (maybe a polearm mastery for a bit more)
Whenever you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, its speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.

• Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action.

• When a creature within your reach makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

Okay, now I'm seeing a little more of what you are saying.

Honestly? That is just a benefit of sentinel in my mind. You can lock down single creatures the exact same way right now.

But, I would probably (after a round or two) have the creatures take the dodge action. The spell does allow them to do so if they can no longer run, and you are preventing them from running. This means you have to land the blow ad disadvantage. Still possible, but hitting all of them with disadvantage would be tough.

Plus, fear allows you to save at the end of every turn, so the sentinel could very easily be surrounded by enemies after pulling this, and start getting smacked down.

So, overall, powerful and nice use of tactics, but I wouldn't call it broken. After all, Fear can also drive an enemy to take 40d4 damage from spike growth, if you can set up the run perfectly.

@tetrasodium - regardless of difficulty, my point is more that there shouldn't even be a check and that interruption is both easy and, if successful, automatic. (e.g. if the thrown wine misses Alice entirely then she can carry on and might not even realize the wine was thrown at all*, but if it hits her then goodbye spell)

3e introduced the idea of resisting interruption, and doubled down with the combat casting feat (did any caster ever not take this?), and in so doing completely shot itself in the foot.

* - I've always had it that while casting, casters generally lose most awareness of their surroundings other than their spell's target (if it has one), as all their concentration and mental focus is going into casting the spell.

Frankly, that just seems like a good way to have people waste their time.

Sure, "That's why the fighter protected the wizard" but you can't protect them from arrows, "Well, that's why the wizard took cover" which means either A) they have no targets to hit or B) An archer just has to ready an action to shoot the wizard when they pop out of cover, and waste the spell. "Well, that's why they cast protection from arrows" So now we have a spell you need to cast to be able to cast other spells.

It just seems like a lot of effort to prevent players from doing things. I'd much rather my players did things.

Yes, but...

If goblins are known to use poisoned arrows, then you would approach potential encounters with goblins differently. There are also ways to mitigate that in game. For example, while poisoned arrows could be very effective, you can gate it behind some safeguards. For example, a critical hit. Or an attack that rolls maximum damage on the die. Or the dosage could be insufficient, granting advantage on the save unless those conditions are met.

After the first attack, where the poison is known, the players/PCs will alter their tactics. Just like they would in real life.

So, you don't want players to actually face save or die effects. You want them to fear save or die effects and when they don't react appropriately, then kill them.

Because otherwise, why would you change how poison works after they know poison is in play? Honestly, that is just so much worse to me. Player 1 gets hit, and takes damage, but is fine. Player 2 gets hit next round and dies. The Dm shrugs and says "sorry, player 1 got hit with a lower dose than you did"

That would not fly.

If certain centipedes, spiders, snakes, etc. are venomous enough to be deadly, then the people who have lived with them in their world for thousands of years will be aware of that fact. Sure, adventurers far from home might run across a lot of unknowns but they should also be treating such unknowns with caution. You can also provide some clues to the risks involved if appropriate.

Notice that in my snake example (becuase everyone knows snakes are venomous) I pointed out that knowing that might not matter. If you are thrown into a pit of snakes, you don't have a lot of other options, whether you know snakes are poisonous or not.

Traps, too. I pointed out the pits in ToH specifically because the traps were designed in such a way to make it unlikely the first person to trigger it would be unlikely to die. At which point, the presence of traps is now known and they can take appropriate actions. Traps have always been a challenge in D&D, because a lot of DMs like to use them frequently. It shouldn't really be a surprise when traps are likely to be present, and in many cases they should be obvious, set as a deterrent.

But again, this seems to miss the point. Sure, the person who fell and missed all the spikes didn't die. So now they know traps are in the area. But they don't know that a single failed save is going to kill them. And, they likely went into this expecting traps anyways. The Tomb of Horrors, if memory serves, tells the players that the tomb is a death trap full of deadly traps. It doesn't need a trap in front to remind them that there are traps in the dungeon.

In addition, traps are often mechanical devices. I have frequently had older traps either non-functioning, because mechanics have rusted, wood has dry-rotted, crossbow strings have rotted away, etc. Or poison has lost its potency, granting advantage on saves, etc.

The point is, if they know that save or die is a possibility, and they aren't sure how dangerous this particular circumstance is, you can reasonably, and believably, give them a way of knowing what the danger is that they face, so they can adjust.

When you feel the need to make it less likely the players will fail, you need to look at why that is.

If you find yourself granting advantage on saves, because a failure will kill them, and you don't want them to die. Then maybe instead of giving advantage, you should make the trap not deadly.

You are right that alice is not used to wine glasses in the face as opposed to getting stabbed with spears.

In the middle of a battlefield, a wine glass would not be a significant thing your right... but in the context of alice sitting down to negotiate with a frenemy alice is also not used to trying to stand up from the negotiating table & immediately begin gesticulating VSM components to fireball the other side in negotiations nor is she on a battlefield.

In 3.5 alice would be casting defensively (possibly with combat caster) on the battlefield where she might otherwise get stabbed with a spear, but the 5e change of an easier save & not needing to wait till the start of her next turn means that alice is always walking around with a loaded bazooka in a firing position even while having a discussion in a civilized environment that would preclude her from doing so & now needs to be treated as such with all situations looking like either a battlefield or an execution ground with this readied at all times... that's just a disaster for world building and storytelling that encourages the players to treat everything like murderhobos or require anyone they might need to negotiate/socially interact with on not quite friendly terms to be so absurdly powerful that they are capable of acting as a solo encounter.

This causes problems within 5e itself.

For example. In 3.5 she could have gotten it off with something like quickened still silent spell at a much greater cost & in 5e subtle spell does skip somatic or verbal but now she can literally stand in front of the bbeg & not need any of that to hit him with fireball unless he has a readied action to hit her like a freight train or counterspells her.

She only even needs subtle spell if she wants to avoid alerting people in the next room & the gm needs to fight the system or gm fiat it away.

I know I've said it before, but seriously man. Run-on sentences. Please stop with them it makes you incredibly hard to read. That entire underlined portion is a single sentence.

First, to see if I understand your 3.5 point, I looked up Combat Casting feat and Defensive Casting. Interestingly, they do not slow down your casting time whatsoever. So, Alice can stand up at the table, and cast defensively with Combat Casting. So, she can react the exact same in the negotiating room as she can in the battlefield.

In fact, if I understand casting defensively correctly, if she succeeds on that check, they don't even get to throw wine in her face, because casting defensively prevents you from taking attacks of opportunity while casting. Sure, maybe she is doing a round spell instead of a standard action spell, but you posted the rules for Fireball and it is a standard action spell, so it happens by the end of her turn. To happen by the start of her next turn, it needs to be a 1 round spell.

So, I don't even feel the need to address your points about 5e, because they apply equally well to 3.5. Concentration was a skill, one that any caster would seem to invest in, and I know skill bonuses in 3.5 could get quite large. In fact, just some quick napkin math...

Skill ranks equal level +3 max. 3rd level wizard means +6, Combat Casting is +4, assume Con of 14 for another +2. DC to Defensively Cast Fireball is an 18, you have a +12. That is a 75% chance of not even dealing with the wineglass, and another 70% to 85% chance of succeeding after that.

And this is at 3rd level, a 5e wizard can't even attempt this until 5th level, because they don't get Fireball until then. And at 5th level, Alice in 3.5 has higher skill ranks, so her chances of succeeding are even higher.

Even if we give 5e Alice Warcaster, not being proficient in Con save and with the same stats, gives her about an 85% chance of succeeding. The exact same.

So, any problems you see in 5e with this scenario are equally present in 3.5.

 

[Garthanos]

Okay, now I'm seeing a little more of what you are saying.

Honestly? That is just a benefit of sentinel in my mind. You can lock down single creatures the exact same way right now.

Its kind of a benefit of Sentinel that skyrockets with a boom if they can do per turn opportunity attacks its a synergy effect that isnt immediately obvious
and you didnt notice it immediately either I think flippant oh just do it
what can it hurt is kind of chaos theory of game design.
We know this is going to make melee types more potent in some way... should they turn a fear spell into a fireball or worse well I kind of like that but I definitely did not realize that could happen when i first conceived the idea. and yeh the polearm makes it a bit worse by increasing the number of enemies you may get in reach and the like.

I do not think sticking these rule stuff into place happens without potentially huge ramifications when the game was designed with certain assumptions and DMG simplistic variant rules look like YOLO.

But, I would probably (after a round or two) have the creatures take the dodge action. The spell does allow them to do so if they can no longer run, and you are preventing them from running.

Ones which start next to my Polearm master can move 5 feet without getting out of reach I think LOL.

So, overall, powerful and nice use of tactics, but I wouldn't call it broken. After all, Fear can also drive an enemy to take 40d4 damage from spike growth, if you can set up the run perfectly.

While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move. If the creature ends its turn in a location where it doesn’t have line of sight to you, the creature can make a Wisdom saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends for that creature.

Only looks like it gets a wisdom save out of sight... not on its turn.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Its kind of a benefit of Sentinel that skyrockets with a boom if they can do per turn opportunity attacks its a synergy effect that isnt immediately obvious
and you didnt notice it immediately either I think flippant oh just do it
what can it hurt is kind of chaos theory of game design.
We know this is going to make melee types more potent in some way... should they turn a fear spell into a fireball or worse well I kind of like that but I definitely did not realize that could happen when i first conceived the idea. and yeh the polearm makes it a bit worse by increasing the number of enemies you may get in reach and the like.

I do not think sticking these rule stuff into place happens without potentially huge ramifications when the game was designed with certain assumptions and DMG simplistic variant rules look like YOLO.

As soon as you mentioned sentinel I knew what you were talking about. And, yeah, you might miss something when you change the rules. Nature of the beast. I don't see how that is anything new though.

Ones which start next to my Polearm master can move 5 feet without getting out of reach I think LOL.

Yep, which is why I said a round or two, but frankly, even under fear they aren't stupid. They don't run through hazardous terrain after all, so knowing you can stop them if you hit them, they would seek to avoid you hitting them so they could escape.

Totally a grey area though.

While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move. If the creature ends its turn in a location where it doesn’t have line of sight to you, the creature can make a Wisdom saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends for that creature.

Only looks like it gets a wisdom save out of sight... not on its turn.

Ah, forgot about that. No one has ever really used Fear in my games, so I forget some of the details of it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Going into system differences of this sort is relevant to the discussion

You are right that alice is not used to wine glasses in the face as opposed to getting stabbed with spears. In the middle of a battlefield, a wine glass would not be a significant thing your right... but in the context of alice sitting down to negotiate with a frenemy alice is also not used to trying to stand up from the negotiating table & immediately begin gesticulating VSM components to fireball the other side in negotiations nor is she on a battlefield. In 3.5 alice would be casting defensively (possibly with combat caster) on the battlefield where she might otherwise get stabbed with a spear, but the 5e change of an easier save & not needing to wait till the start of her next turn means that alice is always walking around with a loaded bazooka in a firing position even while having a discussion in a civilized environment that would preclude her from doing so & now needs to be treated as such with all situations looking like either a battlefield or an execution ground with this readied at all times... that's just a disaster for world building and storytelling that encourages the players to treat everything like murderhobos or require anyone they might need to negotiate/socially interact with on not quite friendly terms to be so absurdly powerful that they are capable of acting as a solo encounter.

This causes problems within 5e itself. For example. In 3.5 she could have gotten it off with something like quickened still silent spell at a much greater cost & in 5e subtle spell does skip somatic or verbal but now she can literally stand in front of the bbeg & not need any of that to hit him with fireball unless he has a readied action to hit her like a freight train or counterspells her. She only even needs subtle spell if she wants to avoid alerting people in the next room & the gm needs to fight the system or gm fiat it away.

Why would Alice need to wait until the start of her next turn to get a fireball off in 3.5?

 

[Garthanos]

As soon as you mentioned sentinel I knew what you were talking about. And, yeah, you might miss something when you change the rules. Nature of the beast. I don't see how that is anything new though.

How will they be dodging if they are taking the dash action?

Why does it need to be new? the point was I seem to recall that it is along ways from the triviality it gets cast as. And the examples the DMG presents in variants like flanking that obviously without some other components does not do what people who want flanking are after THEY had to know that its bad faith or bad service. Reiterated it does not make position more important in a way that is more difficult to achieve. Which to me is the foundation of tactics harder choices to gain some benefit. @tetrasodium may not be after the same handles I am but it is still the same thing he is complaining about.

Maybe you are right and being able to generate 40d4 with a level 2 spell and level 3 spell and some environmental funnel combo means this is just making martial a better teammate alongside all that.

Maybe the eventual misses on the opportunity attacks is good enough limit on it. They need to use that dash action and so cannot attack though so it locks out the desperately attacking the source of your fear you cannot get away from effect..

 

[Monayuris]

No. What I am doing is addressing the point that in 5E and every version of D&D since 2E the game assumes the players are the lead characters of the setting and the game is their for everyone's enjoyment. It is not an adversarial relationship of player vs DM as often (but not always) it seem to feel like in OSR style games. I agree that driving story as you mentioned is bad if done wrong (the bolded emphasis above is my doing). Yet, any aspect of DMing if done wrong is a problematic. When I speak of creating an engaging story I am not talking about railroading or forcing players towards a preset end. I actually prefer a sandbox style of play in fact. What I mean is again making players feel like the leads in the story even from the beginning. This is the story we as a collective are building but the choices and outcomes is dependent upon the choices the cinematic characters make. Railroading is a bad game design and again I didn't feel the need to state the obvious.

There is nothing inherent to old school style D&D that encourages adversarial player vs. DM relationships. Old school D&D works the same as any other D&D. Just the rules are a little different.

I totally agree with you about railroading. I run open sandbox games. The DM, to me... is an impartial judge or referee. The DM should be neutral and present the environment fairly and without bias. The DM isn't trying to kill the players, but also isn't trying to save them either. The DM should just provide a challenging environment and adjudicate the game fairly.

Also, the flaw with OSR being the baseline instead of the way the game is currently set up is that basically you run a decent risks of losing players to the game like what happened in The Secrets of Blackmoor and that I have personally witnessed happen at game tables. For example, one of our players (we will call him Rob) is easily one of the more tenured people in our diverse group. Rob has been playing D&D since early 1E. I am honestly not sure of Rob's age but I am sure he is in his early 60's. Rob for the most part likes the current edition but can't stand OSR games and in particularly talks about the ridiculous and nonsensical traps that existed in what he calls Gygaxian dungeons. I can tell you now, if Rob who is a very amenable guy showed up at a table and lost his PC to some random F ery like cockatrices as the first encounter of a level 1 dungeon, some trap that was roll a save or die because you didn't take a wooden pole with you and check every 10'f feet for traps (and yes in 1E I recall a game like this) or worst yet you brought the pole and checked every 10' feet but through a random 1d2 die roll you hit the wrong floor plate so BOOM you're dead, Rob would not make a fuss he would say, "I am sorry. I think I am wasting your time and mine. Please forgive me this game is not what I thought but I hope you have a good day" and then leave. Many newer players would do the same thing. So no, I don't think the current game is a design error. I think having heroic be the standard but allowing dials of customization to scale the game tougher or more heroic (which is what I want to happen) is the right way to go. I will say for both ends of the spectrum the dials in 5E could be a little better.

Why would OSR games run a risk of losing players?

You are presenting anecdotal evidence as fact. I have been running a weekly OSR Meetup that has had at least 8 to 10 players come every week. Many recurring players but also many new players. I can tell you from first hand experience that your statement about OSR games and player retention is false. Or at least my anecdotal evidence contradicts yours.

As a counterpoint, I played in a 5E Storm King's Thunder campaign and dropped out because it was absolutely boring.

I have no idea what you are talking about with your play example. That sounds like a problem with the player and not the rule system.

I know that modern games try to go overboard with rules to try to excuse or rein in bad players / bad DM's.

In the two quotes above you are fully taking what I said out of contexting or flat out ignoring the poster I made those quotes in response too. The poster being @Monayuris The person made a statement that he did not care what happens as a DM. I am not saying 0-1-2E DMs did not care. Many did that is why many had house rules that disregarded random F-ery and the harshness of those systems. I am was addressing that poster directly and saying in the DMG the DM is to care and it continues to emphasis the point of the DM should care in various places not the least of which is pg. 6 of the DMG where it talks about getting to know your players so that can understand their motives and playstyles and thus help ensure they are having fun. What a novel concept. I must sayy I feel like you are too intelligent to not get what I was saying here especially since it was in direct response to @Monayuris whose quotes are in my post.

The modern games definitely have different expectations for DMs. I pretty much think modern game instructions for DMs are absolute b.s. They get too caught up in story and balanced encounters and playing things safe.

I say challenge your players... throw them up against seemingly unwinnable situations or seemingly unbeatable monsters. Let them surprise you with their ingenuity and problem solving. It will make for a much better game.

Yes. The DM is free to ignore the rules as they see fit but in my opinion if have to ignore a large amount of rules for the game to be fun then you have a very flawed game. In a solid system the rules enhance the game and for the most part in modern iterations of D&D I think this is true. My players and I (and me when I am a player) loved to optimize and explore the full mechanical potential of our characters. We also favor the tactical combat aspects of the game. For this reason we adhere to the rules as strictly as possible which is one reason why we all crave new official material vs. third party stuff because we like to stay legal. Some of us are lawyers in spirit if not profession and some in the group are both

Rules are meant to be changed and adjusted to meet your own expectations. My belief is that once you buy a game that game belongs to you and no longer belongs to the authors.

Take the rules and change them to make the game work for your specific needs. Throw out official rulings they are meaningless, no one but yourself knows what is best for your own game table.

Make whatever game you play what you want it to be.

 

[Monayuris]

It seems like you are not in this category and if people talked to your players they are perfectly happy having their characters die at the drop of a hat and having the PCs being inconsequential since as you stated "as a DM you don't care what happens" then that works for your group and I am not begrudging that as again having fun is the goal and if that fits your groups ideal of fun more power to you.

You are waving a flag against an imaginary foe. There is nothing in OSR D&D that encourages what you are saying.

What you are stating is bad DM'ing which is a problem with every edition.

Story is important because as a DM part of your job is being a storyteller. That is a foundational competency of DMing. I don't feel I should have to explain that but if you want you can pick up the DMG and read it; it mentions story throughout the book. As an example, "It is good to be the Dungeon Master! Not only do you tell fantastic stories about heroes, villains, monsters and magic, but you also get to create the world in which these stories live. (5E DMG pg. 4 Introduction). There are several other passages throughout the DMG that references the importance of story. It also mentions making sure your players actually enjoy the game. Again a reference to this foundational competency can be found on pg. 6 of the DMG.

My job as a DM is to be an impartial judge to provide an environment for adventure. The DM is not a storyteller. The DM is the impartial judge that allows the entire player group to be the story tellers.

It seems not only is there a misunderstanding of foundational DM competencies but also of analogy. I used Danny Devito because that is what I picture when I think of say a 2E character whose average abilities scores (if using the default 3d6 keep in order rolled method) would be in the 9-12 range. I picture somebody with physicality of Danny Devito picking up a sword and saying I am going to fight. It is the furthest thing from heroic fantasy or sword & sorcery that I can think of BUT it is very Game of Thrones like so I guess I can see why you like it. To break it down as simple as possible not since 2E is it assumed that the PCs are just average folks (ability wise) who just decided for whatever reason to risk the adventuring life. Instead it is assumed that whatever their socio-economic/personal origins that the PCs are above the average mien (ability wise) and are marked by destiny to have an impact on their world. In short, it assumes the DM cares what happens.

If you roll 3d6, the average is 10-11. A strength 10 fighter is probably a typical soldier in the US Army. A capable and skilled warrior. Your Danny DeVito argument is a strawman. In OSR D&D a strength 10 fighter is perfectly fine and capable. In fact in OSR games your decisions as a player can more than make up for low ability scores.

For example, I have a player running a fighter in my ACKS game (B/X derivative). The character is a badass... kicking butt, charging in, and tanking against the worst enemies. I asked the player, once.. what is the character's strength score. He says 12 which is a zero bonus. I was shocked. He played his character like a hero and was amazingly effective. It is how you play the character more than the numbers on the paper.

Again, I never said that OSR game can't be intense or enjoyable (again provided the group has buy-in). I would not like that style of play nor do I think that style of play would be good for the modern game but I never said some people don't enjoy it. As far as the nostalgia part, yes I will stand by what I said on that part: many OSR people I have meet seem to look back on the game and not realize that they enjoyed those games to a large extent because of the house rules or rules being ignored.

Based on my meetup game experiences. OSR is alive and well. It is as good if not better experience than 5E D&D for many people.

It's not nostalgia. It is a prefered style of game.

I will agree with this statement and I am glad you and your players are having fun playing OSR. I like modern games and high adventure. We can agree to disagree. Luckily D&D is a big tent and is customizable from the baseline to fit the needs of differing groups as needed. Good gaming.

No problem. I sometimes get a little annoyed when preferences get presented as if they are facts. I try really hard to not talk in absolutes. I get that my game play style is not popular, but it doesn't deserve the attacks that are often brought upon it.

I think it is unfair and I will often respond aggressively against such unfair attacks.

 

[SharonParis]

The ruleset doesn't expect anything, but the first couple of levels do have a bit more danger of a critical hit knocking a character down. In general it only takes a session or two to gain enough XP for each of those levels so they don't last long anyway.

If you are converting something then reducing the number of enemies or even scaling them down a little such as reducing HP, maybe remove armor, and give them less effective weapons would be one way to do it. If they have pack tactics, lower their numbers or keep a few at range and remember that these first opponents are probably not the most tactical fighters of their type so they should occasionally make poor decisions or even run at the first sign that they might be killed.

Fb video download