D&D 5E Starting level

[Reynard]

I think I'd like to start more games at level one.

But it's actually more work than starting at higher levels.

Level one monsters tend to be pretty dull unless you reinvent them or make your own. Good level one dungeons that you can use to fill out a sandbox are rare, and they're more effort to write and make actually interesting than higher level ones.

You can do a lot with low level enemies by giving them a variety of weapons in any given gang of them, and using reasonably smart tactics -- especially if the PCs are invading their home.

 

[jasper]

Where are the freaking scouts/rangers/ forward patrol? And why didn't they spot the wizard before he threw fireball?
We only marched in ranks in places we knew were mostly secure. In the field we spread out and maintained our social distancing. AKA not in grenade spread.

 

[Reynard]

Where are the freaking scouts/rangers/ forward patrol? And why didn't they spot the wizard before he threw fireball?
We only marched in ranks in places we knew were mostly secure. In the field we spread out and maintained our social distancing. AKA not in grenade spread.

I think there is a tendency to want to use humanoid enemies as PC fodder. And that's a fine way to play if your goal is to make the players feel awesome. But I like the "oh, crap, we're surrounded!" tension or the "they have a cave troll!" moments. I want the PCs to worry about getting outflanked or not having enough ammo or worrying that they are being pushed into a trap or ambush. That kind of thing makes low level combat fun. Without it, it's just a slog and so why bother?

 

[Maxperson]

It is more of an SOP thing. In a world where the enemy is as likely as not to be equipped with short range artillery and/or sleep bombs (things that any soldier in a D&D world would be aware of, unless you presume a far greater rarity of spellcasters and other area attacks than the core 5E books suggest) not clumping up would be standard operating procedure. It's essentially the same reason they taught us in basic to practice "social distancing" -- not every enemy has a grenade or uses landmines, but some are going to and it would be better if you lost fewer soldiers when they were inevitably deployed.

Now, would soldiers still line up in great ranks at "official" battles? Sure. If thousands of soldiers stretch hundreds of yards or more along a battle line ten ranks deep, the overall impact of fireball is reduced. But in the guerrilla combat that is represented by tactical level D&D, any soldier(including orcs; that's what they do) is going to try an minimize the possibility of being the one killed by the fireball or dropped by the sleep spell. And of course, players can and should try and overcome that tendency with strategies and tactics, forcing choke points or doing a little ambushing themselves or whatever. But it isn't a foregone conclusion that humanoid enemies are going to line up to be slaughtered.

You're still playing idiots(int 7) as if they were at least average intelligence(int 10+). Playing creatures as if they were smarter than they are is as bad as playing creatures as dumber than they are.

 

[Maxperson]

Where are the freaking scouts/rangers/ forward patrol? And why didn't they spot the wizard before he threw fireball?
We only marched in ranks in places we knew were mostly secure. In the field we spread out and maintained our social distancing. AKA not in grenade spread.

Grenades are far more common in real life than wizards with fireball are in D&D. If the game is set in Eberron where there's a wizard under every rock and every 3rd tree, then yes, that makes sense. If it's in a game where wizards just aren't that common, the wizards that do exist don't all have fireball, and few of the ones that do are going to be running around engaging in battle, it doesn't make as much sense to account for fireballs in everything you do.

 

[Coroc]

Grenades are far more common in real life than wizards with fireball are in D&D. If the game is set in Eberron where there's a wizard under every rock and every 3rd tree, then yes, that makes sense. If it's in a game where wizards just aren't that common, the wizards that do exist don't all have fireball, and few of the ones that do are going to be running around engaging in battle, it doesn't make as much sense to account for fireballs in everything you do.

Exactly. Why is there an assumption by those that disagree that every wizard of fifth level upwards has selected fireball as his first level 3 spell, and is underway with an adventuring party?

 

[Reynard]

Grenades are far more common in real life than wizards with fireball are in D&D. If the game is set in Eberron where there's a wizard under every rock and every 3rd tree, then yes, that makes sense. If it's in a game where wizards just aren't that common, the wizards that do exist don't all have fireball, and few of the ones that do are going to be running around engaging in battle, it doesn't make as much sense to account for fireballs in everything you do.

I don't think the game says anything about the distribution of spellcasters.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think the game says anything about the distribution of spellcasters.

Exactly! This idea of yours is your own creation, not the game's. It exists for your game, not some baseline that you think exists or should exist.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think the game says anything about the distribution of spellcasters.

Actually, it does on page 9 of the DMG under Core Assumptions. The core of the game assumes the following.

"Practitioners of magic are relatively few in number..."

 

[Oofta]

How big of an issue is a wizard/fireball going to be to an actual army? Even targeted at the optimal spot, assuming 1 orc every 5 ft you're talking 40-some orcs. If it's literally an army, that wizard just took out 1% or less of an army that is now going to destroy the caster. The range isn't really all that long.

As far as an orcish war band, I never assume they're organized enough to march in formation. But it will vary depending on campaign, situation and leadership.