Some observations running 5th edition for the first time.

[Yora]

I've been running my first campaign as GM for 4 sessions now, probably having played some 12 to 14 hours. Two of the characters have reached 2nd level, but everyone else is still at 1st.

Something I immediately noticed after having run lots of 3rd edition in the 2000s is that this game really is a breeze to run. It's still more complex than I think necessary, but it clearly has been designed with ease of use for the GM in mind.
Being able to move before and after taking an action, and opportunity attacks only for moving away from enemies significanty speeds up how players make their turns. It just doesn't matter where you stand, as long as its in reach of your target. You don't have to bother about standing in the way of an archer or having to stand in one exact location to get sneak attack damage. And all the modifiers that come up come down to either advantage or disadvantage. I feel like players take only a third of the time that I was used to.

Infinite cantrips are also nice. The spellcasters aren't endlessly agonizing if they should use one of their two spells and after a minute decide to shot a crossbow instead. Not really a fan of eldritch blast, fore bolt, and sacred flame aesthetically, but it makes the players not torn between wanting to use their magic and conserving their spells. That also saves so much time. We'll see how that holds up once we get to third level, but I expect spells not being lost after casting them once will also help imensely in that regard.

However, reports that PCs are amazingly tough in 5th edition don't seem to apply at 1st level. Fortunately we had only one fight each in the first three sessions, so we had plenty of other very entertaining things to keep us occupied. But I feel like the actual fighting parts didn't go very well.
A party of five 1st level PCs will tear through huge hordes of typical CR 1/8 enemies without any sweat, at least when they can use the terrain to never have more than four or five of them taking a swing in each round. All the cultists they've been fighting never hit and deal very little damage. Yet on the other hand, all the enemies that were slightly tougher, like Priests leveled down to CR 1 and worgs at CR 1/2 have no problems taking a 1st level PC at full health down in a single hit.
Though again I have to say, the death save mechanic is easy enough to remember and was absolutely no issue to use the four times it came up. And with the party stocking up on healing potions in addition to having a cleric, they are right back to full fighting capacity.

What I've been taking away from this so far is that armor classes and attack bonuses are not an issue. Nor are the hit points of enemies. But the amount of damage that their attacks can deal is what you really have to watch out for with low-level PCs. Because those numbers go up surprisingly quickly once you go above the little CR 1/8 enemies.

Groups of CR 1/8 and CR 1/4 enemies are also pretty boring to fight. We've just been doing attack rolls for 3 or 4 rounds until everything stopped moving. At one point I decided to simply describe a cave as empty instead of mentioning five giant crabs coming out of the water. That really felt just like a waste of everyone's time after fighting eight giant scorpions and four cultists.

Had my players been up to playing B/X, I would have run that. But I have really no regrets running 5th edition instead. It already feels overloaded with magic beams at 1st level, but as user comefort goes I really have no complaints about it yet.

[EggKookoo]

I'm running a new 5e campaign as well. My previous 5e experience was running a game that had been ported from a horrible 3e/oWoD hybrid abomination that itself was a revival of an old W:tA game that ran from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s. Weirdly, that game actually ran pretty well once we got to 5e-esque gameplay.

But my current game is straight up D&D. Well, in Eberron, so not quite straight up. I agree about 1st level PCs being fragile. Even at 2nd level, they're still a little tender, but now they have their moon druid meatshield so things should go better. I can see how they'll start ramping up once they hit 3rd and the rest get their subclasses. We have an artificer planning to go battle mage, and I suspect he's going to be fearsome.


Being able to move before and after taking an action, and opportunity attacks only for moving away from enemies significanty speeds up how players make their turns.

One gripe I have about OAs is that they tend to lock combat down a bit. Martials don't want to move for fear of getting whacked. I guess that fear might also go away once PC HP goes up more. I need to work out ways to entice them to move more.

In any event, combat is fast and fun. My players have, by 2nd level, gotten familiar enough with their characters that they are starting to form tactics and anticipate each other's abilities. They have some limited TTRPG experience but not a lot with D&D.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What I've been taking away from this so far is that armor classes and attack bonuses are not an issue. Nor are the hit points of enemies. But the amount of damage that their attacks can deal is what you really have to watch out for with low-level PCs. Because those numbers go up surprisingly quickly once you go above the little CR 1/8 enemies.
Yup. 5e talks a big game about bounded accuracy, but damage and HP pools scale as fast as ever-- it's the main scaling mechanic in 5e.


However, reports that PCs are amazingly tough in 5th edition don't seem to apply at 1st level.
I mean... level 1 D&D, are you ever tough? :smalltongue:

To be fair, 5e PCs are tough... but in a weirdly deceptive way. Even when you've got a couple hit dice under your belt, it's not hard to get pounded into the ground in a round or two of enemy attacks. But while it's very easy to drop a player and make them feel scared, lying there and making death saves... it's pretty hard for a character to actually die*. The death save mechanic is pretty generous, and unlike past editions, it's almost impossible to bypass. In 3e, you could very easily wind up getting knocked from 10 hp to -15 in one shot and be gone. In 5e, it doesn't matter how far into the negatives you go-- unless the overflow is equal to your full normal health, you're at dying no matter how much it hurt. And if that does happen, it means you royally forked up and are fighting something that you Should Not Fight.

Conversely, that the handful of attacks that do bypass the dying state, like Disintegrate, are ridiculously lethal. I think I've only used "if you hit 0hp, you die" mechanics in two encounters, but those fights account for three dead PCs between them.


Groups of CR 1/8 and CR 1/4 enemies are also pretty boring to fight. We've just been doing attack rolls for 3 or 4 rounds until everything stopped moving. At one point I decided to simply describe a cave as empty instead of mentioning five giant crabs coming out of the water. That really felt just like a waste of everyone's time after fighting eight giant scorpions and four cultists.

That's my main complaint with running 5e, yeah-- way too many creatures are nothing but bags of hit points and basic attacks. The later monster books (Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainin's Guide to the Planes) are better about this, but generally the stat block doesn't give you much to work with.



*Unless the DM has an NPC take a turn finishing off a dying character. But that's an entirely different argument about "pragmatic tactics in a world with magic healing" vs "I wasn't a threat, you're just being a ****."

[EggKookoo]

Yup. 5e talks a big game about bounded accuracy, but damage and HP pools scale as fast as ever-- it's the main scaling mechanic in 5e.

To be fair, "damage" is not something one normally associates with accuracy.

[Yakmala]

In my experience, the difficulty of any given D&D adventure/campaign is primarily determined by how often the DM allows the party to rest.

Given the opportunity, characters will take a rest after every fight, and from what I have seen, there are some DMs that will let their party get away with this.

Many jokingly call this the "5 minute adventuring day."

But 5E was not balanced around short adventuring days, especially with classes like Battle Masters, Monks and Warlocks getting all of their primary resources back after a short rest.

This is why so many published adventures, especially in Adventurers League, have time sensitive missions, as a way to keep the party moving and force them to spend resources. And even then, it's rare to see a party really pushed to the limits on resources.

I think this is one of the reasons that the Champion sub-class is so maligned. In a world where characters are quickly recovering their resources, a Champion does not have much going for them. But put them in a campaign where there are a half dozen or more encounters a day and attempting to rest means enemies rallying their forces for a counter-attack, and suddenly, their resource-free abilities start to shine.

[Mr Adventurer]

The death save mechanic is pretty generous, and unlike past editions, it's almost impossible to bypass.


*Unless the DM has an NPC take a turn finishing off a dying character. But that's an entirely different argument about "pragmatic tactics in a world with magic healing" vs "I wasn't a threat, you're just being a ****."

Can also happen if the environment is damaging, e.g. on fire. Or if you're flying, or subject to ongoing damage from an effect, or caught in an area attack (from either side!) by chance. It's a real risk.

[JellyPooga]

Groups of CR 1/8 and CR 1/4 enemies are also pretty boring to fight. We've just been doing attack rolls for 3 or 4 rounds until everything stopped moving. At one point I decided to simply describe a cave as empty instead of mentioning five giant crabs coming out of the water. That really felt just like a waste of everyone's time after fighting eight giant scorpions and four cultists.

I think this might come down to the specific choices you're making and how you use them. One of the things I've loved about 5ed from the very start is that almost all monsters tend to have their own, if not unique, but individualised special rules; Kobolds get Pack Tactics, Goblins get Nimble Escape and so forth, even down to your basic Zombie getting something a little special. It just makes every encounter or campaign style a little different so long as the GM uses them right.
- If your Goblin encounters are boring slug-fests instead of frustrating pop-up skirmishes, then you need to ask if you're using Goblins wrong.
- If your players aren't getting out-flanked and mobbed by packs of hyenas, then you need to think about how to use Pack Tactics.
- If you aren't playing up the narrative aspect of Zombies being just so. damned. hard. to put down, then you're missing the value of Undead Fortitude.

All of these little abilities are there, not to improve the creatures per se, or make the encounter harder, but to enhance the narrative of the encounter. Very few low CR creatures lack one of these little "narrative enhancers", but granted, there are some (including cultists and giant crabs; but even they, under the right circumstances, have their own little boons; i.e. amphibious doesn't have a lot of effect in a land battle and Dark Devotion does nothing if the PCs aren't using Charm or Fear). Making good use of them and pitting your PCs against the right foes is key, I think, to good 5ed GMing.

[ff7hero]

Can also happen if the environment is damaging, e.g. on fire. Or if you're flying, or subject to ongoing damage from an effect, or caught in an area attack (from either side!) by chance. It's a real risk.

Conversely, my group just ran through Whiteplume Mountain and in two separate encounters my Monk's job was "corpse-tanking" some fierce melee threat. It took a bit of luck (including a Stone of Good Luck/Ring of Protection combo for +2 on Death Saves), and most of the Cleric, Bard and Celestial Warlocks resources, but my Monk survived the dungeon.
This was with the DM almost always choosing to attack me when I was down (with Advantage and 2 Death Save fails on a hit). I was a good sport about it, and the dice gods smiled on me just enough to keep me alive, so it all worked out.
My (somewhat rambling) point is that even with a DM "out for blood" it's pretty hard to actually kill a PC.

[Mr Adventurer]

Your story is a bit of an edge of case to support the premise, though. You've got two valuable items, the resources of two other characters, and you were lucky.

[Yora]

That's my main complaint with running 5e, yeah-- way too many creatures are nothing but bags of hit points and basic attacks.

The biggest disappointment in the Monster Manual I have spotted so far is the marilith. It makes 6 sword attacks and can grapple with its tail, and can get a +5 parry bonus to AC against pretty much any melee attack. The only magical ability it has are truesight and teleporting.

I absolutely get not wanting to give monsters 30 spell abilities like in 3rd edition, but this is just stupid. What is it going to do except make lots of longsword attacks every round? No darkness,charm person, levitation, polymorph self, or project image.
Same thing with the hezrou, which is simply a big ogre that stinks. No darkness, fear, levitation, or telekinesis or see invisibility.
At least the glabrezu gets darkness and dispel magic at will, and confusion, fly, and power word stun once per day. That wasn't so hard. Why are the other big demons so lame then? A plain priest or cult fanatic at CR 2 has way more variety in what it can do.

[Pleh]

A party of five 1st level PCs will tear through huge hordes of typical CR 1/8 enemies without any sweat, at least when they can use the terrain to never have more than four or five of them taking a swing in each round. All the cultists they've been fighting never hit and deal very little damage. Yet on the other hand, all the enemies that were slightly tougher, like Priests leveled down to CR 1 and worgs at CR 1/2 have no problems taking a 1st level PC at full health down in a single hit.
Though again I have to say, the death save mechanic is easy enough to remember and was absolutely no issue to use the four times it came up. And with the party stocking up on healing potions in addition to having a cleric, they are right back to full fighting capacity.

Have a look into the Goodberry spell (can replace potions if managed correctly) and Healing Word (yeah, monsters can drop players, but they can be healed and back in the fight with a ranged heal spell).


One gripe I have about OAs is that they tend to lock combat down a bit. Martials don't want to move for fear of getting whacked. I guess that fear might also go away once PC HP goes up more. I need to work out ways to entice them to move more.

You can remind them about the Disengage action and have a moving environment threat.

[Diego]

The biggest disappointment in the Monster Manual I have spotted so far is the marilith. It makes 6 sword attacks and can grapple with its tail, and can get a +5 parry bonus to AC against pretty much any melee attack. The only magical ability it has are truesight and teleporting.

I absolutely get not wanting to give monsters 30 spell abilities like in 3rd edition, but this is just stupid. What is it going to do except make lots of longsword attacks every round? No darkness,charm person, levitation, polymorph self, or project image.
Same thing with the hezrou, which is simply a big ogre that stinks. No darkness, fear, levitation, or telekinesis or see invisibility.
At least the glabrezu gets darkness and dispel magic at will, and confusion, fly, and power word stun once per day. That wasn't so hard. Why are the other big demons so lame then? A plain priest or cult fanatic at CR 2 has way more variety in what it can do.

The page in the monster manual with giants was deeply disillusioning for me.
If you line up the 4 lower level giants in CR order (Hill, Stone, Frost, Fire) most of their differences can be summed up in "HP, AC, Attack". All are 2 attacks with 10 ft reach, each has better HP than the previous version. With the exception of Frost Giant, each has better AC than the previous version. Throw in a single color coded immunity and.... that's it? 1-2 points of AC is what makes Frost Giants into tribal warriors, Hill Giants into manifestations of inarticulate hunger and gluttony, Fire Giants into organized tyrants?

[JellyPooga]

The page in the monster manual with giants was deeply disillusioning for me.
If you line up the 4 lower level giants in CR order (Hill, Stone, Frost, Fire) most of their differences can be summed up in "HP, AC, Attack". All are 2 attacks with 10 ft reach, each has better HP than the previous version. With the exception of Frost Giant, each has better AC than the previous version. Throw in a single color coded immunity and.... that's it? 1-2 points of AC is what makes Frost Giants into tribal warriors, Hill Giants into manifestations of inarticulate hunger and gluttony, Fire Giants into organized tyrants?

The question is; what difference do you really want? Do you want Fire Giants breathing fire or other colour coded gimmickry? As GM, you're free to add features to the baseline stats. Your complaint is about as valid as saying it's only a point or two of Con and some ribbon features that makes Dwarves redoubtable miners. That game statistics are nothing next to how you actually use and portray a creature. If you want Hill Giants that are manifestations of inarticulate hunger, as opposed to organized tyrants...then simply play them that way because the actual difference in game stats doesn't have to be so diverse.

[Diego]

The question is; what difference do you really want? Do you want Fire Giants breathing fire or other colour coded gimmickry? As GM, you're free to add features to the baseline stats. Your complaint is about as valid as saying it's only a point or two of Con and some ribbon features that makes Dwarves redoubtable miners. That game statistics are nothing next to how you actually use and portray a creature. If you want Hill Giants that are manifestations of inarticulate hunger, as opposed to organized tyrants...then simply play them that way because the actual difference in game stats doesn't have to be so diverse.

Fire Giants get bonus action to command evil humanoid allies of CR X or less to make an attack.
Frost Giants rage, gaining weapon damage resistance and an additional die of damage when below half HP
Hill Giants get some variation of grab and swallow.
Stone Giants ... something involving their rune-scribed boulders?


Quoting Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/designing-with-a-strong-d/) passage which I quite agree with.

Suppose I need some undead ninjas to unlive in my cursed monastery. I design them and put them in my game. But while I’m running the game, I never describe the undead ninjas as undead ninjas. I don’t put them in tattered ninja clothes, I don’t give them ninja swords, and I never call them undead. I just call them “humanoid monsters.” No fluff. No flavor. No flair.

At the end of the game, I ask the players to give the monsters a name based on how the fights with them felt. Or to describe the monsters in some way. If the players call them “undead ninjas” or “zombie assassins” or “kung-fu vampires” or “Bruce Lee back from the dead” then I nailed the game feel. But if I get a bunch of shrugs and awkward pauses and “umms” and “ahhs,” then the game feel just isn’t there.

[JellyPooga]

Fire Giants get bonus action to command evil humanoid allies of CR X or less to make an attack.
Frost Giants rage, gaining weapon damage resistance and an additional die of damage when below half HP
Hill Giants get some variation of grab and swallow.
Stone Giants ... something involving their rune-scribed boulders?

While I wouldn't complain if they'd been given abilities like this, per se, I do think they have a tendency to pigeon-hole creatures, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (see my previous post regarding the variety of lower CR critters and their abilities), but when it comes to giants in particular, I think their "thing" is "being really big", so adding additional features like the ones you describe can feel...too restrictive? I mean, what if I wanted to use Fire Giants without adding additional lower HD creatures? A reclusive Fire Giant Blacksmith, for example? That "defining feature" goes to waste or doesn't define them from any other giant at all. I know it's just a suggested example and it doesn't have to be that, but you see the issue of imposing what are essentially cultural aspects or personality in the stat-block?

If you want to add features to differentiate Bog Goblins from Mountain Goblins, for instance, that's fine, but it's not going to be that Bog Goblins have a Swim speed and Mountain Goblins have a climb speed that the PC's will remember, it's that the Bog Goblins they encountered were a thieving rabble of irritating bandits, while the Mountain Goblins were an organised fighting force led by Hobgoblin overlords; neither feature requiring any in-game stat differences, barring maybe equipment.


Quoting Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/designing-with-a-strong-d/) passage which I quite agree with.

I agree with a lot of Angry-GM, but in this particular case, I don't. You can have two identically statted creatures be remembered in entirely different ways for different reasons by the players. Game abilities and varied stat-blocks can assist a GM in making their encounters feel different and memorable and 5ed generally does a pretty decent job of giving different monsters a variety of baseline differences, but the stats pale in comparison to the actual manner you use them. Tuckers Kobolds is an infamous proof of this; the kobolds he used were no different from any other, but the way he used them made them what they were.

A giant is a giant is a giant and yeah, some giants are immune to fire and some are bigger than others, but at the end of the day, they're still all just giants. One particular giant (the one in your campaign) might be a tyrannical overlord or an insatiable force of nature, but that's up to you how you use them and present them in your campaign.

[Keravath]

5e characters at level 1 are very squishy since most can be downed and in some cases instantly killed with a critical hit from a monster. This risk of instant death will extend until about 4th level against the right monsters. I had a 4th level rogue come within 1hp of being instantly killed by a giant crocodile that critted for 51 damage. It was a close thing. Level 1 is worse.

A typical CR 1/2 orc has 15 hit points and uses a great axe hitting for 1d12+3 damage ... up to 15 on a normal hit (average around 10) and up to 27 hit points on a critical.

As an intro for a new player (I was new to 5e at the time as well), I ran one orc against two first level characters, the orc took one of them down and almost TPKed them before being taken down.

Finally, I'd recommend against forming opinions about 5e until you've played/DMed characters through at least level 8-9 and preferably more like 13-15. There are a lot of abilities that are a lot of fun that the characters pick up as they go along that you can't judge at level 1. The balance isn't perfect and at certain levels one class or another may feel like they have an edge.

Rogues in levels 2-4 feel quite powerful with +2d6 sneak attack at level 3 and cunning action allowing them to hide behind a tree as a bonus action, shooting their bow at a target with advantage and doing sneak damage automatically. Compared to a fighter without feats with one attack, the rogue can feel very powerful (especially when they crit and get to roll all the dice twice). However, they aren't. Level 5 comes around and the other martials pick up extra attack, casters get 3rd level spells and the feel of the game changes as you enter tier 2. Overall, I find the balance between classes to be very good compared to any of the previous editions (though I didn't play enough 4e to comment).

However, if you are just playing through it some of the abilities can feel very powerful when you first run into them. Paladin smiting (starting at level2), rogue sneak attack, moon druid forms at levels 2-4 which have relatively more hit points and multiple attacks. Your game seems to be moving quite slowly if the PCs are still level 1 after 4 sessions so you may feel some of these low level class differences more than others ... but they are not imbalanced in the longer term.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I know it's just a suggested example and it doesn't have to be that, but you see the issue of imposing what are essentially cultural aspects or personality in the stat-block?
That's kinda what D&D has always done, though, with both monsters and PCs. It's why kobolds have Pack Tactics and goblins have Nimble Escape. I would much rather have mechanical hooks that don't always work than plain statblocks I have to embellish myself.

[JellyPooga]

That's kinda what D&D has always done, though, with both monsters and PCs. It's why kobolds have Pack Tactics and goblins have Nimble Escape. I would much rather have mechanical hooks that don't always work than plain statblocks I have to embellish myself.

A feature or two, or even a whole suite, to differentiate between entirely different creatures is not the same thing as significantly different features to separate subcultures of one creature. The more significance you add to the variations within the bounds of individual creatures, the less significant the differences between different creatures becomes. To use the example of adding some kind of Swallow Whole feature to Hill Giants, what then discerns a Hill Giant from, say, a Purple Worm or another creature with that feature? There's nothing inherently wrong with reusing or recycling abilities and features, but if a variation of a creature looks less like the other variations of that creature and starts looking more like an entirely different entity, then something is probably going wrong. Like, if you created a subculture of Kobolds that had Str:16 and has Aggressive instead of Pack Tactics...then can you really call it a Kobold anymore, when it more closely resembles an Orc? If the Giants "thing" is being big, then their stat-block largely represents that with high HD and Str. There's some variation with Spell-like abilities and elemental resistances, but none of them stray too far from "big strong dude", because that's what a giant is. Does that make giants a bit boring? Well, maybe so. Are Dragons boring because they're all giant winged lizards with a colour coded breath weapon? Well, yeah, for some people 5ed Dragons are just a pale cousin of how they were presented in previous editions. For others, not so much.

Myself, I prefer as blank a canvas as possible for my creature stats. The more specific the features a creature has, the harder it is to use them in any way but those that their abilities dictate. For instance, it's really hard (not impossible!) to use a Medusa in a social context, not because of their culture or personality, but because their one defining feature is so restrictive. That doesn't make the Medusa a bad monster, just limited and as a rule, the less limited you can make your creature stable, the more variety you can get in your campaigns.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would much rather have mechanical hooks that don't always work than plain statblocks I have to embellish myself.

Same. I'd much rather have to swap out or tweak an ability I don't like once in a while than have to basically fill in half the monster entries myself because Abilities.exe got corrupted prior to printing.

[J-H]

Combats in 5e are usually short, in the 2-5 round range, most of the time. I find it helpful to give each monster (and I 'brew a lot of them myself) no more than 1 or 2 abilities to pick from, or a boss 3-5 defining abilities. Anything more than that probably won't get used.

Also, running an enemy spellcaster with 15 options is a lot harder to do in the moment. As the DM I'm playing every monster on the table at once, plus the terrain. I don't want to be picking from a menu of 6 abilities x 10 monsters.

When prepping for spellcasters or menu-rich enemies, I have started writing down what their first 1-2 rounds of actions will be, and then a couple of general conditionals. For example, here's what I have for the Azer sorcerer's statblock. He's a bit squishy, but the party will have to cross a 5' bridge over a river of lava guarded by a raging barbarian to reach him...and he has a couple of magma mephits as guards.


Azer Firecaller (spellcaster) “Andvar”
(themes: Fire, acid, earth)
AC: 15; Shield (R)
HP: 78
Speed 30’
STR 17 (+3) DEX 12 (+1) CON 15 (+2) INT 12 (+1) WIS 13 (+1) CHA 16 (+3)
Saves Con +5, Cha +6
Spell attack roll +6, Spell save DC 14
Resists: Cold
Immunities: Fire, Poison
Special: Heated body, anyone who touches or melees within 5’ takes 1d10 fire damage;
Special: Quicken: Can cast a cantrip and a leveled spell in the same round. 3 Uses: () () ()
0 Fire Bolt (3d10+3), Blade Ward
1 ()()()() Burning Hands, Thunderwave, (R)Shield
2 ()()()() Aganazzar’s Scorcher(XGTE)? (30’ line, 3d8, Dex half); Scorching Ray (3 spell attacks @ 2d6 each); See Invisibility
3 ()()() Thunder StepXGTE? (Teleport 90’, 1 passenger, deal 3d10 in 10’ radius old spot, Con half); loud; Fireball
4 ()()() Wall of Fire, Vitriolic Sphere (150’, 20’ radius 10d4 acid; 5d4 at end of next turn; Dex save for half damage and negate trailing dmg)
5 ()() Transmute Rock (C, cast on ceiling, mud falls, then blob of mud hinders movement);
6 () Disintegrate

Tactics: Fireball; Transmute Rock on the ceiling if can catch at least 3 enemies; then either Vitriolic Sphere or Disintegrate on biggest threat; Quickens Fire Bolt each round. First level slots probably all go to Shield as a Reaction.

Loot: Boots of Cold Resistance
Gloves of Healing (Cure Light Wounds 1/day)


I can look at the tactics block to see what he does in the first round, and then what he does against either a single foe or a group. I have reminders for what to do with his bonus action (fire bolt) for 3 rounds, and checkboxes so I know when his Quickens are used up. The only on-the-spot-decisionmaking is "can I hit at least 3 enemies with this AOE, or does he need to chuck a Disintegrate?" until such time as he gets trapped in melee; then it's a choice between leveled spell + Blade Ward, or Thunder Step + fire bolt.

[Dr. Cliché]

Combats in 5e are usually short, in the 2-5 round range, most of the time. I find it helpful to give each monster (and I 'brew a lot of them myself) no more than 1 or 2 abilities to pick from, or a boss 3-5 defining abilities. Anything more than that probably won't get used.

I'd probably change that to 'no more than 1 or 2 abilities that require Actions', but otherwise I agree.

As someone who's attempted to design whole lines of monsters from scratch, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of giving a monster too many abilities - either to try and make things interesting by giving monsters more options or just by way of overcompensating for 5e's sack-of-hp approach to monster design. The point about combats being short is definitely true, and even if a combat lasts for 5 rounds, it doesn't mean that each individual monster will last for 5 rounds. Players might well focus on the more threatening enemies first, meaning the monsters with the most abilities could well end up going down after just 2-3 wounds, with the remaining rounds just being clean-up. Also, at least in my personal experience, having multiple abilities competing for the same Action usually just led to me wasting time with indecision as to a given monster's action (though perhaps I should have considered specific tactical checklists ahead of time?).

Anyway, just some things I found out after getting to test a pile of scratch-built enemies I'd designed.

[Samayu]

I've been running my first campaign as GM for 4 sessions now, probably having played some 12 to 14 hours. Two of the characters have reached 2nd level, but everyone else is still at 1st.

Had you been playing 5e for a while before DMing, or is it completely new for you?

Why are they at different levels? XP advancement? We always do milestone advancement. It's much easier. And lately we gain a level every other session. Also, first level should be over very quick. It should only have one fight. So, possibly less than a full session.

[Yora]

I've played a bit 5th edition some years ago, but I didn't have any real insight in what kinds of NPCs the GM was using in the encounters.

So far we've had a total of 8 PCs, but never more than 5 playing at the same time, and we had only one encounter in each of the first three session. In total, the six current PCs are at 1900 XP. Once they wrap up the last few rooms in the current dungeon and return to town, all of them will be 2nd level.

Before they went to the dungeon, they fought one CR 2, one CR 1, three CR 1/2, two CR 1/4, and a hole bunch of CR 1/8 enemies. That is not a lot of XP when you split them by six.

[Kane0]

Thats quite a bit of time spent at level 1, bravo.

Would you prefer milestone over XP maybe?

[EggKookoo]

In my current (newish) 5e campaign, I have a party of five. They had...

An fight with some thugs at an inn.
An fight with a street gang.
A fight with a gazer.
A fight with a CR 3 gith (very tough fight, almost killed two PCs)

These were the combat encounters. There were a few social events in between as well (interrogating the thugs, sneaking into a club, avoiding some guards). I use milestone, so I brought them to 2nd level after the gith fight. In hindsight, I probably should have done it after the gazer or even after the street gang.

[DevilMcam]

DMG guideline is that PC should hit lvl 2 at then end of session 1 if i'm not mistaken.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, we play short sessions (2 hours or so), and the street gang fight was at the end of the 2nd session, so that would have worked.

I will probably shorten their time in level 2.

[J-H]

The RAW XP for leveling adds up to more time spent at levels 5-10 than any other levels, by XP required to earn.
Having started my campaign at level 3 and the party having hit 11 at the end of the last session, it has all felt about right so far.

[Galaxander]

I've dipped my toes into 5th a little bit, but haven't had much of a chance to play around with it yet. Are CRs for monsters any better than they were in 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know they're just loose guidelines, but I've always been amazed how wildly more or less difficult one creature might be compared to another of the same CR. Of course it also depends on the party's composition. Just curious if anyone has a strong opinion, or if it's about the same.

[KorvinStarmast]

The biggest disappointment in the Monster Manual I have spotted so far is the marilith. It makes 6 sword attacks and can grapple with its tail, and can get a +5 parry bonus to AC against pretty much any melee attack. The only magical ability it has are truesight and teleporting. The players in our one-shot that ran into a marilith referred to her as 'The Blender B(word for female dog)' and with good reason. I think she selected 'puree' when she picked our Paladin as her object of attacks; two of six attacks were crits. :smalleek:

[EggKookoo]

First rule of CR is that CR is only a rough guide. I think regardless of how rigorous WotC could make the CR mechanism, in the end the dice and tactical decisions of the fight will have a much larger influence. This is exacerbated in 5e due to bounded accuracy, which limits to-hit bonuses and AC, which in turn gives greater weight to the dice. CR is best seen as a way to encourage a certain degree of challenge or difficulty for an encounter, but not to guarantee it. Over many encounters, a given CR will yield "expected" results most of the time. But each encounter is unique.

This is really a good thing. If you could ensure a certain level of difficulty to a fight, it runs the risk of making fights too predictable.

[Galaxander]

First rule of CR is that CR is only a rough guide. I think regardless of how rigorous WotC could make the CR mechanism, in the end the dice and tactical decisions of the fight will have a much larger influence. This is exacerbated in 5e due to bounded accuracy, which limits to-hit bonuses and AC, which in turn gives greater weight to the dice. CR is best seen as a way to encourage a certain degree of challenge or difficulty for an encounter, but not to guarantee it. Over many encounters, a given CR will yield "expected" results most of the time. But each encounter is unique.

This is really a good thing. If you could ensure a certain level of difficulty to a fight, it runs the risk of making fights too predictable.

Oh for sure. I would, at most, use CRs to make a short list of monsters to consider and then take a closer look at attack bonus/AC/potential damage and other abilities before choosing what to use.

So in 5th they're even more chancy because of the lower bonuses on rolls. Good to know.

In general, the "bounded accuracy" thing is one of my favorite aspects of 5th. In the Pathfinder game I'm running (or would be running if not for social distancing) all four of my player's characters have pretty good perception, and two of them such high bonuses they rarely check under 20. Basically, they'll spot anything short of invisibility unless I impose convenient penalties/bonuses to compensate.

[stoutstien]

First rule of CR is that CR is only a rough guide. I think regardless of how rigorous WotC could make the CR mechanism, in the end the dice and tactical decisions of the fight will have a much larger influence. This is exacerbated in 5e due to bounded accuracy, which limits to-hit bonuses and AC, which in turn gives greater weight to the dice. CR is best seen as a way to encourage a certain degree of challenge or difficulty for an encounter, but not to guarantee it. Over many encounters, a given CR will yield "expected" results most of the time. But each encounter is unique.

This is really a good thing. If you could ensure a certain level of difficulty to a fight, it runs the risk of making fights too predictable.

Something I've realized is that CR is a misnomer. There's practically no difference in how challenging an encounter with 10 orcs or 20 orcs is. How much damage is received or dealt is a poor metric for challenge because the solution is always the same.
I found that the most memorable and challenging encounters are ones where damage helps but cannot ever truly solve it. I've dubbed it The waterboy effect.

[EggKookoo]

Oh for sure. I would, at most, use CRs to make a short list of monsters to consider and then take a closer look at attack bonus/AC/potential damage and other abilities before choosing what to use.

I think the rule of thumb is, CR = average party level (APL), assuming a party of four. If the party has more or fewer members, there's a method to adjust CR accordingly in the DMG.

I don't use that. In Xanathar's Guide to Everything, there's a set of charts that shows the ratio of PCs-to-monsters for a given CR and APL. For example, at APL 1, each PC is worth two CR 1/8 creatures or one CR 1/4 creature. Or you'll need three level 1 PCs to handle one CR 1/2 creature, and so on. It provides this info for all 20 levels across an appropriate CR range for each level.

What I do is find the 1:1 CR value for my players' APL (which is always the same level since I do milestone leveling). At 2nd level, that's CR 1/2. Then I multiply that by the number of PCs in the party -- in my case, 5. This means I want to hit my part with 5 x 1/2 = CR2.5 encounters for the most part.

What I haven't done, but I should, is scale that CR based on the number of monsters in the encounter, relative to the size of the party. More than 5 monsters should increase the CR slightly, and fewer should decrease it. Right now I don't bother and let the randomness of the fight cover that, but if I wanted to be a completist I'd work out a formula.


So in 5th they're even more chancy because of the lower bonuses on rolls. Good to know.

Yes, and it's exaggerated at low levels. Levels 1-3 are the swingiest thing I've seen. Especially at 1st level. One bad die roll can ruin the party's day. I think that's partly why we're encouraged to get them out of 1st level ASAP, and why many people start at level 3.

[Galaxander]

Something I've realized is that CR is a misnomer. There's practically no difference in how challenging an encounter with 10 orcs or 20 orcs is. How much damage is received or dealt is a poor metric for challenge because the solution is always the same.
I found that the most memorable and challenging encounters are ones where damage helps but cannot ever truly solve it. I've dubbed it The waterboy effect.

This is something I need to get better about. Combat scenarios where beating up all the bad guys isn't an option or doesn't achieve the needed goal can be really cool. I guess that doesn't really change based on edition/ruleset though.

[EggKookoo]

Something I've realized is that CR is a misnomer. There's practically no difference in how challenging an encounter with 10 orcs or 20 orcs is. How much damage is received or dealt is a poor metric for challenge because the solution is always the same.

Also, D&D considers "challenge" not so much in how intense the fight is but more about how many resources you burn through. A higher CR, within reason, isn't necessarily harder or riskier than a lower CR. It just costs you more in spell slots, HP, and other resources like bardic inspiration dice or sorcery points or whatever. Once you get beyond a certain distance from your expected CR based on party level and size, yeah, it can become decidedly dangerous, but that threshold gets wider as the party levels up.

[stoutstien]

Also, D&D considers "challenge" not so much in how intense the fight is but more about how many resources you burn through. A higher CR, within reason, isn't necessarily harder or riskier than a lower CR. It just costs you more in spell slots, HP, and other resources like bardic inspiration dice or sorcery points or whatever. Once you get beyond a certain distance from your expected CR based on party level and size, yeah, it can become decidedly dangerous, but that threshold gets wider as the party levels up.

Its logical until you factor in that no encounter is truly independent from another one unless the game is played with a controlled recovery system. You don't know what the resource pools are going to be for each one so you can't accurately predict the challenge that way. While I agree DND at it's heart is a resource management based game, it's hard to look at past each grouping of encounter per S/L rest. The order of how you lay out deadly encounters has more of an impact than the number of deadly encounters.

On a side note that's the reason why in 4th edition the encounter building system work really well because it was extremely predictable to know what each character would have available each encounter. On the other hand it made them predictable and stagnant.

[Yora]

DMG guideline is that PC should hit lvl 2 at then end of session 1 if i'm not mistaken.

Yeah, we can't do that many fights that quickly. We're spending way too much time with the players investigating, having conversations with NPCs, exploring locations, and planning their strategy for the next steps to do that.

[EggKookoo]

The order of how you lay out deadly encounters has more of an impact than the number of deadly encounters.

The natural response is to craft encounter chains with variable (descending?) CR, rather than standalone encounters. But then you run the risk of your players picking a path outside your chain (or feel forced to railroad them into it, which is worse).

I think the solution is to plan encounters based on CR, or orbit around the nominal "correct" CR for your party, and let them manage their own rests. A chain of CR-appropriate encounters will feel more difficult as resources are used up, until the party self-regulates and rests. That way you don't have to worry about them staying on some plotline or course, and you don't have to worry about changing CRs on the fly to deal with things.


Yeah, we can't do that many fights that quickly. We're spending way too much time with the players investigating, having conversations with NPCs, exploring locations, and planning their strategy for the next steps to do that.

Those things should contribute toward leveling. I expect almost the entirety of my party's experience at 2nd level to consist of social encounters.

[Segev]

Something I've realized is that CR is a misnomer. There's practically no difference in how challenging an encounter with 10 orcs or 20 orcs is. How much damage is received or dealt is a poor metric for challenge because the solution is always the same.
I found that the most memorable and challenging encounters are ones where damage helps but cannot ever truly solve it. I've dubbed it The waterboy effect.

This makes me want to add a yuan-ti to my packs of them that will be coming for my players who doesn't actually have much in the way of abilities. Sure, can turn into a snake, maybe has the standard bite attack, but all it actually does is cast healing word once per round, with a note that I don't count the monsters as "dead" until they fail all their death saves. Maybe a snake-headed malison in appearance. Of course, I expect my players will focus-fire it the moment they see it heal anything. :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

This makes me want to add a yuan-ti to my packs of them that will be coming for my players who doesn't actually have much in the way of abilities. Sure, can turn into a snake, maybe has the standard bite attack, but all it actually does is cast healing word once per round, with a note that I don't count the monsters as "dead" until they fail all their death saves. Maybe a snake-headed malison in appearance. Of course, I expect my players will focus-fire it the moment they see it heal anything. :smallbiggrin:

Sounds fun. I'm running one game with a death cult that members have the ability to performa ritualistic suicide to heal nearby undead and raise corpses as new ones. Some of these cultist also get bonus defense and hp depending on nearby undead. So whole the normal tactic of kill this then that works it isn't necessary the most practical approach.
The cult leader also becomes stronger from each person slain within this particular area.

[Yora]

When we continue next week, I expect the party of 2 level 2s and 4 level 1s to fight against a CR 3 yuan-ti, plus two decorative cultists. They are looking for a big bad and already expect a major fight behind the big fancy door, and they still got all their spells. Sure, it has a lot of hit points, but armor class is very low and the damage is actually not very impressive.
Having a few losses on their side is certainly a possibility, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if they just completely crush it because of numerical superiority.


Those things should contribute toward leveling. I expect almost the entirety of my party's experience at 2nd level to consist of social encounters.

Oh, certainly. But they still need to accomplish some meaningful goal to get XP for it. So far the party overthrow the evil priests and exposed the corruption of the temple to the village mayor. That certainly counts for something but doesn't get the PCs a full or even half a level in itself.

I tried to hunt down where this idea that PCs should gain a certain amount of XP at a certain time comes from, and the only thing I found was a badly worded line that said "estimate how much XP a character that character is expected to earn in a day" when it should clearly have read "is expected to be able to earn in a day". The rest of that paragraph is always talking about estimating how many fights parties should be able to handle in a day.
And it's all in the section about estimating the difficulty of encounters. If the encounters consist of groups of weaker enemies instead of single tough ones, the actual amount of XP is likely to be only half or a third that much. And the fights in our campaign so far have almost all been against large groups.
If you'd actually have the party only fight single monsters and max out the estimated amount of XP they could handle on a day every day, the PCs would be at 17th level at the end of a month. Which would be just ridiculous.

[micahaphone]

Sounds fun. I'm running one game with a death cult that members have the ability to performa ritualistic suicide to heal nearby undead and raise corpses as new ones. Some of these cultist also get bonus defense and hp depending on nearby undead. So whole the normal tactic of kill this then that works it isn't necessary the most practical approach.
The cult leader also becomes stronger from each person slain within this particular area.

Cool idea! Surprisingly, I can't steal this for my upcoming game because 2/3 of my players frequently use nonlethal damage. I'm assuming death cult magic doesn't work when the minions only have bad concussions?

[stoutstien]

Cool idea! Surprisingly, I can't steal this for my upcoming game because 2/3 of my players frequently use nonlethal damage. I'm assuming death cult magic doesn't work when the minions only have bad concussions?

Non-lethal damage is actually what the party is focuses on now have figured out that killing everyone is both more difficult and is potentially helping them reach there goal. This particular party is fairly clever so they will probably come up with something I'd never consider for a solution. They have been capturing and restraining as many undead as they can. Who knows what they have planned lol. I don't think they know yet.

Hack n' slash encounters are fine and can be a lot of fun but they just won't be challenging for most players.

[ScoutTrooper]

... point is that even with a DM "out for blood" it's pretty hard to actually kill a PC.

My first forte in DM'ing, not out for blood, got the party to level 3, they hooked the adventure into Sunless Citadel(Rated to bring level 1's up to level 3).

Party Comp: High Elf Rogue, Minotaur Rogue, Dragonborn WM Sorc, V.Human Paly, V.Human EK.

Again, I was not out for blood, they had just reached the Grove level, triggered the Twig Blights, and Skeletons with shovels. The Bugbear with two giant rats joined at the round specific(2 later). I downed the Minotaur Rogue from a Giant Rat bite. I stopped Agro on him for the Paly. Two rounds later, two failed death saves. Dragonborn knee-slides in for a Medicine check to stablise, rolled a 9, Minotaur fails next death save. R.I.P.

Mind you, the Paly could have taken an action to lay on hands, combat was not going south on them.

SO kinda like your story, except the dice spoketh to kill the PC haha.

[Yora]

Today we finished my adaptation of Against the Cult of the Reptile God with a fight of two 2nd level characters and three 1st level characters against a Yuan-Ti Malison, a Giant Poisonous Snake, and two Cultists. According to the guidelines, that's a 1,600 XP fight, which for this party is beyond the threshold for a deadly encounter.
Well, it wasn't. And I was not the least surprised. But it's really hard to take any lessons from this fight because in the whole 3 rounds that it lasted, not a single enemy managed even one hit. A dissonant whispers did some damage while a guiding bolt missed, but everyone went out unharmed.

Now that everyone is second level I feel more confident in dialing up the risk factor and gamble more with the health of the PCs, but level 1 has been a very strange experience I must say.

[EggKookoo]

Today we finished my adaptation of Against the Cult of the Reptile God with a fight of two 2nd level characters and three 1st level characters against a Yuan-Ti Malison, a Giant Poisonous Snake, and two Cultists. According to the guidelines, that's a 1,600 XP fight, which for this party is beyond the threshold for a deadly encounter.
Well, it wasn't. And I was not the least surprised. But it's really hard to take any lessons from this fight because in the whole 3 rounds that it lasted, not a single enemy managed even one hit. A dissonant whispers did some damage while a guiding bolt missed, but everyone went out unharmed.

Now that everyone is second level I feel more confident in dialing up the risk factor and gamble more with the health of the PCs, but level 1 has been a very strange experience I must say.

Was that fight largely a case of the dice favoring one side over the other? Or would you say both sides rolled about the same?

[Yora]

Definitely in favor for the players. They had a couple of misses and also landed a critical hit for 23 damage, but none of that mattered because because they never got a scratch or had to make any saving throw before the fight was over. I think there really isn't anything to be learned from this. Except perhaps that numerical superiority is still a huge advantage.
I decided to not waste a good opportunity for dramatic effects and had the yuan-ti transform into snake form at the first opportunity, and that was already the first round gone. Then it had only one attack per round, which missed twice, and then the fight was already over.


Evil Overlord List: #34 I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.

I think it was absolutely the right call, though. The golden mask it was wearing before its transformation has already become the center of lots of conflict within the party because of disagreements about the risks that it might be cursed or others might try to track it down magically. This might not have happened without the transformation into a giant snake.
(Seriously: The party gets its first magic item and they immediately are afraid to keep it. This campaign really is different. :smallwink:)

[Tanarii]

Yeah, we can't do that many fights that quickly. We're spending way too much time with the players investigating, having conversations with NPCs, exploring locations, and planning their strategy for the next steps to do that.
Check the Gritty rest variant in the DMG. Sounds like you may need it.

[J-H]

I have learned that boss monster HP needs to go up beyond what the book might suggest. My party, at level 10, managed to flatten a 230HP boss monster in about a round and a half, even with it using all 3 legendary actions to heal itself for 9d12 damage per round. The barbarian GWM critted at least once and did about 130hp damage.

Next level's mummy lord is NOT going to have the book-suggested ~150hp, not if I want him to actually be a threat.

[Yora]

I am keeping this open as an option. But I thought it best not to start fiddling with the basic mechanics of the game while still in the first dungeon.

I don't think it would have made much difference, though. The few 1st level spells that were cast didn't really have much of an impact. And while I think we made two short rests so far, only a single Hit Dice ever got used.
I also have not used random encounters yet.

[Tanarii]

Let's just put it this way, if you're having less than 3 deadly encounters or 4-6 medium to hard ones between each long rest, it'll probably be a walk in the park. It may be a walk in the park anyway, but that's pretty much a way to make sure it is.

[Segev]

Definitely in favor for the players. They had a couple of misses and also landed a critical hit for 23 damage, but none of that mattered because because they never got a scratch or had to make any saving throw before the fight was over. I think there really isn't anything to be learned from this. Except perhaps that numerical superiority is still a huge advantage.
I decided to not waste a good opportunity for dramatic effects and had the yuan-ti transform into snake form at the first opportunity, and that was already the first round gone. Then it had only one attack per round, which missed twice, and then the fight was already over.


Evil Overlord List: #34 I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.

I think it was absolutely the right call, though. The golden mask it was wearing before its transformation has already become the center of lots of conflict within the party because of disagreements about the risks that it might be cursed or others might try to track it down magically. This might not have happened without the transformation into a giant snake.
(Seriously: The party gets its first magic item and they immediately are afraid to keep it. This campaign really is different. :smallwink:)I have determined that turning into a snake isn't what the yuan-ti do for combat. It's how they hide, spy, and slither away as something hard to pick out from the other snakes lurking in the jungle.


Let's just put it this way, if you're having less than 3 deadly encounters or 4-6 medium to hard ones between each long rest, it'll probably be a walk in the park. It may be a walk in the park anyway, but that's pretty much a way to make sure it is.Do you suppose this is by design? Why do they term these "deadly" encounters if they're this easy? :smallconfused:

[EggKookoo]

Definitely in favor for the players. They had a couple of misses and also landed a critical hit for 23 damage, but none of that mattered because because they never got a scratch or had to make any saving throw before the fight was over. I think there really isn't anything to be learned from this. Except perhaps that numerical superiority is still a huge advantage.

My main takeaway from running a low-level 5e campaign is that dice uber alles. I bet I could throw a CR 7 beast at my 2nd-level party and if the dice worked in their favor they'd eat it up.

I suspect it gets more evened out at higher levels, but bounded accuracy puts a limit on it.

[Segev]

My main takeaway from running a low-level 5e campaign is that dice uber alles. I bet I could throw a CR 7 beast at my 2nd-level party and if the dice worked in their favor they'd eat it up.

I suspect it gets more evened out at higher levels, but bounded accuracy puts a limit on it.

What I've determined is that the main thing that sets CRs apart is spike damage. How much can they do in a single hit? There's more accuracy as you get big enough differences in CR, but it's mostly about the damage output and damage they can soak before dropping.

The danger to your PCs is that a high-CR-for-their-level creature will deal enough damage to one- or two-shot them, so a lucky hit or so will wipe them out. If they miss a lot, or your PCs have good damage mitigation strategies, they can handle very high CR critters...it'll just take a while.

[Yora]

I have determined that turning into a snake isn't what the yuan-ti do for combat. It's how they hide, spy, and slither away as something hard to pick out from the other snakes lurking in the jungle.

The malison type 3 at least gains a poisonous bite attack when turning into a snake. The type 1 and 2 and the abomination only lose ability and gain nothing in return. And all of them lose their multiattack, which hurts. For combat it's always a bad choice with no gains.

But I wanted my adventure boss to turn into a giant snake during the final fight, and it got it! :smallyuk:

[Segev]

The malison type 3 at least gains a poisonous bite attack when turning into a snake. The type 1 and 2 and the abomination only lose ability and gain nothing in return. And all of them lose their multiattack, which hurts. For combat it's always a bad choice with no gains.

But I wanted my adventure boss to turn into a giant snake during the final fight, and it got it! :smallyuk:

So you did! I hope it was suitably dramatic.

As a suggestion, you might try doing it the other way, as well: a snake slithers up and transforms into a terrifying snake-man hybrid.

[EggKookoo]

What I've determined is that the main thing that sets CRs apart is spike damage. How much can they do in a single hit? There's more accuracy as you get big enough differences in CR, but it's mostly about the damage output and damage they can soak before dropping.

The danger to your PCs is that a high-CR-for-their-level creature will deal enough damage to one- or two-shot them, so a lucky hit or so will wipe them out. If they miss a lot, or your PCs have good damage mitigation strategies, they can handle very high CR critters...it'll just take a while.

Yes, this is very true. And as Yora said, numbers matter. Four-on-four, even CR, is a certain difficulty. Four PCs to five monsters, even CR, is noticeably harder. Harder, depending on actual comp, than four-on-four, CR+1.

It's not unreasonable. Numbers matter a lot in real life fight as well, often trumping individual skill.

[Segev]

Yes, this is very true. And as Yora said, numbers matter. Four-on-four, even CR, is a certain difficulty. Four PCs to five monsters, even CR, is noticeably harder. Harder, depending on actual comp, than four-on-four, CR+1.

It's not unreasonable. Numbers matter a lot in real life fight as well, often trumping individual skill.

I've actually found numbers to matter less in this edition than earlier ones. Bounded accuracy is a thing, but still, monsters tend to miss a LOT. And if you're doing more of them, they do less damage (assuming you're scaling down CR when scaling up numbers). Outnumber the party 3:1 with bog standard skeletons and they'll barely break a sweat at level 4.

[Yora]

Unless it's CR 1/8 critters. My players have been wading through seas of them with barely any scratches.
Next week the level 2 part will encounter several bandit leaders and thugs. I am really curious how that will turn out.

One strong leader with harmless minions does not seem to be a threat. But if a considerable number of enemies can stay in the fight for more than a round and actually use their special abilities, things might change significantly. Especially when multiattack comes into play and pack tactics on top of that. That looks like it could actually get nasty.