I love running low-level adventures for Dungeons & Dragons. The early levels of the game can provide memorable experiences.

However, there are things I dislike seeing in adventure designs for that level of play.

I do not enjoy it when first level is one incredibly dangerous combat and that’s it. I am also not particularly fond of party fighting a lone boss monster at level 1.

The trouble with a group of PCs against one foe is that typically the action economy works against it being exciting. Or the foe just knocks PCs unconscious with a blow to keep it “interesting”, which isn’t that for the players. This type of combat can be very “swingy”. A couple of lucky hits and the party is losing, and characters may die. Or the enemy dies in a couple of rounds.

One enemy can work, but it requires special consideration – and at level 1, that is hard to find.

The Impact of Low-Levels

I think the early levels of Dungeons & Dragons 5e are incredibly well designed. But be mindful that one of their purposes is to introduce players to the game without overwhelming them. If you have experienced players, you might be better off starting at 3rd level.

The best example of brilliant low-level design to me is the rogue.

At level 1, you have Sneak Attack. You learn about attacking creatures adjacent to your allies to gain the damage bonus.

At level 2, you gain Cunning Action. You learn about Hiding from monsters to attack or running in and back using Disengage as a bonus action.

At level 3, you take a specialty, and your main suite of abilities is complete. It is a great progression to introduce new players to what can be a complex class (tactically speaking).

So, low-level play is great for introducing new players to the game rules.

Experienced players tend to fit into two camps:

One group wants to play through level 1-3 to provide more early-life experiences to their PC to guide role-playing.

The other group know the mechanics and their character concept and can start at level 3 without problems.

Consider your group and what they desire when starting a game.

The Challenges of First Level Combat

When you write a first-level adventure, the object is not to kill the PCs. But you can include encounters that challenge them and require thought.

Combat, that major pillar of Dungeons & Dragons play, is less forgiving at first level. It is very easy to go from having a living character to a dead character in a single blow. While there are some who enjoy this sort of challenge, it is not safe to assume you have that sort of player!

Consider the case of Bob Meyer, whose character (Bob the Hero) was killed in the very first session of Blackmoor, the campaign that would go on to create Dungeons & Dragons. He was so annoyed that he didn’t play in the campaign for some time afterwards.

My favourite type of combat encounter is against several weak foes. In general, every player feels engaged as all can kill opponents, while the foes aren’t individually taking out any PC – at least not at once.

The players get a chance to see when things go poorly.

“The monster won initiative and two of you are unconscious before you act,” isn’t the best thing to hear. Especially when you’re in a group of three or four players!

This isn’t to say you can never pit the party against one dangerous foe. But I have found difficult to pull off well.

How Many Combats? And What Other Challenges?

I prefer several small combats at level 1 compared to one big one primarily because it gives players more a chance to see how their characters work in combat.

If there’s just one combat, they never get to explore what they can do in different situations.

Of course, I also think a good level 1 adventure should involve non-combat activities. (The impish side of me wants to say, “Like running away from foes!”)

It really helps when you can craft the adventure yourself to highlight the abilities of the characters.

“Oh, you’re trained in Arcana? That’s useful in this section with these weird runes!”

This is one of those times when I like resolving success or failure in a task purely on whether you’re trained in the skill or not. Rather than relying on a die roll. Although it depends on the situation.

Role-playing, investigations, exploration – you can use numerous elements in the early adventures so that everything does not revolve around combat.

It is worth considering that spell-casters at first level are very limited in how many “big” spells they can cast. First-level spells can completely change the course of a combat – just think of what sleep and thunderwave can do. However, if you have four combats, then an individual caster cannot cast those spells in more than two of them. Because they have cantrips, they can contribute usefully even without their first-level spells. However, if you design a combat around the presence of those spells, consider that that caster may not have in the third or fourth combat.

Which is great – it allows different members of the party to shine. The spell-casters have combats they do very well in, and so do the fighters. Rather than having just one combat that might go very well or poorly or exclude players.

I think about four or five battles is about as much as you’d want in a single adventuring day at first level – and that mostly against lesser foes.

Which Monsters to Use?

What do I consider a lesser foe? Well, my perfect monster is pretty much the cultist. It has poor hit points and AC, so one or two hits can take them down, and the characters can hit them often. Its only weapon is a scimitar with a poor (+3) attack bonus and deals only 4 damage – so that most characters must be hit three times before going down.

This is the sort of enemy that gives the party a chance to react if things go wrong.

One trouble I have with both kobolds and giant rats is their pack tactics special ability. They hit too often for my liking. It is great when you use them against higher-level characters, but against first-level characters it makes them a riskier option.

Does this mean that using more dangerous foes is a mistake? Not at all! However, this is where encounter design comes into it.

Imagine a door bursts open, an ogre runs into the room and attacks the party with surprise. Two PCs are dead before anyone can react. It is memorable, but it is not likely a good experience for everyone.

The converse is that the party get to spy on the ogre in advance and come up with a plan for tackling it – or for avoiding the ogre altogether. Now the players have choices that lead to a risky situation, but they can do so in a way that mitigates the risk.

As a side note, any time the heroes get to fight a combat at range when they have ranged weapons and the opponents do not is likely very good for the party and bad for the opponents. The converse is also true.

What About Puzzles?

Puzzles are very divisive amongst the player base, with good reason. Some groups adore them, while others think they are horrible. (Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything has a lot of example puzzles in it, and I’ve seen them elsewhere in 5e as well).

Puzzles can have a drawback of existing primarily for players to solve rather than their characters – without recourse to character abilities at all. Role-playing interactions, even if they’re not using game mechanics, tend to depend on game knowledge. You blackmail the Count based on knowledge about his illegal activities you’ve learnt in the game.

Too many puzzles are just word play or number logic that doesn’t map to the campaign world at all. Or, even when they do, it is a thin veneer.

I really enjoy puzzles from time to time, but that’s because I’m good at them. (Certain sorts, that is!)

But then I look around the players who have no love for stepping outside of their characters to solve a puzzle and realise I’m the only one having fun.

Where puzzles work best is when they relate directly to campaign knowledge. Investigations are a type of puzzle where the players assemble clues found in the campaign world into a solution. Those are the sort I enjoy.

Shawn Merwin, in his adventure Ice Road Trackers has a puzzle where you have to match glyphs to a god. That’s quite a nice puzzle because you can solve it with player knowledge (you know the lore of the game), through ingenuity (oh, the god must have that symbol!), or through in-game skills (Religion helps identify the solution). Or you can just guess!

How Long Should the Adventure Be?

The design of Dungeons & Dragons 5e presumes that first level should take a single session of approximately four hours before the characters reach second level. Roughly.

I have seen scenarios that go for one hour before the characters reach level 2.

I have not seen scenarios that go longer than four hours, but I presume that some groups run at such a slower pace.

However, I think for most groups, between two and four hours is sufficient. My preference is four hours, as it gives enough time for the players to properly explore their abilities and participate in a range of activities. But, perhaps more strongly, I believe they should reach second level when the first session ends. With luck, there will be a complete story – or chapter of a story – that they have experienced. One expedition into the dungeons, one task for a patron complete, or something of that nature.