Level Up (A5E) If it's not broke don't fix it

[CapnZapp]

Just a friendly reminder that if this project is going to succeed, it's dev team needs to resist all the well-meaning suggestions and proposals to basically transform the game.

The basic question is: is this meant as a spiritual "advanced 5E Dungeons & Dragons" in everything except name and trade dress...

...or is it a more regular entry in the D&D sphere, like the dozens of not hundreds of other games that precede it?

I believe that in order to be perceived as a "advanced 5E Dungeons & Dragons" game, most of the game must feel familiar if not remain identical.

Each change needs to be carefully considered: does the benefits of the change outweigh the drawbacks?

This question is clearly not at the forefront of lots of suggestions in the other threads. That's okay, as long as it is for the dev team.

 

[Lefi2017]

I think it should bed just a bunch of modular rules you can be used to replace or witch out parts for 5e

like an alternative of remove short rests and still make classes like warlock monk and other short rest focused classes still us full

it also should not be complexity for complexity’s sake
More complex doesn't equal better or even something so subjective as fun
Player options should also not result into more work for the Dm or to overpowered Players

It should not be a just player focused product

 

[TwoSix]

I would cautiously agree, but with the caveat that what's important is that the outcome (i.e., the created character) remains compatible with 5E, not necessarily the process of creating it.

Ideally, characters should have the same general design (stats, proficiencies, and granted features) within the same range of max bonuses (about +5 at level 1, up to +11 at Tier 4). The action economy shouldn't change, so that a 5E character is still playable at a Level Up table. But most of the 5E design considerations, like ASIs every 4 levels, Extra Attack, the structure of feats, should all be on the list to consider changeable. It's OK, to me, if a Level Up sorcerer or ranger is straight up better than its 5E corollary, as long as it doesn't exceed the bounds of something like a sorcadin or sorlock.

 

[dave2008]

I think it should bed just a bunch of modular rules you can be used to replace or witch out parts for 5e

That is specifically what they said they don't want to do.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is specifically what they said they don't want to do.

At least not for this product.

 

[aco175]

I would hope that there are parts that can be used and parts that do not suit my table. I want to be able to take parts and not take others without needing to choose all the parts. Something like the optional rules for flanking where I find them ok and play with them whiles others are just the opposite.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would cautiously agree, but with the caveat that what's important is that the outcome (i.e., the created character) remains compatible with 5E, not necessarily the process of creating it.

Of course.

I mean, of course - if the process is the same, nothing's changed!

What I mean is that perhaps the most important job of the dev team is to ensure each change really works towards the (as of yet not) stated design goals. If a change is merely "neat", it probably shouldn't be included.

There's a lot of suggestions. The project can only include so many before the end product becomes something else than recognizably 5th edition, only crunchier.

So each one needs to be carefully weighed against the cumulative risk of the end project coming across as just another D&D clone, instead of something still clearly recognizable as 5th edition.

It is in that context, I'm saying if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

In other words, don't include something just 'cause you think it's better. Is it so much better it justifies deviating from 5E?

I believe that in nearly all cases the answer is "questionable" at best. Of course, the team still needs to select some changes, or there's no product.

Just be aware that each one has a clear cost. Even a seemingly small change can cumulatively cause the community to go "meh, it's good, but it no longer feels like 5E" which, given what we know of the goals, would make it a failure.

Tldr don't change the damage of a short sword (or whatever) just because. Only change what absolutely needs to change to meet the project's goals.

I would say losing sight of this is by far the biggest risk with a project such as this.

 

[Morrus]

The project can only include so many before the end product becomes something else than recognizably 5th edition, only crunchier.

I've said plenty of times in the last 24 hours that this is going to be 5E but a bit crunchier. I don't know how else to say it.

 

[TwoSix]

I've said plenty of times in the last 24 hours that this is going to be 5E but a bit crunchier. I don't know how else to say it.

I have no doubt that's the the design intent as of August 2020, but with a year-plus to go and a passionate, vocal fanbase offering suggestions, the urge to fix just one more thing is going to be really strong. Strong editing is probably going to be even more important than strong design chops for this kind of project.

Not that I think you guys can't pull it off, (I have total faith!) but @CapnZapp's observations echo my own reservations in terms of the possibility of scope creep.

 

[Fenris-77]

I have great faith in the ability of @Morrus and his crack team of game ninjas to hold back the urge to cater to every wish-listing bit of input they get.