Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Haldrik]

I see no need for setting guide personally and Morrus has made no mention of one. Furthermore,, since this is not going to be on DMsGuild, they can't really talk about official D&D settings.

However, you don't need to appeal to me - your not going to win me over. Work on Morrus if you want to get your ideas in the book.

A5E makes "culture" more important.

This necessarily means the setting becomes significant.

 

[dave2008]

I have tinkered with translating the Player Handbook classes and races into feat units, and it works fine. Occasionally a feature shifts to a different level, but it works out well.

I've wanted to give it a try, but haven't ever done the work.

 

[NotAYakk]

That is functionality similar. You have just made it each feat at a given level must be equal. Which is more rigid IMO. What I would like to see is:

1. Class features being roughly equal (probably with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of class features.
2. SubClass features being roughly equal (possibly with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of subclass features.
3. Feats being roughly equal with no prerequisites (just like 5e now)

This provides a lot more design variety and flexibility, but it is more difficult to pull off well.

This requires design to be very rigid.

Suppose you want to make sure that a level 7 character has a certain amount of stuff to do in combat, in social situations, and when exploring.

So at level 1 3 5 7 you gain a combat feature, at level 1 4 you gain an exploration feature, and at level 2 6 you gain a social feature.

Now we permit swapping. Someone goes and builds a character where all 8 features are combat features.

They are utterly incompetent at exploration and social situations, but dominate during combat.

The resulting gameplay experience of everyone at that table suffers, because that one player has every reason to push everything towards combat, and has not much to do when it isn't combat. Meanwhile, everyone else's combat fun is drained, because that one PC dominates.

---

If you permitted level-by-level swapping of features, then suddenly you have to follow a rigid plan between classes, where everyone at level X gets a feature that impact gameplay to amount Y in sphere Z.

A class couldn't have a "charm" ability that was mainly useful out of combat, but also could do something in combat, because it wouldn't fit this rigid pattern. And if you broke the rigid pattern, the combat-optimized character would grab the social abilities with the maximum combat impact, going back to square 1.

---

When only a bounded part of your character's power budget is available for such swapping, or the swapping is controlled, you can mitigate this.

You aren't swapping "I can get an audience with the king" for "1/day fireball". You are swapping "I can get an audience with the king" for "Once per day when I fail a knowledge check, I know where I can find the answer".

 

[Haldrik]

However, you don't need to appeal to me - your not going to win me over. Work on Morrus if you want to get your ideas in the book.

My main interest is to see if you have concerns that I might agree with.

For example, siloing the defaults into one chapter, is something I might not have done. But seems to have merit after discussing issues with you.

 

[Gradine]

At the same time, the customizer might want to swap out one feature for an other. Some abilities have dual-use, useful for both combat and civilian uses. So, siloing is more for thematic convenience.

Ideally, in a re-designed, Advanced 5e, most class abilities would be dual-use, as encounter design (and especially combat design) takes into account the wide range of the character's talents and abilities, to allow for a much wider range of encounter resolutions, beyond "Enemy HP=0"

 

[dave2008]

A5E makes "culture" more important.

This necessarily means the setting becomes significant.

Well, to be honest we don't know that yet. On top of that, it would be fine (IMO) to provide a bunch of generic cultures to choose from. Again, they simply can't provide setting information (at least for WotC settings) in this Kickstarter. So I see no need to ask for something they can't provide.

 

[Haldrik]

I've wanted to give it a try, but haven't ever done the work.

Organizing PH into feat units is super useful for the Apprentice Tier, levels 1 to 4.

At level 1, there is so much front loading, between laying down race abilities and setting up a class.

Combing out these features into feat units clarifies the design space.

What is cool is, one can easily swap out one feat to gain proficiencies with armor or cantrips, or tweak race abilities, or so on.

For example, a Wizard that can handle a longsword is easily doable − and balances well. Conversely, a Fighter can pick up a useful cantrip, like Light.

 

[Haldrik]

Ideally, in a re-designed, Advanced 5e, most class abilities would be dual-use, as encounter design (and especially combat design) takes into account the wide range of the character's talents and abilities, to allow for a much wider range of encounter resolutions, beyond "Enemy HP=0"

And so many abilities that target a creature, become useful in exploration if usable against an unattended object.

 

[dave2008]

This requires design to be very rigid.

Suppose you want to make sure that a level 7 character has a certain amount of stuff to do in combat, in social situations, and when exploring.

So at level 1 3 5 7 you gain a combat feature, at level 1 4 you gain an exploration feature, and at level 2 6 you gain a social feature.

Now we permit swapping. Someone goes and builds a character where all 8 features are combat features.

They are utterly incompetent at exploration and social situations, but dominate during combat.

The resulting gameplay experience of everyone at that table suffers, because that one player has every reason to push everything towards combat, and has not much to do when it isn't combat. Meanwhile, everyone else's combat fun is drained, because that one PC dominates.

---

If you permitted level-by-level swapping of features, then suddenly you have to follow a rigid plan between classes, where everyone at level X gets a feature that impact gameplay to amount Y in sphere Z.

A class couldn't have a "charm" ability that was mainly useful out of combat, but also could do something in combat, because it wouldn't fit this rigid pattern. And if you broke the rigid pattern, the combat-optimized character would grab the social abilities with the maximum combat impact, going back to square 1.

---

When only a bounded part of your character's power budget is available for such swapping, or the swapping is controlled, you can mitigate this.

You aren't swapping "I can get an audience with the king" for "1/day fireball". You are swapping "I can get an audience with the king" for "Once per day when I fail a knowledge check, I know where I can find the answer".

What you describe is pretty much exactly the issue Haldrik's design would run into and not what I am advocating (mildly). But your making assumptions about my suggestion that are incorrect. The assumption I had was that everything I proposed would be combat oriented. You could not pick all combat vs all exploration and have an unbalanced party. Social & exploration options would be along side or separate from the combat options.

To be clear again, I am not advocating that Level Up! follow my suggestion. I am not the target audience. We are happy with 5e and our few house rules.

 

[Haldrik]

Well, to be honest we don't know that yet. On top of that, it would be fine (IMO) to provide a bunch of generic cultures to choose from. Again, they simply can't provide setting information (at least for WotC settings) in this Kickstarter. So I see no need to ask for something they can't provide.

Whether they defer to Forgotten Realms or supply a new setting, there cannot be a "cultures" without a setting.