Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[TwoSix]

Is that the stated goal?

From Morrus's Post announcing the project:

"A crunchier, more flexible version of the 5E ruleset which you know and love. If you love 5E but would like a little more depth to the ruleset, Level Up is the game for you!

...

This is an ‘advanced’ version of the 5E ruleset, presented as a hardcover standalone game. It adds more customization and depth to the game. Basically, it’s a ‘crunchier’ version of 5th Edition."

Now, I admit that modularity and flexibility go hand-in-hand like peanut butter and bananas in an Elvis sandwich, but there seems to be an awful lot of crunch involved.

And, for that matter, there is the whole idea of a proposed toggle between cinematic (4e?) and gritty (OSR?) versions of the rules, although it doesn't seem like that is going to garner support from the masses. The lesson, as always? The masses suck.

There is one thing I am certain of, however. There is nothing more enjoyable than arguing over the features of a non-existent product! I declare myself the imaginary winner!

When it comes to D&D-like games, "crunchier" and "modular" have a pretty tight correlation. To add more rules without giving characters an entire grocery list of abilities, you need to turn each feature gain into a menu of options, i.e. make the feature modular.

On top of that, adding in different rules sets to allow for tuning of the game also requires adding modular rules sets to replace sections of the default rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When it comes to D&D-like games, "crunchier" and "modular" have a pretty tight correlation. To add more rules without giving characters an entire grocery list of abilities, you need to turn each feature gain into a menu of options, i.e. make the feature modular.

On top of that, adding in different rules sets to allow for tuning of the game also requires adding modular rules sets to replace sections of the default rules.

This isn't just "more rules," however. Joking aside, the stated goal is for this to be run as a stand-alone system (assumedly based on the OGL SRD).

I think that as they continue to refine and design the product, they will realize that "modularity" is not quite as easy to achieve as they might think right now. I mean, "modularity" and "flexibility" were the stated goals of 5e, and while they did a great job (IMO) there are still many people that gripe about aspects of it and complain that it doesn't support the modules that they are looking for- and we are many, many hardcovers in.

 

[TwoSix]

This isn't just "more rules," however. Joking aside, the stated goal is for this to be run as a stand-alone system (assumedly based on the OGL SRD).

I think that as they continue to refine and design the product, they will realize that "modularity" is not quite as easy to achieve as they might think right now. I mean, "modularity" and "flexibility" were the stated goals of 5e, and while they did a great job (IMO) there are still many people that gripe about aspects of it and complain that it doesn't support the modules that they are looking for- and we are many, many hardcovers in.

I don't see a reason not to think one of the core goals is to take the core 5e classes, and change a bunch of fixed features into optional features; i.e. make them modular. I don't think the main focus is to add in entirely new modules of rules, like an Unearthed Arcana book for 5e. As you said, they want the game to be stand-alone, not a toolkit for 5e.

To be clear, when I say "modular", I'm talking about adding menu options into the base classes. Fighting Style is a modular option, Action Surge is not. I'm less concerned about swappable rule sets, like adding in gritty rests or something.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't see a reason not to think one of the core goals is to take the core 5e classes, and change a bunch of fixed features into optional features; i.e. make them modular. I don't think the main focus is to add in entirely new modules of rules, like an Unearthed Arcana book for 5e. As you said, they want the game to be stand-alone, not a toolkit for 5e.

To be clear, when I say "modular", I'm talking about adding menu options into the base classes. Fighting Style is a modular option, Action Surge is not. I'm less concerned about swappable rule sets, like adding in gritty rests or something.

Even that level of modularity (which ... I wouldn't call modularity- usually, when people refer to things being "modular" they mean they they can swap things in and out, not that they have multiple choice points at a given level for a class, but that's neither here nor there) causes severe design problems.

The thing is, if you're talking about D&D, especially a book that purports to have "crunch" and be "Advanced D&D," it's going to attract optimizers. So you're going to need to make sure things are balanced. Which gets into the whole issue of choice, as opposed meaningful choice (I think this came up in another thread with Morrus discussing the product).

The reason 5e has the system it does (with usually a baked-in ability per level, and a very limited subclass design space) is because it makes balance that much easier. As soon as you start providing multiple choice-points per level, the amount of possible issues begins to increase at an exponential rate; and then you have to worry about multiclassing, feats, and other unforeseen interactions.

Which means that you either have to balance those choice points so that they are limited and almost mechanically identical (fighting style) AND can't stack with further choice points later on (because of BA), or you start running into serious issues.

Anyway, I really hope that this project works, but I also have some severe misgivings about the overall conception of the product. The foremost is that they are going about it using the WoTC method of public feedback and consensus. That is a great method to use- if you are the market leader or in a strong position, and you are trying to appeal to the mass audience. But ... again, IMO, they aren't. They need to have a strong vision that appeals to a narrower audience that will pay for it. But maybe I'm wrong. After all, I thought no one would see Titanic- WE KNOW HOW IT ENDS!

 

[tetrasodium]

Even that level of modularity (which ... I wouldn't call modularity- usually, when people refer to things being "modular" they mean they they can swap things in and out, not that they have multiple choice points at a given level for a class, but that's neither here nor there) causes severe design problems.

The thing is, if you're talking about D&D, especially a book that purports to have "crunch" and be "Advanced D&D," it's going to attract optimizers. So you're going to need to make sure things are balanced. Which gets into the whole issue of choice, as opposed meaningful choice (I think this came up in another thread with Morrus discussing the product).

The reason 5e has the system it does (with usually a baked-in ability per level, and a very limited subclass design space) is because it makes balance that much easier. As soon as you start providing multiple choice-points per level, the amount of possible issues begins to increase at an exponential rate; and then you have to worry about multiclassing, feats, and other unforeseen interactions.

Which means that you either have to balance those choice points so that they are limited and almost mechanically identical (fighting style) AND can't stack with further choice points later on (because of BA), or you start running into serious issues.

Anyway, I really hope that this project works, but I also have some severe misgivings about the overall conception of the product. The foremost is that they are going about it using the WoTC method of public feedback and consensus. That is a great method to use- if you are the market leader or in a strong position, and you are trying to appeal to the mass audience. But ... again, IMO, they aren't. They need to have a strong vision that appeals to a narrower audience that will pay for it. But maybe I'm wrong. After all, I thought no one would see Titanic- WE KNOW HOW IT ENDS!

Just from jumping in on a really long thread over the last couple posts, I think @TwoSix is right & your wrong unless you start splitting hairs over the meaning of complexity & if your applying to the system or difficulty involved in modifying it. 5e has very few structral frameworks that are leveraged.

Spoiler: for example

• When classes get archetypes is all over the map so any houserules involving that needs 13 or more individual versions.
• If classes are multiclass friendly frontloaded things or not depends on well... on if it's a charisma based class or not.
• When characters get asi/feats is 100% unpredictable because some classe get extras but still call them just a plain "ASI" so any houseruling needs to specifically account for each possible class/achetype that gives a feat being. The regular ASI tied to class levels rather than character level can further complicate things
• Compressing the feat chains was a neat idea in theory, but it pretty much resulted in a handful of must have feats to select from and not enough free wiggle room for players to really pick up those fun fluff feats like skilled & such without seriously hamstringing themselves as opposed to a handful of feat chains that are pretty much must have for any given build but there was room for a player to pick something a little bit fluff & those chains had ways of branching into slightly different forks
• A bunch of formerly half & 2/3 casters were made into full casters to simplify things, but then their class abilities need to be balanced around being full casters and anything aimed at actual full casters where their entire identity is wrapped in being a caster have all these dabblers also casting x level spells & any treasure/feat/etc aimed at casters needs to consider both groupings as well as hybrid multiclasses
• Practically every ability is a one off stand alone edge case operating as an isolated island so you can't just add in grid combat rules with movement & action restrictions/costs (ie 5 foot step/shift & AoOs) because you'd need to go through and one by one spell out how each ability works.
• instead of getting a set amount of hit points back from natural healing when you set down for the night you roll hit dice whenever you take a smoke break & get all your spells/all your hp/all your class abilitities back when you take a long rest & settle down for the night. Great, but now a GM can't screw with those using houserules very much & even wotc's dmg based options for doing so are a borked mess because classes are all over the map in what they get from what rest & how much they need each type.
• There's no ability damage... sure it's easier to track... but now there's all these monster specific effects that all have less impact in the morning than the twelve bottles of vodka the party drank before settling down for the night
• cantrips are all single attack things that scale with extra dice based on character level even when multiclassing & extra attacks are class based things that scalebased o class level ... unless it's eldritch blast then it's the better of the two whenever convenient.
• so on & so forth

There is indeed a sweet spot between the two, but 5e goes so far into simplicity for the sake of simplicity that it makes it dramatically more complex & difficult to work with if your game style is anything but the one true style of campaign that wotc built it for (exhibita: "embrace the imbalance" & "encourae players to learn that spell over less iconc ones", exhibitb "which was not a part of our original design", exhibitc simplicity for simplicity causing problems for 5e itself even limited to core 5e alone).

 

[Maxperson]

A simple example: if you put level limits on demi-human PCs in your setting such that, say, Elves can't go higher than 10th level in Bard, your players have a right to be truly hacked off if you introduce them to a 15th-level NPC Elven Bard in that campaign.

I only kinda agree with that. If I were introduced to said Bard, I wouldn't be upset in the slightest. I'd be curious about how he got around the limitation. Once learned if I could not also use the same method to get around the limitation, THEN I'd be a bit cheesed about it. It's still the same idea, though. What one can do, the other should also be able to do.

 

[TwoSix]

I only kinda agree with that. If I were introduced to said Bard, I wouldn't be upset in the slightest. I'd be curious about how he got around the limitation. Once learned if I could not also use the same method to get around the limitation, THEN I'd be a bit cheesed about it. It's still the same idea, though. What one can do, the other should also be able to do.

That's how I run things. (Although not using level limits, of course.) Nothing is off the table for the player to potentially gain or learn, it's simply not codified and player facing. It has to be acquired within the flow of the story.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's still the same idea, though. What one can do, the other should also be able to do.

I understand your and @Lanefan's POV, but the designers have stated flat out that there are lots of features monsters/NPCs get that PCs just don't have access to, and vice versa. NPCs in 5E are not classes characters by default. You can make them that way (I prefer it myself for pivotal NPCs), but you don't have to.

For a quick example, Aarakocra have a Dive Attack feature in the MM, but the PC race doesn't get that.

I'm not saying either way is right or wrong, just 5E doesn't assume by default that NPCs and PCs must be compatible in the features they can have.

 

[Maxperson]

I understand your and @Lanefan's POV, but the designers have stated flat out that there are lots of features monsters/NPCs get that PCs just don't have access to, and vice versa.

Sure, but that's only because of potential balance/playtest issues. If you don't mind a PC learning Mind Blast like an Illithid from the great Psionic Donut in the sky, then it can happen. And there is no "vice versa," because there are rules for monsters and NPCs to have classes and levels, so monsters and NPCs already have access to everything PCs get.

NPCs in 5E are not classes characters by default. You can make them that way (I prefer it myself for pivotal NPCs), but you don't have to.

Sure. That's more for ease of creation than from any real desire to keep them separate from PCs, though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whoa, what a thread!

I am afraid that the poll is flawed as it conflating two separate issues, thus any results will be next to worthless. A lot of arguments in the first twenty pages of so was due this.

I think the characters should be 'exceptional' in a sense that they're better than an average commoner. This effectively means having a higher point buy total or more generous rolling method than the said commoner. However, PCs certainly aren't only such 'exceptional' or 'gifted' individuals in the setting, important NPCs, be they allies or foes can be such too.

But the PCs shouldn't be 'exceptional' in the sense that they can be anything at all. They and NPCs alike should have same species rules applied to them. So yes, perhaps you can imagine a halfling that is a larger than average and has spent their whole life lifting weights. They will be exceptionally strong, and that will be achieved by putting 15 in their strength; they will be exceptionally strong for a halfling and pretty damn strong for anyone. But the same things that made that halfling exceptional can apply to an half-orc too and a larger than average half-orc who has spent their whole life lifting weights will be stronger than that super strong halfling and have strength of 17. And letting that halfling to have that same +2 to strength than the half-orc gets would make just as much sense than letting that half-orc to have wings like aarakochra, because, hey the PCs are exceptional!