Level Up (A5E) #1 Origins Playtest Document - (Heritage) Nitty Gritty Feedback

[Stalker0]

I only super-quickly breezed through the document but one thing jumped out at me.

The gnome ability to get +1 to AC when attacked by a medium or larger opponent.....strikes me as being a callback to the 3e era of stacking up countless small modifiers instead of relying on the 5e basics. Unless Level Up is planning on reintroducing lots of these style mini-modifiers I would suggest that this be somehow reworked to drop the +1 AND the Medium+ and instead use advantage/disadvantage.

I somewhat agree with your point that we have to be very careful about situational bonuses getting out of hand. However, the reason this one doesn't bother me is that normally when the encounter contains small creatures, its most or all of the monsters in the encounter. I admit this is a large generalization, but that has been my experience. Since Levelup is intended to be crunchier, I think a little bonus stacking comes with the territory.

So I would expect the Gnome to just add +1 to its AC, and in the times its actually fighting small creatures it subtracts. And as long as that is the only AC modifier for the character I think that's fine. Now if its +1 AC for that, but then +1 AC in swamp, and +1 AC against flying creatures....etc etc, then we are back in the situational muck.

 

[clearstream]

I never really liked how expertise worked in 5e & have found it works much better without the problematic autosucceed that goes with it if you change it to advantage on the proficiency die (dmg263) rather than just flat proficiency *2. Doing that has the added advantage of allowing +x gear that just sets the floor for what you can roll on the proficiency die rather than giving bigger numbers.

View attachment 125755
Also it seems that (dis)advantage will be reworked. changing it to a numeric value you add up & reroll if above/below got floated a while back by Morrus here that would make it much more granular & fine grained.

As to guidace, clerics start with 3 cantrips with a 4th at level3 & nearly always take it because its on of the few good ones they have available & that number of good ones just happens to ad up to 3.
View attachment 125756
Guidance is a near total nonissue in play

I agree that using a die for proficiency opens up some design space. Also seems a bit more fun to me. I might go to the trouble of implementing it in my campaign on Fantasy Grounds (you have to put a custom effect on each character). Doesn't touch the all-advantage problem, ofc.

If you are not a cleric, but getting a cleric cantrip, guidance is very often better than the other options. That's because you're usually most benefited by spending your action on the main attack option that your (non-clerical) class already gives you. The most compelling reason to not take guidance is if your party already has access to it. As a cleric, I'd be unlikely to take both sacred flame and toll the dead, because of spare the dying... and you can only spend your action on one attack-cantrip a turn anyway. Light is also not terrible, given it can be cast on objects, lasts an hour, and doesn't take concentration.

 

[clearstream]

New Power Description

Underfoot: Adept at using the clumsiness of your attackers in your favor, melee attacks against you gain disadvantage. If your size is not already Small, your size becomes Small.

Do you mean all melee attacks against gnomes are at disadvantage? Or just medium and larger (i.e. nearly all creatures likely to be attacking)? Either is really too strong. Partly because it entails that medium and larger (or all) creatures can't get advantage when attacking a gnome. At best they go even.

Were I going down that route, I would use language like "When a medium or larger creature makes a melee attack against you, you can use your reaction to give that attack disadvantage. Etc..." So once a round, on a single attack. Still quite strong, but also prevents you stacking it with other reaction abilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree that using a die for proficiency opens up some design space. Also seems a bit more fun to me. I might go to the trouble of implementing it in my campaign on Fantasy Grounds (you have to put a custom effect on each character). Doesn't touch the all-advantage problem, ofc.

If you are not a cleric, but getting a cleric cantrip, guidance is very often better than the other options. That's because you're usually most benefited by spending your action on the main attack option that your (non-clerical) class already gives you. The most compelling reason to not take guidance is if your party already has access to it. As a cleric, I'd be unlikely to take both sacred flame and toll the dead, because of spare the dying... and you can only spend your action on one attack-cantrip a turn anyway. Light is also not terrible, given it can be cast on objects, lasts an hour, and doesn't take concentration.

Spare the dying is a nice idea that is made stupid by other parts of the system even beyond the stupid absorb shield death saves & level 1 heal to recharge the one or two spent saves. It's literally a touch range cantrip that does the same thing as a cheap 10 charge healer's kit at the same range and same action cost. If you didn't have healing word & spare the dying was 15 or 30ft range so you could "save" bob without actually doing anything for him so the fight can be finished it might have a reason to exist but cantrips are wayy too rare to waste on saving 50cp charges of healers kits anyone could use. Grave clerics get a version with some range that eats a bonus action rather than range but it's not like 5e has th same "bob is bleeding out!11!!!!!1111" worries for so many reasons.

edit: While it might look like it should be on the maybe list it's really not & witing till level 4 to get that 4th cantrip is't a big deal either even in a really slow advancing campaign

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Do you mean all melee attacks against gnomes are at disadvantage? Or just medium and larger (i.e. nearly all creatures likely to be attacking)? Either is really too strong. Partly because it entails that medium and larger (or all) creatures can't get advantage when attacking a gnome. At best they go even.

Were I going down that route, I would use language like "When a medium or larger creature makes a melee attack against you, you can use your reaction to give that attack disadvantage. Etc..." So once a round, on a single attack. Still quite strong, but also prevents you stacking it with other reaction abilities.

By making it melee-only I took away all the bonuses that the original would give the Gnome to ranged attacks.

I do think it might be a little overpowered, but the stipulation that you become small (and thus take a hit to your melee damage options by losing the ability to use Greatweapons) I think makes up for it. I think there is a room in the game design for a defensively focused melee combatant.

Its overpoweredness might also be mitigated by Level Up introducing a more advanced application of advantage/disadvantage (which is my houserule) so that more instances of one "beat" less instances of the other and still apply.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

So I would expect the Gnome to just add +1 to its AC, and in the times its actually fighting small creatures it subtracts. And as long as that is the only AC modifier for the character I think that's fine. Now if its +1 AC for that, but then +1 AC in swamp, and +1 AC against flying creatures....etc etc, then we are back in the situational muck.

I know my table pretty well. At my table the gnome player would add the +1AC to their base number written on the character sheet (like we do with the shield) and never remember to subtract it in the rare time that the party faced small foes. Only the GM, remembering they are a gnome and calling them out) would remind them to do so.

We did do this kind of "going through the list of modifiers and accounting for all of them" gameplay in 3e and 4e, but once we have settled into the simpler 5e game we jettisoned this as a mindset and are much more freeform with working with advantage/disadvantage.

This is getting back to the design goals of Level Up, though, and how close or far the final product is pictured to be from base 5e. I realize is at the very beginning of the design phase, but I am hoping that it finds a way to add complexity and options to 5e in a way that somehow still feels like it's 5e. If mini-conditional-modifiers start creeping into the base game design then it will feel more like a 3e/5e hybrid game. That's fine if that is the goal, but its maybe not the direction i'd be captaining the ship.

And yes, maybe this might turn out to be one of very few introduced into Level-Up, but it is what jumped out at me in a 5 minute skim through.

 

[clearstream]

I know my table pretty well. At my table the gnome player would add the +1AC to their base number written on the character sheet (like we do with the shield) and never remember to subtract it in the rare time that the party faced small foes. Only the GM, remembering they are a gnome and calling them out) would remind them to do so.

We did do this kind of "going through the list of modifiers and accounting for all of them" gameplay in 3e and 4e, but once we have settled into the simpler 5e game we jettisoned this as a mindset and are much more freeform with working with advantage/disadvantage.

This is getting back to the design goals of Level Up, though, and how close or far the final product is pictured to be from base 5e. I realize is at the very beginning of the design phase, but I am hoping that it finds a way to add complexity and options to 5e in a way that somehow still feels like it's 5e. If mini-conditional-modifiers start creeping into the base game design then it will feel more like a 3e/5e hybrid game. That's fine if that is the goal, but its maybe not the direction i'd be captaining the ship.

And yes, maybe this might turn out to be one of very few introduced into Level-Up, but it is what jumped out at me in a 5 minute skim through.

What you say has resonance for me: I think I would like fewer, but effective, mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

Spare the dying is a nice idea that is made stupid by other parts of the system even beyond the stupid absorb shield death saves & level 1 heal to recharge the one or two spent saves. It's literally a touch range cantrip that does the same thing as a cheap 10 charge healer's kit at the same range and same action cost. If you didn't have healing word & spare the dying was 15 or 30ft range so you could "save" bob without actually doing anything for him so the fight can be finished it might have a reason to exist but cantrips are wayy too rare to waste on saving 50cp charges of healers kits anyone could use. Grave clerics get a version with some range that eats a bonus action rather than range but it's not like 5e has th same "bob is bleeding out!11!!!!!1111" worries for so many reasons.
View attachment 125759
edit: While it might look like it should be on the maybe list it's really not & witing till level 4 to get that 4th cantrip is't a big deal either even in a really slow advancing campaign

Well, we can quibble spare the dying, but that is far from material, would you not agree?

 

[tetrasodium]

\

I know my table pretty well. At my table the gnome player would add the +1AC to their base number written on the character sheet (like we do with the shield) and never remember to subtract it in the rare time that the party faced small foes. Only the GM, remembering they are a gnome and calling them out) would remind them to do so.

We did do this kind of "going through the list of modifiers and accounting for all of them" gameplay in 3e and 4e, but once we have settled into the simpler 5e game we jettisoned this as a mindset and are much more freeform with working with advantage/disadvantage.

This is getting back to the design goals of Level Up, though, and how close or far the final product is pictured to be from base 5e. I realize is at the very beginning of the design phase, but I am hoping that it finds a way to add complexity and options to 5e in a way that somehow still feels like it's 5e. If mini-conditional-modifiers start creeping into the base game design then it will feel more like a 3e/5e hybrid game. That's fine if that is the goal, but its maybe not the direction i'd be captaining the ship.

And yes, maybe this might turn out to be one of very few introduced into Level-Up, but it is what jumped out at me in a 5 minute skim through.

Do you have this problem with tieflings & aasimar giving themselves resistance to all damage types rather than just the one they get resistance to as well? What about rogues & gnomes adding expertise to all skills rather than just the ones & subset they have expertise with? This is a player problem & a bit of a stretch to say it's a difficult thing you should expect to keep happening after the first couple levels at worst because there are already plenty of things they need to sometimes apply & sometimes not without getting into class/spell/equipment based things they already handle without issue

@clearstream you were the one who seemed to bring up spare the dying as if it were a top tier cleric cantrip able to force one of the three top shelf cleric cantrips out of a cleric's starting 3 or could be a big impact on the game if they got guidance from a different source. Showing that it's a terrible cantrip that should have no meaningful impact on the game seemed relevant unless there was misunderstanding.

 

[clearstream]

\

Do you have this problem with tieflings & aasimar giving themselves resistance to all damage types rather than just the one they get resistance to as well? What about rogues & gnomes adding expertise to all skills rather than just the ones & subset they have expertise with? This is a player problem & a bit of a stretch to say it's a difficult thing you should expect to keep happening after the first couple levels at worst because there are already plenty of things they need to sometimes apply & sometimes not without getting into class/spell/equipment based things they already handle without issue

@clearstream you were the one who seemed to bring up spare the dying as if it were a top tier cleric cantrip able to force one of the three top shelf cleric cantrips out of a cleric's starting 3 or could be a big impact on the game if they got guidance from a different source. Showing that it's a terrible cantrip that should have no meaningful impact on the game seemed relevant unless there was misunderstanding.

My claim is that a character who is not a cleric is very often more benefited by choosing guidance over other clerical cantrips. You make a good point about spare the dying, but it is an unimportant point. If you mean it to undermine my argument, then you misunderstand my argument.