Level Up (A5E) Relative balance of A5E vs. O5E

[VanguardHero]

I, too, do have some worry about the relative balance, but that's because I would like to use third-party options that have probably been balanced (and definitely designed) with O5E in mind.

This. This is what stings the most for me. There's cool stuff like the Blood Hunter, Warden, and Avenger (Hey, Warlord wasn't everyone's favorite 4e Class xD) that now I'm sad aren't built with the versatility of LU as the benchmark. Thankfully balance wise, using an existing Classes Maneuver progression is probably enough to make them viable, same for Knacks, maybe Social moves, it just won't be as dynamic build-wise.

 

[kerleth]

This. This is what stings the most for me. There's cool stuff like the Blood Hunter, Warden, and Avenger (Hey, Warlord wasn't everyone's favorite 4e Class xD) that now I'm sad aren't built with the versatility of LU as the benchmark. Thankfully balance wise, using an existing Classes Maneuver progression is probably enough to make them viable, same for Knacks, maybe Social moves, it just won't be as dynamic build-wise.

I was thinking about this same thing. There's an awesome homebrew class named the ozodrin that I had planned on playing in a one shot for halloween before illness struck. Now I wonder how it would stack up against A5E classes.

I suppose that when my complaint about Level Up is that I wish more things were like Level Up, we're in a pretty good place.

 

[Whaleman]

I am not trying to derail this thread but I agree with people mentioning problems adapting third party classes to A5e. I really like what I am seeing from A5e and from my cursory glance all the subclasses should work fine and even lead to more interesting combinations. Third party classes though seem like they hit a bit of a wall. While backing A5e I also backed the recent Iron Kingdoms Requiem book as I love the setting. Looking over the classes there in comparison now makes them feel anemic. As others have mentioned I have already been looking over adapting Combat Maneuvers to them but even then it feels like they need a bit more.

 

[VanguardHero]

Best solution I can think of would be for Spell-less classes, give them Maneuvers based on what Class makes the most thematic and mechanical sense. Then let them pilfer the Social/Exploration choices of other classes that haven't been taken yet. If they're a Martial built in line with o5e just stacking stuff on them should be fine. If they're well designed and it ends up too strong, just dial it back a bit, but make it clear to the players that might happen.

 

[Whaleman]

Best solution I can think of would be for Spell-less classes, give them Maneuvers based on what Class makes the most thematic and mechanical sense. Then let them pilfer the Social/Exploration choices of other classes that haven't been taken yet. If they're a Martial built in line with o5e just stacking stuff on them should be fine. If they're well designed and it ends up too strong, just dial it back a bit, but make it clear to the players that might happen.

Yeah so far I have been giving them combat maneuvers equivalent to other classes (just saying use their progression). Full martials follow Ranger/Rogue/Adept etc. (I am purposefully not saying fighter since they get more and I think they should have the most). For now half-casters I have just said should follow Herald but I modify the traditions they have access to as appropriate. That has all been relatively easy. The Social/Exploration stuff is going to require more reading so I can better understand which is appropriate for each one much less which one could end up broken.

 

[WaltyCole]

It's interesting to me, honestly, I'm usually a bit of a min max guy.... but, I could build a much better damage dealer in o5e than a5e, but somehow, a5e leaves me more excited about building the best combat focused character I can, but still being good at other stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's interesting to me, honestly, I'm usually a bit of a min max guy.... but, I could build a much better damage dealer in o5e than a5e, but somehow, a5e leaves me more excited about building the best combat focused character I can, but still being good at other stuff.

I'm feeling the same way & seeing the same from my players. My session zero is in a few days & the biggest munchkin I've ever met* is talking about going from a long string of those max DPR o5e cheese builds to a marshal with excitement.

* I GM'd 3.x & PF for years going back well into the 90s & most of 4e so it says a lot.

 

[VanguardHero]

I'm feeling the same way & seeing the same from my players. My session zero is in a few days & the biggest munchkin I've ever met* is talking about going from a long string of those max DPR o5e cheese builds to a marshal with excitement.

* I GM'd 3.x & PF for years going back well into the 90s & most of 4e so it says a lot.

I think part of it is that in o5e, those power builds kinda just let you actually DO interesting stuff. Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Crossbow Expert, etc etc all let you feel like you're actually doing something and actually playing into the power fantasy in a way that usually only Casters get in o5e. Wanting to Powergame and Wanting to Have Fun should rarely* overlap because it makes it infinitely harder to deal with powergaming as a result of "Oh this looks cool " compared to "Oh this will make me win D&D". If any given character can feel fun, effective, and like the result of your choices powergaming is a lot less appealing I think.

*Main exception I can think of is 4e, where a lot of powergaming was based around team cohesion and coordination more than MAKE NUMBERS BIG.

 

[Faolyn]

I think part of it is that in o5e, those power builds kinda just let you actually DO interesting stuff. Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Crossbow Expert, etc etc all let you feel like you're actually doing something and actually playing into the power fantasy in a way that usually only Casters get in o5e. Wanting to Powergame and Wanting to Have Fun should rarely* overlap because it makes it infinitely harder to deal with powergaming as a result of "Oh this looks cool " compared to "Oh this will make me win D&D". If any given character can feel fun, effective, and like the result of your choices powergaming is a lot less appealing I think.

*Main exception I can think of is 4e, where a lot of powergaming was based around team cohesion and coordination more than MAKE NUMBERS BIG.

So... people who want "Big Numbers" shouldn't have fun? Because it's harder for someone (who?) to deal with? Am I reading this right?

 

[WaltyCole]

So... people who want "Big Numbers" shouldn't have fun? Because it's harder for someone (who?) to deal with? Am I reading this right?

I think the main thought behind what folks were saying (myself included) is that a5e is harder to create a truly just damaged focused build but that where you used to have to sacrifice all abilities outside of combat, you can still build to be effective in combat but your still going to be useful elsewhere.

And to be fair last campaign I was a player was a 3.5 campaign and built a character so effective in combat other players felt they didn't need to do anything.