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

[Stalker0]

I would like to encourage you to remember one very important evaluation aspect:

Does the game still feel recognizably like D&D and 5th edition?

Formally: If Level Up is to succeed at the goal of supplementing 5th Edition for gamers wanting more crunch, each game element needs to be judged on whether it helps achieve that goal. Or is the game so enthusiastic about "fixing" things it forgets its main mission? Likewise, are you the reviewer looking at the trees only, not seeing the forest? It's all too easy to dive deep into whether Dragonborn Fins rate B or C, but this risks missing the greater picture: it doesn't matter unless the public buys the product in the first place.

And that is why I encourage you to make one of your promised threads about this - an otherwise "invisible" aspect of this playtest document.

So in terms of "whether its 5e", I looked at a few things when I considered my thoughts for this thread.

1) Power: Some power creep is fine, but it has to be marginal if you really want to succeed at the notion of allowing core and level up to exist at the same table. Bo9S classes in 3e could exist at the same table as a fighter... but the fighter player probably wouldn't enjoy being upstaged all the time.

2) Flavor: Where 4e left the station for many people was it divorced flavor at the alter of mechanics too often. 5e made a conscious return to bake the flavor back in to the core game. So I do comment on flavor throughout the thread, noting areas where I think its well done, areas where the flavor seems off from the mechanics, and mechanics that may grind against people's sensibilities (such as early teleports or no-magical compulsions).

3) Mechanics: Some new mechanics can be interested, but do they have a proper "5e feel". Are they playing within the rules of bounded accuracy, or shattering them? Other than a couple of clunky areas in the document, this one looked pretty good for the most part.


So I feel my thread was both trees and forest. Of course, its one man's opinion, which is why the survey's are so important. But deeper divs into mechanics is not bad either, and it may inform the developers of some areas to look at, or simply some areas to tighten up language wise (I noted a few areas where I read the rules in a way they may not have intended).

 

[CapnZapp]

Eh?

It's a Community reference.

 

[Maxperson]

Who is to say the verbal component isn't telling the Bard "You got this, Ezekial!" right before they break into a solo. Or perhaps the verbal component is "This guy here knows his magical items, you should listen to him" when the wizard is making a Persuasion check to talk down the price of a gem. Or even just whispering an incantation to stealth up the rogue who then uses the next minute to move up towards the bad guys and take up a hidden position.

The Verbal Component sections is to say.

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source o f the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

I suppose if the caster very weirdly with odd and specific pitches and resonance, says, "You got this, Ezekial!" it might work, but it would also let anyone nearby know that a spell was being cast.

 

[clearstream]

The Verbal Component sections is to say.

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source o f the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

I suppose if the caster very weirdly with odd and specific pitches and resonance, says, "You got this, Ezekial!" it might work, but it would also let anyone nearby know that a spell was being cast.

Also, for the metamagic Subtle Spell to have meaning, we should suppose that the Verbal component is usually noticeable. Notwithstanding, in my experience guidance still manages to be egregious in play if those possessing it are at all assiduous in gaining the benefits of their abilities. It's frequently taken through some kind of cross-class access, which speaks to its value. I really have to wonder what it is adding to have an on-tap, unlimited +d4 this way? How is the game better for the cantrip?

 

[CapnZapp]

I really have to wonder what it is adding to have an on-tap, unlimited +d4 this way? How is the game better for the cantrip?

No, the game would be unquestionably better if there is no easy access to unlimited bonuses like this.

In combat there's no problem since the cost of an action isn't insignificant.
Out of combat it's just bad design not to realize the cost is now entirely insignificant.

I'm assuming the Level Up team will not just blindly replicate the mistakes of the 5E developers, however.

 

[CapnZapp]

So in terms of "whether its 5e", I looked at a few things when I considered my thoughts for this thread.

1) Power: Some power creep is fine, but it has to be marginal if you really want to succeed at the notion of allowing core and level up to exist at the same table. Bo9S classes in 3e could exist at the same table as a fighter... but the fighter player probably wouldn't enjoy being upstaged all the time.

2) Flavor: Where 4e left the station for many people was it divorced flavor at the alter of mechanics too often. 5e made a conscious return to bake the flavor back in to the core game. So I do comment on flavor throughout the thread, noting areas where I think its well done, areas where the flavor seems off from the mechanics, and mechanics that may grind against people's sensibilities (such as early teleports or no-magical compulsions).

3) Mechanics: Some new mechanics can be interested, but do they have a proper "5e feel". Are they playing within the rules of bounded accuracy, or shattering them? Other than a couple of clunky areas in the document, this one looked pretty good for the most part.


So I feel my thread was both trees and forest. Of course, its one man's opinion, which is why the survey's are so important. But deeper divs into mechanics is not bad either, and it may inform the developers of some areas to look at, or simply some areas to tighten up language wise (I noted a few areas where I read the rules in a way they may not have intended).

Sure, but I'm arguing power, flavor and mechanics is still trees, not forest.

The "forest question" would be "should this feature or mechanic be in the game at all?"

Here are a bunch of good evaluation questions to ask:

• What is the specific problem or weakness with 5th Edition it is trying to solve?
• Is that problem or weakness really one that needs fixing?
• Is the Level Up feature or mechanic focused on solving the problem, and only solving the problem?

I'm not against having completely new subsystems in Level Up. But the design team needs to go into them with open eyes, and not be driven by blind enthusiasm. That is, it is much better if the mechanic is clearly known to not be there because it fixes something in 5E, because its inclusion is therefore intentional.

Compare

"We added NNN because it's soo cool, and because players want it, and because the game needs to evolve"​

and

"Yes, we know this isn't about fixing something people really wrestled with in 5E, but we have concluded it doesn't detract from the 5E feeling, and it genuinely adds value to a 5E game"​

I'm arguing the former will bog down the game and make it less likely to succeed as a 5E complement. The latter, however, suggests a dev team on top of their game - people that truly know what they're doing. Obviously, having the latter conversation means far fewer new features will be added, and that's a good thing for a project presumably about upgrading 5E.

By devoting a thread to this, Stalker, where you truly are asking "forest questions", you will provide great help to the project. The mere existence of such a thread should help the team a lot later on when it comes to the hard decisions - killing their and the community's darlings.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, the game would be unquestionably better if there is no easy access to unlimited bonuses like this.

In combat there's no problem since the cost of an action isn't insignificant.
Out of combat it's just bad design not to realize the cost is now entirely insignificant.

I'm assuming the Level Up team will not just blindly replicate the mistakes of the 5E developers, however.

Guidance is a lot like the skill books/tools anyone could get as a newbie back on 3.5 and not really am issue as a cantrip imo, but the fact that it's on the list of a class able to start with three cantrips selected from a list with three worthwhile cantrips makes it practically a class feature.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Guidance is a lot like the skill books/tools anyone could get as a newbie back on 3.5 and not really am issue as a cantrip imo, but the fact that it's on the list of a class able to start with three cantrips selected from a list with three worthwhile cantrips makes it practically a class feature.

Fun fact: Shadow of the Demon Lord, a D&D adjacent game, indeed give the equivalent of of Guidance to 1) the Priest (aka the Cleric), and 2) to the Witch (warlock/druid mix) as a class feature called ''Prayer'' for the Priest and ''Guidance'' for the Witch. It works more like the improved Helpful feature of the Expert sidekick class in 5e, where you add a bonus 1d6 to the Help action, and later can add it instead to the damage if the Help action was used for an attack. It allows such characters to lean in on the support role turn after turn without needing spells should they want to do it.

I'd suggest giving ''must have spells'' as features for such classes: guidance for clerics, hex for warlocks and mark for rangers. Making those spells was a mistake, IMHO, because they become poachable by many other ways for other classes that can benefit even more from said bonus.

 

[clearstream]

Guidance is a lot like the skill books/tools anyone could get as a newbie back on 3.5 and not really am issue as a cantrip imo, but the fact that it's on the list of a class able to start with three cantrips selected from a list with three worthwhile cantrips makes it practically a class feature.

In my campaigns, our cleric had it, our druid had it, all bar one of our four warlocks had it, one of our three bards had it, and a character who gained it through Magic Initiate had it. Thus, in my experience, the fact that it is only on the cleric and druid lists has not been much of a restriction.

 

[clearstream]

I'd suggest giving ''must have spells'' as features for such classes: guidance for clerics, hex for warlocks and mark for rangers. Making those spells was a mistake, IMHO, because they become poachable by many other ways for other classes that can benefit even more from said bonus.

That's true. The correct design is probably they should be class features, with a refresh cadence on rests.