Level Up (A5E) A5e is Backwards Compatible with O5e. What if it wasn’t?

xiphumor

Adventurer
Is there anything about the game that you would have changed had their been no requirement to be backwards compatible? I’m curious because such conversations usually help reveal where there are other opportunities for development and creative solutions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The chunky, one dimensional Cleric domains. I'd have liked to have seen lighter, mini-domains that could be mixed and matched and maybe allow for picking up another one or two at higher levels. Something that makes Clerics of different ethoses more distinct.
 



niklinna

Abstraction is a tool that streamlines gameplay.
The chunky, one dimensional Cleric domains. I'd have liked to have seen lighter, mini-domains that could be mixed and matched and maybe allow for picking up another one or two at higher levels. Something that makes Clerics of different ethoses more distinct.
Multisubclassing!
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I'd have pushed for a more consistent archetype structure, to make it easier to pack similar power levels into them across classes. That would probably require more major class surgery as well.
I'd have done that, too. We even considered it, but it would have made O5E archetypes unusable. That would have had other benefits too, like making multiclass archetypes easy to implement.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I would have liked to see baked in magic item churn assumed by monster & spell math supported with some more room beyond attune yes/no to hang them from.
 

Corinnguard

Adventurer
The chunky, one dimensional Cleric domains. I'd have liked to have seen lighter, mini-domains that could be mixed and matched and maybe allow for picking up another one or two at higher levels. Something that makes Clerics of different ethoses more distinct.
You mean something like Pathfinder 1st edition's subdomains?
 

noodohs

Explorer
I've got mixed feelings about it. I think they definitely did the best they could within the constraints, but there are a handful of things that feel kinda clunky as a result of maintaining compatibility. On the other hand, that compatibility is kind of the point and without it, well it would just be PF2e. For example, "At that point why not just like...replace subclasses with class feats or something?" PF2e does just that.
 






Xethreau

Josh Gentry - Author, Minister in Training
  • vocalized and seen components would have been given more sensible names "visual" and "sound" (the acronyms would be reversed)
  • feats could have been smaller, bite-size benefits comparable to 3.5/4e. Separated from ASI
  • reworked CR / exp system
  • reworked the adventuring day (short rest, daily resources, etc.)
 

Multisubclassing would definitely be fun. I have an idea or two about how one could kind of simulate that by making multiple "half subclasses" and allowing players to pick two at character creation, but that obviously does stone nothing if you want to mix two existing ones.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
In thinking about it some more... making bards half-casters, or even non-casters, but increasing the number and type of battle hymns and the versatility of the bardic inspiration die. Or possibly making bardic magic work like the artificer spells do. LU artificers very clearly are using technomagic, thanks to the fizzle die--they're not just casting spells and saying that it's an item that's producing the spells, but using a (very breakable) item to produce a magical effect. A lucky artificer could use a device to cast a spell many, many times before it broke.

I'm not sure what could be given to the bard to make up for the lack of casting, though. Maybe allowing them access to a tradition or two of martial maneuvers, more tool proficiencies, and a higher cap on expertise dice.

I'd also bring back a "chance to learn spell" for wizards, and bring back "spheres" for clerics, and say you can only cast spells from the spheres your god offers (or have much smaller cleric spell lists but give gods lists of extra spells they grant in addition to the extra spells granted by the cleric domain). I know this is all very second edition, but it would cause the PCs to have extremely varied spell lists rather than the, let's face it, common lists of spells that everyone picks.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
In thinking about it some more... making bards half-casters, or even non-casters, but increasing the number and type of battle hymns and the versatility of the bardic inspiration die. Or possibly making bardic magic work like the artificer spells do. LU artificers very clearly are using technomagic, thanks to the fizzle die--they're not just casting spells and saying that it's an item that's producing the spells, but using a (very breakable) item to produce a magical effect. A lucky artificer could use a device to cast a spell many, many times before it broke.
New classes don't break compatibility (even if they have the same name as O5E classes).
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top