Level Up (A5E) Advanced Journeys &Exploration Challenges

[Morrus]

I've updated it to v2 incorporating some feedback--minor tweaks but I think they improve the article.

 

[Pedantic]

I've updated it to v2 incorporating some feedback--minor tweaks but I think they improve the article.

I like the changes, using tier for scaling is definitely better. The gold vs. weight thing feels fiddly, I feel like ultimately to use this as a GM, I'd just need to go review the equipment lists and set supply costs for all items that are likely to come up.

I still feel a little like PCs should have some ability to scale their supply capacity beyond their strength scores as challenges increase in difficulty. Maybe I'd add proficiency bonus to supply carried when using these rules, though that might make the lowest levels a bit easier than desired.

 

[Selganor]

I'm not sure I like the whole "you can never carry more than STR Supply (even if you use encumbrance)" combined with the "equipment costs gp/5 Supply".
If you need one pricey item (which you can't buy with gold since "you do not use the gold value of mundane gear any more") you suddenly have "lost" food for a week.

This keeps the average wizards (with a STR from 8-10) from ever getting a reserve of food if they ever want to use some costly item.

Also because you only pay 1 gp per Supply (but get a worth of 5gp per 1 Supply spent) you have even less need for money (as you can only spend it for weapons/armor/tools/magic items/mounts/vehicles)

Although they aren't mentioned I assume that Followers and Strongholds also aren't payed with Supply

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wrote this in summer 2023, and then it languished on my PC while other publishing stuff got in the way. It may or may not appear in GPG or another book at some point. Feedback welcome.

[Update 24 Feb to v2]

View attachment 348213​

Forgive me, but I don't see how this can possibly be referred to as "advanced". These rules are considerably more abstracted and simplified than the ones in the book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That sounds like a very different article.

The Supply as mundane equipment is definitely something I plan to pursue. Having seen such concepts in other games, I find it works really well. YMMV of course.

Depends on what perspective it works on, I suppose. From what I'm reading, it looks like it works far better on the playability and balance metrics than on the verisimilitude metric. Is the intent here to move to a more gamist philosophy?

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's very much a different mentality between the schools of thought re: equipment. I think the two extreme ends (without getting slippery slope silly) are:

1. Buy each individual tool, supply, equipment etc. If you don't have a tool when you need it, say some chalk or charcoal and a parchment to make a rubbing, then you're out of luck.

2. Buy a "sack of equipment." When you want a tool etc. either roll to see if the sack has it (maybe based on cost or rarity), or the sack has it and roll to see if you've decremented a "sack die" whittling down said equipment sack as you use things from it.

I see the appeal of both... I just don't know what the right answer is; probably because it's down to personal preference and how your game feels/works. I stick CLOSER to #1 but I've definitely let players purchase certain tools etc. retroactively in the past because their characters would have thought to bring such things, even if the player didn't... usually because they've come up with a very cool idea that I love. However, I DO make sure the spellcaster players purchase specific costly components beforehand; a handful of gold won't turn into a 500gp diamond.
I don't love the inconsistency, but that's where I've landed so far.

My unsurprising preference is #1, whenever possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When I was discussing Supply with my players, one of them thought their nebulous quality was really cool--they have an ability similar to that in the MotW game I'm running, where they can roll do see if they have a particular item. So I have a feeling that at least some of my people will like this.

Supply specifically as consumables (food, water, maybe fuel) is an acceptable level of abstraction for me, but I really don't want anything else included.

 

[Morrus]

Supply specifically as consumables (food, water, maybe fuel) is an acceptable level of abstraction for me, but I really don't want anything else included.

Don’t use it then. I’m not going to come round and forcibly edit your rulebooks with a sharpie!

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure I like the whole "you can never carry more than STR Supply (even if you use encumbrance)" combined with the "equipment costs gp/5 Supply".
If you need one pricey item (which you can't buy with gold since "you do not use the gold value of mundane gear any more") you suddenly have "lost" food for a week.

Yeah, the costing still doesn’t quite work right. Needs more work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Don’t use it then. I’m not going to come round and forcibly edit your rulebooks with a sharpie!

Fair enough. Just not a design thrust I favor, and I hope it isn't used instead of more simulationist rules in future products.