Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Micah Sweet]

I remember in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, there were classes that gave you more narrative-focused choices rather than mechanical choices.

For example, at a certain level a spellcasting class could choose between:

• Glowing eyes
• A shadow that moves on its own
• A constant breeze moving your robes and cape

I'm not remembering those correctly, but I thought that was a hoot.

I'm not sure that's what's needed in a more "crunchy" 5e, but it brought back fond memories!

I like narrative effects, but if someone wanted those things in my game, I would just let them have them. I wouldn't consider those choices meaningful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whether you think class features from class levels is a good idea probably depends on how you feel about multiclass dips, because I suspect this would increase people looking to frontload whatever classes they were dipping. I'm ... not a big fan of dipping, personally, so I obviously think this isn't a super idea--but that doesn't mean it's not a super idea for someone else with different preferences in re multiclassing.

Yeah, I think this would only work with some kind of alternate to multiclassing. Not necessarily allowing any character to grab any ability from any class at any level.....that would have to be designed around to prevent all manner of exploitative combos that people would no doubt come up with.

My comment was more a case of spitballing though....I'm sure there are holes that could be poked (of which, multiclassing is one for sure). But it's just an idea that occurred to me, based on some other games I've seen.

The problem with that is, when you get to 20th level you were picking from things that were not good enough to to pick at the previous 19 levels. That is not really something to look forward to!

_
glass.

Yeah, I'd maintain something specifically as some kind of capstone ability, if that's the desire. Most abilities don't really seem to fit that though. I think most of the best abilities tend to be front loaded so that the classes actually fit the theme of the archetype they're meant to portray.....which is why I don't think that swapping them around would be all that bad, generally speaking.

 

[dave2008]

There can be extremely different cultures occupying the same geographical terrain. Nomadic, Rural, Urban, Metropolitan, Utopian, etcetera.

Moreover, each culture would have its own institutions and subcultures.

One "mountain" culture can be very different from an other. Where is the main food source? Underground, hill slope, hinterland, imported from elsewhere, produced magically? Are they nomadic? farmers? business persons? students? is it a college town? a town of a thousand colleges? a government capital?

These are completely different cultures − even at a "generic" level that compares various cultures.

How can a "culture" be described without it BECOMING the setting itself?

I guess I just have a different viewpoint as I don't use any published settings, so I don't want setting specific cultures. I group of generic "cultures" is all i need or want to get an idea of what to use for my own setting. The generic "mountain" culture can be different from the culture of the Galena Mountains. But that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of generic cultures. If all it has is specific cultures it is of no more value to me than generic cultures and possibly of less use as they could be to specific.

 

[Haldrik]

I guess I just have a different viewpoint as I don't use any published settings, so I don't want setting specific cultures. I group of generic "cultures" is all i need or want to get an idea of what to use for my own setting. The generic "mountain" culture can be different from the culture of the Galena Mountains. But that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of generic cultures. If all it has is specific cultures it is of no more value to me than generic cultures and possibly of less use as they could be to specific.

There is no such thing as a "generic" culture. Maybe "generic" means an "American urban culture" or "Lord of the Rings pregenerated cultures"?

One of my frustrations with the Players Handbook is that it is actually an extremely specific setting, Forgotten Realms. But because it is never called out as a setting with its own design space, it gets entangled and baked into every other aspect of the game.

So it is difficult to use the Players Handbook to game in other settings. And the less that setting resembles Forgotten Realms, the less useful the Players Handbook becomes.



By using the backgrounds as the "culture" design space, it becomes easy to use the book for different settings (modern, urban, archaic, utopian), simply by swapping in new backgrounds.

 

[NotAYakk]

The MM (and DMG) are terrible at monster design to begin with. One might need guidance on CR and Encounter Design to appropriate balance an encounter for a Level UP! party, but that kind of work is necessary anyway, given player skill level and, again, the relative imbalance within the MM already.

So if you go back to the DMG rules for CR, the system is pretty simple.

XP is roughly HP*DPR*(1 + 0.1 * (AC+ATK-13))/5

Then round it a bit.

Or, in simple terms, XP is threat times soak times a constant.

If you spread a PCs resources over an adventuring day (so, give them 2 short rests, assume they burn all of their HD and deal damage with all of their resources, give them 9ish encounters of at least 20 rounds, or other similar assumptions) you get an "XP" value for PCs.

---

Now, if you want to combine monsters, the DMG has a "add up 3 monsters XP, then multiply by 2" rule. That is annoying.

Instead, raise monster XP to the .67th power (+/- 0.02). Now XP adds up linearly.

If you divide that XP^.675 by 28.5, you get a value that tracks a slightly modified CR.

You can derive the result of XP^0.675 / 28.5 (the "linear" encounter building value) from CR directly.

CR 1/8 becomes 0.25, CR 1/4 becomes 0.5, CR 1/2 becomes 0.75 and CR 1 becomes 1.25.

Add an extra +1 to your CR at level 5 and 11. (there are bumps on the chart).

If CR > 10, add CR-10 (so you gain 2 points per CR after CR 11, and 3 at CR 11).
If CR > 20, add CR-6 (so you gain 8 points per CR after 20)

You get this:
0.25 / 0.5 / 0.75 / 1.25 for CR 1/8 to 1.0.
Then 2, 3, 4 for CR 2-4.
Then 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 for CR 5-10.
Then 14, 16, ..., 32 for CR 11 to 20.
Then 40 ... 112 for CR 21 to 30.

 

[DeviousQuail]

In the spirit of keeping it compatible with 5e I'd keep the basic class structure the same. Feats/ASI every 4ish levels, power bumps at 5, 11, and 17, spell slot and level progression, etc. Now, to your three points:

• meaningful choices at each level so you look forward to your level up every time
• balanced with the original core classes to ensure compatibility
• strong capstones for all classes

1) I wouldn't go for meaningful choices at EVERY level. I would aim for most levels having choices, somewhere in the 75-85% of levels range. I find some features to be too mechanically and/or thematically important to miss, but powerful enough to not need lesser features or ribbons alongside them. I'd put things like Extra Attack or Evasion in that category of things I look forward to even if there is no choice to be made (other than multiclassing, I guess).
2) My points above your quote should handle the majority of the balance aspect
3) 100% this. Make it unique, make it powerful, and don't bother balancing it against the rest of the classes features.

I think the Hunter Ranger is a great example of a subclass that offers choices at each level of the subclass. 2 or 3 options, same concept (i.e. all features at 3rd improve offense), and meaningful choices. Looking deeper, most of the levels for a Hunter have meaningful choices. It's just the features that need work.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Some of this is repeating from your survey, but:

• Meaningful choices are good during level up, but meaningful choices during gameplay are golden. Granted, the DM is vital to making the latter happen, but a class shouldn't have once choice that's so overwhelmingly better especially if it can be repeated constantly.
• The game shouldn't be predicated on some classes needing 2-3 short rests every day while others gain minimal benefit from even 1 short rest. This requirement completely warps the encounter design system. If you run higher difficulty, longer running encounters then Fighter, Warlock, and Monk quickly run out of interesting decisions to make.
• All classes should be able to participate in all three pillars if they want to. "Participate" does not mean "roll an untrained skill check once in awhile", and at medium level it doesn't mean "roll a skill check in that background skill once in awhile" too.
• Combat abilities should not replace social or exploration abilities and vice-versa. You should not have to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be able to participate in social or exploration encounters or vice-versa. Each class should get abilities for each mode of play. In order for the game to be built on three pillars, each class must be so as well. One of the problems with 3e was that skills intruded into combat (Tumble being the worst offender) and it meant that every character
• This goes into skill design, but one class should not be able to do everything with one ability score. It's silly that Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks more or less get to dominate social encounters for free because they're Cha-based. This would be helped a lot by skills being more ability-diverse, but also by not letting classes derive combat ability and social ability from the same ability score. Its quite egregious given how small a role the exploration pillar plays.
• D&D is a class-based game. The game should reward players who follow that scheme. In this I agree with the core 5e design: Multiclassing should remain a second-class citizen.
• I'm hard against 3e style prestige classes, but I love the idea of 2e kits that do total conversions of classes. Move subclass choices to level 1 so you can allow them to modify starting proficiencies and other elements of the class from day one. But don't make me waste time in a class I don't really like to "earn" the right to play what I'm looking forward to. Let me have fun now! Let me start play with the character I already want to play!
• I don't care about end game abilities. You could take everything above level 13 or level 15 in the entire game and throw it out the window and it would basically never affect 99% of the campaigns I've played in. I almost want all classes to stop at level 10 and then you're required to multiclass. Maybe 4e had this design right?

Actually... hm. What about a game where you picked three classes: one combat class, one social class (not "class in society" but "character class for social abilities"), and one exploration class. Hm. I think that's way too heavy for an actual game, but I think it's an interesting toy design idea.

 

[dave2008]

There is no such thing as a "generic" culture. Maybe "generic" means an "American urban culture" or "Lord of the Rings pregenerated cultures"?

I disagree. In a fantasy game I think generic cultures are sufficient. Sure a generic culture may have the biases and stereotypes of the designers, but to think that will not be part of setting specific cultures is, I think, naive. We are creating a fantasy, I would prefer something as generic as possible. One thing I don't like about PF1 (& PF2 even more) is how pervasive the Golarion setting is in the books.

One of my frustrations with the Players Handbook is that it is actually an extremely specific setting, Forgotten Realms. But because it is never called out as a setting with its own design space, it gets entangled and baked into every other aspect of the game.

So it is difficult to use the Players Handbook to game in other settings. And the less that setting resembles Forgotten Realms, the less useful the Players Handbook becomes.

I have not had this issue. I've used the PHB in my HB setting (originally based in the Nentir vale from 4e) which is substantially different from FR without much trouble. I have also done 1-shot adventures in vastly different settings without any issue. I don't feel like FR is baked into the PHB or DMG or MM. But then again I am not overly familiar with the setting. All I can say is that the core books of 5e have worked for us in diverse settings. Everyone has different pressure points.

By using the backgrounds as the "culture" design space, it becomes easy to use the book for different settings (modern, urban, archaic, utopian), simply by swapping in new backgrounds.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't have generic /default cultures that are not setting specific. As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring: they can't use any of the WotC settings. So either they (the Level Up! team):

1. disagree with you and think they can have generic cultures, or...
2. They aren't going to have separate cultures
3. They are going to, in addition to making Level Up!, create a new setting to tie these cultures into.

Personally, I think option #1 is the most likely and #3 the least likely.

 

[dave2008]

Some of this is repeating from your survey, but:

• Meaningful choices are good during level up, but meaningful choices during gameplay are golden. Granted, the DM is vital to making the latter happen, but a class shouldn't have once choice that's so overwhelmingly better especially if it can be repeated constantly.

• I agree with this in general, but a simple class is still good for some. Of course we can leave that to the PHB classes (though this is supposed to be stand alone).

• The game shouldn't be predicated on some classes needing 2-3 short rests every day while others gain minimal benefit from even 1 short rest. This requirement completely warps the encounter design system. If you run higher difficulty, longer running encounters then Fighter, Warlock, and Monk quickly run out of interesting decisions to make.

• I think some class being short rest based and other's long rest based is OK and even desirable for diversity. Sure, it makes adventure day design more difficult in one sense, but I personally think it is better to ditch encounter design and provide more variety in class design. I really fear we this may be head to the same/same class design seen in 4e and PF2e. I prefer the asymmetrical essentials 4e and 5e class design. However, 5e could be better and more balanced (like 4e essentials) than it is now. That would be my hope for Level Up!

• All classes should be able to participate in all three pillars if they want to. "Participate" does not mean "roll an untrained skill check once in awhile", and at medium level it doesn't mean "roll a skill check in that background skill once in awhile" too.

• I agee.

• Combat abilities should not replace social or exploration abilities and vice-versa. You should not have to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be able to participate in social or exploration encounters or vice-versa. Each class should get abilities for each mode of play. In order for the game to be built on three pillars, each class must be so as well. One of the problems with 3e was that skills intruded into combat (Tumble being the worst offender) and it meant that every character

• I agree with this too.

• This goes into skill design, but one class should not be able to do everything with one ability score. It's silly that Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks more or less get to dominate social encounters for free because they're Cha-based. This would be helped a lot by skills being more ability-diverse, but also by not letting classes derive combat ability and social ability from the same ability score. Its quite egregious given how small a role the exploration pillar plays.

• Yep, another good one!

• D&D is a class-based game. The game should reward players who follow that scheme. In this I agree with the core 5e design: Multiclassing should remain a second-class citizen.

• I agree as well, of course we don't use multiclassing so that is not a surprise

• I'm hard against 3e style prestige classes, but I love the idea of 2e kits that do total conversions of classes. Move subclass choices to level 1 so you can allow them to modify starting proficiencies and other elements of the class from day one. But don't make me waste time in a class I don't really like to "earn" the right to play what I'm looking forward to. Let me have fun now! Let me start play with the character I already want to play!

• I'm not familiar with 2e kits and 3e prestige classes (skipped those editions), but I like what your saying.

• I don't care about end game abilities. You could take everything above level 13 or level 15 in the entire game and throw it out the window and it would basically never affect 99% of the campaigns I've played in. I almost want all classes to stop at level 10 and then you're required to multiclass. Maybe 4e had this design right?

• I disagree, but I am not opposed to stopping at level 10! If we are giving a lot of goodies in levels 1-10, I don't mind giving them to people who make it all the way to 20.

Actually... hm. What about a game where you picked three classes: one combat class, one social class (not "class in society" but "character class for social abilities"), and one exploration class. Hm. I think that's way too heavy for an actual game, but I think it's an interesting toy design idea.

I assume you mean on character with there classes? If so, I actually like that idea a lot, though I don't know that they have to be "classes" and follow the same structure. I just think an independent structure for each is important.

 

[Haldrik]

Enworld cares about reallife inclusiveness, and a game being able to represent players from reallife ethnities and other identities.

So to some degree, cultures themselves need to be open to customization.

To be fair, if "generic" means what straight white male brit and american gamers take for granted, then cultural and background customization becomes even more necessary.