Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[glass]

• 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

Sounds good to me. Although regarding the first bullet point I would not get too upset if it ends up only being meaningful choices at say 17 out of 20 levels (and the other three levels get upgrades to previously selected features.

There's a good point up there.......is it good or bad that some classes do the same thing most every fight/every round? Me? I find that boring, and would like a game where a monk or rogue or whatever really did do something different every round.

Some people apparently want that, but there are plenty of classes in the PHB that provide that experience. Since this is going to be compatible, there is no need to reinvent the wheel with them. The Level Up classes should all be more mechanically interesting than that IMNSHO.

Sounds like you guys are on track to re-invent Pathfinder 2.

Pathfinder 2e is in no way compaitble with D&D 5e, and uses much bigger numbers.

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

I would suggest that Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved is somewhere to look for a different kind of inspiration. I think the new book should have its own set of classes, covering broadly the same ground as those in the PHB but not mapping exactly one-to-one. Usable on their own, or alongside those in the PHB.

_
glass.

 

[Mike Myler]

A section on class design could be written. You can deconstruct the durability/damage budget of martial-types (and even paladins) on an expected adventuring day.

This is a DM-facing feature; but by doing it, the quality of your player-facing features (class rewrites) gains quality.

For anyone that got Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters (obviously the smartest people in the thread ) do you think the Design Notes sidebars from that book would be a solid way to go about something like this?

I'm not sure that direct 5e compatibility is the worthiest goal. Easy to enough to convert adventures, maybe even monsters and spells? Sure. Balancing 5e Fighter with an Advanced 5e Fighter? That doesn't seem nearly as necessary to me.

5E compatibility is part of the deal. People have libraries of books (excellent books ^^^ ) that they haven't gotten through with yet and A5E will add value to (maybe even some motivation to use) those books.

 

[dave2008]

Whether they defer to Forgotten Realms or supply a new setting, there cannot be a "cultures" without a setting.

I disagree. You can have generic "cultures" without a setting. For example:

Mountain, Hill, River, City, Rural, Swamp, Esoteric, Artisic, Pragmatic, etc. could all be generic cultures without a setting. Now, a setting guide should come with unique cultures for that setting, but generic ones are sufficient for a core book IMO

 

[dave2008]

For anyone that got Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters (obviously the smartest people in the thread ) do you think the Design Notes sidebars from that book would be a solid way to go about something like this?

Yes, it is always helpful to get the designer's perspective for why they made the choices they made.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What if class abilities were not tied to level?

Instead, at each level, you get whatever class ability you'd like from a list of ones available.

So a Fighter can choose a fighting style for his first and then action surge for his second and then second wind for his third, while another player can have his fighter pick indomitable and then action surge and then extra attack.

And so on.

You then expand the list of class abilities for each class so that there's something to pick at each level. Or you create a list of abilities available to all (maybe using feats as a starting point) and any character can pick from that list at any level.

Other than a few exceptions (mostly the capstone abilities, and perhaps a few other exceptions) most class abilities aren't really meant to be saved for later levels.

 

[prabe]

What if class abilities were not tied to level?

Instead, at each level, you get whatever class ability you'd like from a list of ones available.

So a Fighter can choose a fighting style for his first and then action surge for his second and then second wind for his third, while another player can have his fighter pick indomitable and then action surge and then extra attack.

And so on.

You then expand the list of class abilities for each class so that there's something to pick at each level. Or you create a list of abilities available to all (maybe using feats as a starting point) and any character can pick from that list at any level.

Other than a few exceptions (mostly the capstone abilities, and perhaps a few other exceptions) most class abilities aren't really meant to be saved for later levels.

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.

 

[glass]

What if class abilities were not tied to level?

Instead, at each level, you get whatever class ability you'd like from a list of ones available.

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.

 

[Morrus]

Sounds like you guys are on track to re-invent Pathfinder 2.

Sounds like you’re on track to reinvent snark.

 

[Haldrik]

I disagree. You can have generic "cultures" without a setting. For example:

Mountain, Hill, River, City, Rural, Swamp, Esoteric, Artisic, Pragmatic, etc. could all be generic cultures without a setting. Now, a setting guide should come with unique cultures for that setting, but generic ones are sufficient for a core book IMO

There can be extremely different cultures occupying the same geographical terrain. Nomadic, Rural, Urban, Cosmopolitan, 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?

 

[thomkt]

I think the UA approach to dipping into classes with feats makes some sense.....but I hate that feats are SO BIG in 5e that they eat up 3-5 old feats and you only get them every 4th level of a class (not a character, so multi-classing really sucks at times)

I like the feat approach as well, but if subclasses are chosen at lvl1, what if when you multi-class you only get the base features of the class and never (or maybe delayed) access to subclasses?