Level Up (A5E) Is Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition compatible with D&D 5E?

Larnievc

Adventurer
They are different rule sets, and yes, Level Up can be used for D&D adventures, but it cannot be used alongside "D&D characters," since D&D characters rely on "D&D rules" and "D&D feats" and "D&D spells."
I dunno man, at my table one player has an PHB Champion and rocks PHB feats and another has a retooled their Clockwork Soul to have the LU sorcerer base class with the Clockwork soul sub class. This is at level ten and we haven’t had any problems yet.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Waller

Hero
I dunno man, at my table one player has an PHB Champion and rocks PHB feats and another has a retooled their Clockwork Soul to have the LU sorcerer base class with the Clockwork soul sub class. This is at level ten and we haven’t had any problems yet.
I’d give up. He hasn’t played it, but he insists it can’t be done despite the fact that people are actually doing it. Don’t tempt another essay!
 

Rant

Explorer
I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I've noticed that you could play O5E and A5E at the same time (say, with an O5E character using exclusively O5E rules and an A5E character using all the A5E rules) with the DM/Narrator having to do no extra work whatsoever. (Beyond knowing both sets of rules). I don't even think it would be at all confusing.

I might do this with any player who is resistant to learning new rules. "Fine, don't bother then, you'll keep playing O5E".

That alone makes it pretty compatible.

Yeah, that is the one way I could see it working. Players can make D&D characters or Level Up characters, the D&D players function off of D&D rules, spells, feats, magic items, and so on, and the Level Up characters use the Level Up versions. Monsters work mostly the same way, but if a D&D character is hit with a critical only the monster damage dice are multiplied where if a Level Up character is hit by a critical the static modifiers also multiply, and so so.

I dunno man, at my table one player has an PHB Champion and rocks PHB feats and another has a retooled their Clockwork Soul to have the LU sorcerer base class with the Clockwork soul sub class. This is at level ten and we haven’t had any problems yet.
Right, D&D characters having D&D feats and other rules still seems to work. That might be the best way to add Level Up to a D&D game, using the two rule sets side by side essentially.

I’d give up. He hasn’t played it, but he insists it can’t be done despite the fact that people are actually doing it. Don’t tempt another essay!
There's a perfectly workable way it could be done, just have two different rule sets for two different character types. That way the D&D characters don't lose out on the D&D versions of things like Fireball, Counterspell, Bag of Holding, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Expertise as double proficiency, and so on, and the Level Up characters use the Level Up versions and the Level Up class content, ie, Expertise Dice, replacement feats and different core rules, crits double static modifiers, etc. That addresses most of the incompatibility issues by side-stepping them. Whether it's smooth and balanced requires testing.

That was what my earlier line of questioning was about, in fact, trying to get more specifics on the "play testing" that went on before Level Up's launch. I didn't get any specifics. "We play tested it" didn't tell me how it was play tested. With D&D rules, or Level Up rules, or a mixture as some have proposed above? With basic unoptimized feat-free, multiclass free simplistic builds, or optimized builds with feats and MC? I still don't have an answer to any of those questions, so to the best of my knowledge those playtests are happening right now, and haven't in the past. "We play tested it" tells me nothing about how it was play tested.
 
Last edited:






Faolyn

(she/her)
"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. ... It is similar to a method used in formal debate called spreading."

For instance:

That was what my earlier line of questioning was about, in fact, trying to get more specifics on the "play testing" that went on before Level Up's launch. I didn't get any specifics. "We play tested it" didn't tell me how it was play tested. With D&D rules, or Level Up rules, or a mixture as some have proposed above? With basic unoptimized feat-free, multiclass free simplistic builds, or optimized builds with feats and MC? I still don't have an answer to any of those questions, so to the best of my knowledge those playtests are happening right now, and haven't in the past. "We play tested it" tells me nothing about how it was play tested.
None of this how actually matters. Because let's say they played using LU combat rules but characters built using D&D rules. You'd then say "but they didn't mix the rulesets" or "they didn't say if it was feat-free" so it doesn't count. Or you'd question the exact mixture of rules, or just how unoptimized something is.

So the correct answer here is: you try it out, then report back. Have your PCs play in a sample adventure with LU rules like PtA/FB. If you the reason you haven't made a LU character is because don't want to give up certain builds, then try recreating them via maneuvers. Or try making brand new characters.
 

Rant

Explorer
"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. ... It is similar to a method used in formal debate called spreading."

For instance:


None of this how actually matters. Because let's say they played using LU combat rules but characters built using D&D rules. You'd then say "but they didn't mix the rulesets" or "they didn't say if it was feat-free" so it doesn't count. Or you'd question the exact mixture of rules, or just how unoptimized something is.

So the correct answer here is: you try it out, then report back. Have your PCs play in a sample adventure with LU rules like PtA/FB. If you the reason you haven't made a LU character is because don't want to give up certain builds, then try recreating them via maneuvers. Or try making brand new characters.

Playtesting is supposed be performed before a product is released, not after by the player base. It’s a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry I think.
 

Larnievc

Adventurer
Playtesting is supposed be performed before a product is released, not after by the player base. It’s a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry I think.
To be be fair you have been told that it was play tested by one of the authors (over two years, I believe). True not precisely how it was play tested but one imagines by playing the game under various conditions. Given this your comment here seems a little disingenuous.

Your initial position I believe was that the two rule sets were incompatible: is that still the case?
 

Rant

Explorer
To be be fair you have been told that it was play tested by one of the authors (over two years, I believe). True not precisely how it was play tested but one imagines by playing the game under various conditions. Given this your comment here seems a little disingenuous.

Your initial position I believe was that the two rule sets were incompatible: is that still the case?
Again, we are back in the vagaries of what “compatibility” means. I think it is possible to run a table with two different rule sets at work. I think it is possible to run D&D modules with Level Up rules. This makes it about as compatible as Pathfinder - which is a different system. It isn’t compatible with D&D rules that it overwrites by definition, by overwriting them, but a table could run two different rule systems side by side without either losing anything, it seems.

That means “compatible” to some people and not to others. To me, no. While I could run a Pathfinder and D&D combined table that’s an experimental game, not a compatible game. But to some with less concern they might consider it compatible.

It’s too vague of a term to have a solid objective answer. It’s clearly less compatible with D&D 5e than a true expansion like Tasha’s and more compatible with D&D 5e than a system with entire differently paradigms like Chaosium’s, if that’s what you are asking. It doesn’t meet my benchmark for compatibility. The ability to run an experimental game with two different rule set involves running two different rule sets. It’s a neat idea. It’s not compatibility, it’s a workaround for a lack thereof.

Also, I still have no details on what that playtesting looked like. Given that there are numerous last minute edits at play in the rules the version seem in print may have never been playtested save by the players. I asked specific questions about how the play test was done, what kind of builds and rules were used. “Two years of playtesting” is not an answer to that.
 

Larnievc

Adventurer
may have never been playtested save by the players
Who else would play test it?

I guess 'to me' compatibility means that two players can rock up to my game with a PHB champion and a LU sorcerer and I can sit there with my Trials and Treasures overload trip planned out with the Monster Menagerie and Tome of Beasts 2 for combat encounters and get on with the game with no worries. In practice what else matters?
 

Waller

Hero
two different rule sets --- two different rule systems --- two different rule set --- running two different rule sets.
If you keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Maybe eventually it will become true!

Wiat, no it won't. No it won't. No it won't. No it won't. No it won't. Is it working yet?

Dude, you haven't played the game, you've even indicated here that you have intention of playing it, you repeatedly post identical repetitive rants over and over and over again, about a game you haven't played, which directly contradict actual statements fom thos who have played it, and you have clearly made up your mind. This is just a Monty Python sketch at this point. Not one of the good ones.

Just give it a rest, eh?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Again, we are back in the vagaries of what “compatibility” means.
There's no vagueness here. Do you think you could play a game where some of the players are playing o5e characters and others are play LU characters, and you are using one or the other's rules, or a mixture of rules? Yes or no. Several people here have said yes, they can and have done exactly that. Which means that you can play it as well.

So, question: is your only or primary problem that you can't do certain builds with LU, because of the way that feats or classes are designed now?

If so, try building new characters. Don't expect you'll be able to make an exact duplicate of your character in LU. Or, try re-imagining your character in a new way, like I did with my Swashbuckler Rogue/Fighter to pure Fighter Duelist.
 

Rant

Explorer
Who else would play test it?

I guess 'to me' compatibility means that two players can rock up to my game with a PHB champion and a LU sorcerer and I can sit there with my Trials and Treasures overload trip planned out with the Monster Menagerie and Tome of Beasts 2 for combat encounters and get on with the game with no worries. In practice what else matters?
Typically playtesting happens before a product is released. Obviously different things matter to different people and compatibility means different things to some of us. But I have no elaboration on what kind of playtesting took place to assure me that it was sufficient.

Poorly thought out additions like Press The Attack indicate a lack of playtesting. Why would we assume the “compatibility” was playtested any more thoroughly than the core battle mechanics?
 


Rant

Explorer
@Rant, have you actually played a game using PtA/FB? Or are you making this decision based on what you've read?
Press the attack and fall back are obviously messed up from a read. There are some things that come across in text as obviously bad vs the need to test to confirm they’re bad.

Actions having built in reaction based countermeasure doesn’t line up with 5e game design. It creates a meta-game guessing game that doesn’t resemble in game tactics. Taking a class mechanic and universalizing it isn’t appropriate. Fall back’s disadvantages don’t mean as much to a caster using fall back as a melee attacker, and so on. Groups gain an advantage making the balance of swarm encounters vs solo encounters skewed. This is all apparent from just a read.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Press the attack and fall back are obviously messed up from a read. There are some things that come across in text as obviously bad vs the need to test to confirm they’re bad.

Actions having built in reaction based countermeasure doesn’t line up with 5e game design. It creates a meta-game guessing game that doesn’t resemble in game tactics. Taking a class mechanic and universalizing it isn’t appropriate. Fall back’s disadvantages don’t mean as much to a caster using fall back as a melee attacker, and so on. Groups gain an advantage making the balance of swarm encounters vs solo encounters skewed. This is all apparent from just a read.
For many of us o5e's "game design" doesn't line up very well with the needs of d&d... Having combatants moving in combat on my physical Tvbox displaying a local VTT for reasons other than closing to attack range will be a dramatic improvement & players having the option to trade risk of easier attacks against them for the reward of more successful attacks against an opponent gives me as the GM/Narrator more room for monsters to challenge players without simply adding gobs more hit points on top of a low ac.

1636944715255.png
 

Rant

Explorer
For many of us o5e's "game design" doesn't line up very well with the needs of d&d... Having combatants moving in combat on my physical Tvbox displaying a local VTT for reasons other than closing to attack range will be a dramatic improvement & players having the option to trade risk of easier attacks against them for the reward of more successful attacks against an opponent gives me as the GM/Narrator more room for monsters to challenge players without simply adding gobs more hit points on top of a low ac.

View attachment 146731
Press the attack/fall back is not where I would advise plugging the system. It’s a weak point. Social and exploration abilities and filling in choice-free levels, all positives. Press the attack is not a good mechanic.

You have solo creatures like dragons that already struggle to provide an adequate challenge while using legendary actions, lairs, and whatever else the game can cook up to make them competitive, now further weakened by being outnumbered. Encounters with large “mobs” of enemies that outnumber the players now are much more dangerous than before. Also, a mechanic with a built in “use a reaction to counter this” like Press the Attack or the Polearm Master replacement aren’t just antithetical to 5e design. It’s different from any edition of D&D to date.

If a mechanic seems overpowered or problematic so a counter to it needs to be introduced that involves using a reaction it might just be a sign that the mechanic is overpowered or problematic.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top