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

Rant

Explorer
Mod Note:
Sure.

But, giving the same criticism nearly a dozen times, over multiple threads is... more than a bit insistent. I daresay folks are apt to react to that. After asking the same questions more than a couple of times, the chances of getting an answer start to decrease, because you leave the realm of asking politely, and enter the realm of demanding.

So, you know, maybe don't beat that drum so incessantly, hm? Thanks.
I’ve given two criticisms and one observation tied to them, and one isn’t especially a criticism. Level Up does not meet my standards for compatibility with D&D characters, just adventures. I don’t think it can be used alongside D&D content that isn’t a module, as written. I also think Press the Attack is flawed and should be removed.

I have other issues, and other things I like, but stating two simple criticisms has become “repeated” by the number of bizarrely aggressive responses that “nothing is wrong.” My observation on playtesting builds off seeing that the two games do not function with each other, and some mechanics like PTA are not balanced or functional. That makes me question “how” the playtests took place that led to the conclusion the games are compatible with mixed parties of D&D and Level Up, and that PTA “works.”

These aren’t especially controversial opinions, so I’m not sure why I wouldn’t repeat the criticism in response to a counter-argument to said criticism. The criticisms remain.

Also, why would “folks be apt” to react to a criticism of a product, exactly? The designers might have things to answer for, but a lot of these responses are just fellow players. That’s entirely odd to me.

This is the stage where criticism is expected. Why wouldn’t it be exactly what is needed? Requested, even. There are major flaws that could still be fixed. Insisting they are fine isn’t helpful. Discussing what needs to be fixed, tweaked, or removed is useful. “Yes man” style validation of flawed rules isn’t helpful.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
I’ve given two criticisms and one observation tied to them, and one isn’t especially a criticism. Level Up does not meet my standards for compatibility with D&D characters, just adventures. I don’t think it can be used alongside D&D content that isn’t a module, as written. I also think Press the Attack is flawed and should be removed.

I have other issues, and other things I like, but stating two simple criticisms has become “repeated” by the number of bizarrely aggressive responses that “nothing is wrong.” My observation on playtesting builds off seeing that the two games do not function with each other, and some mechanics like PTA are not balanced or functional. That makes me question “how” the playtests took place that led to the conclusion the games are compatible with mixed parties of D&D and Level Up, and that PTA “works.”

These aren’t especially controversial opinions, so I’m not sure why I wouldn’t repeat the criticism in response to a counter-argument to said criticism. The criticisms remain.

Also, why would “folks be apt” to react to a criticism of a product, exactly? The designers might have things to answer for, but a lot of these responses are just fellow players. That’s entirely odd to me.

This is the stage where criticism is expected. Why wouldn’t it be exactly what is needed? Requested, even. There are major flaws that could still be fixed. Insisting they are fine isn’t helpful. Discussing what needs to be fixed, tweaked, or removed is useful. “Yes man” style validation of flawed rules isn’t helpful.
The problem, as I see it, is that other posters don't agree with you that the things you have a problem with are "major flaws". Unless they do, you're not going to get any discussion about how to fix them (because only you think they need to be fixed). Repeatedly demanding that people agree with you is clearly not accomplishing anything constructive.
 

Rant

Explorer
The problem, as I see it, is that other posters don't agree with you that the things you have a problem with are "major flaws". Unless they do, you're not going to get any discussion about how to fix them (because only you think they need to be fixed). Repeatedly demanding that people agree with you is clearly not accomplishing anything constructive.
It seems we are talking past each other. If the focus is on reinforcing rather than fixing bad design elements then there isn’t any real point in giving feedback at this stage. Many others see these same problems and others. The fact that others have responded with attempts to shut down those sort of comments and concerns don’t make them not exist.

Compatibility, this topic, isn’t even a criticism but an observation. The topic creator stated Level Up is no more incompatible than Tasha’s. That’s clearly not accurate. The “compatibility” question is semantics and presentation. As a new system replacing another system it isn’t aiming to be compatible.

Press the Attack is a deeply flawed rule that introduces issues no matter how you tweak it. It also isn’t needed for the game. Class features and battle circumstances offer advantage in plenty of ways. A universal bonus action opposed by a unique reaction for that action don’t make a good basis for a universal rule.
 

Press the Attack is a deeply flawed rule that introduces issues no matter how you tweak it.
See this is exactly the issue people have with you in particular. You acknowledge at times that this is all your own opinion but then later continue to speak in absolutes.

It’s insulting to those who don’t have the same issues with the content, and rude.

“Yes man” style validation of flawed rules isn’t helpful
Yeah this is designed to completely ignore that the issue isn’t that you disagree, it’s that you just won’t shut up about it in any thread you become a part of.

“yes man”ing isn’t helpful, thanks for stating what we all know. But did you know that beating a dead horse ALSO isn’t helpful?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
On the subject of compatibility, I have a related question:

If I’m running a group with an O5e Wizard using O5e spells and an A5e Wizard using A5e spells and the former lets the latter copy the O5e version of fireball into their spellbook, does it supersede the A5e version, make it obsolete, or transform into it?
I'd say you have the A5e version of the spell, as per this OOTS.
 

Rune

Once A Fool
I would require both of them to use the levelup spells. Allowing them to pick & choose o5e if they are better & vice versa would create a mess before even getting to rare spells & spell craft of custom spells
So you’re saying it’s not -fully- compatible, then?

My specific concern here would be that most of a wizard’s strength is in its versatility and the A5e wizard appears to have gained a considerable amount of that.

It appears that the O5e wizard would need the O5e spells to remain relevant side by side.

My more general concern is that your solution does not work if the O5e wizard does not like the the A5e spells, because adopting a new ruleset (even a parallel one) requires unanimous consent. At least with my gaming groups.

Do note that this is not a criticism of Level Up, which looks to be, on the whole, a fairly brilliant game. I’ll probably never get a chance to implement it in full, but I’d like to give it a campaign one day.

However, my intent always was to lift pieces of it into my game and encourage players to do likewise. When that time comes, I’d like to be able to avoid rough transitions like the one presented in my initial example.

So, with regard to that example, and considering that I do not intend to force new options on old players, what solution would you (plural) recommend?
 
Last edited:

Faolyn

(she/her)
I’ve given two criticisms and one observation tied to them, and one isn’t especially a criticism. Level Up does not meet my standards for compatibility with D&D characters, just adventures. I don’t think it can be used alongside D&D content that isn’t a module, as written. I also think Press the Attack is flawed and should be removed.
Your compatibility issue appears to be that you can't (or haven't figured out how to) have the same specific builds you currently have in your o5e game.

This argument is pretty invalid because you don't seem to have tried to replicate the results of the build, just the elements that went into it. You just seem to be saying "this feat is different; therefore, the build is different, therefore, the games aren't compatible." You're missing a few steps there.

Your hatred of PtA/FB is clear because you started this account just to complain about it. Maybe you're brand new to ENWorld; maybe you've been here a while but decided to use an alt account so we wouldn't know who you are. Since you hate PtA/FB, then remove it from your A5e game... assuming you ever actually play the game.

I have other issues, and other things I like, but stating two simple criticisms has become “repeated” by the number of bizarrely aggressive responses that “nothing is wrong.” My observation on playtesting builds off seeing that the two games do not function with each other, and some mechanics like PTA are not balanced or functional. That makes me question “how” the playtests took place that led to the conclusion the games are compatible with mixed parties of D&D and Level Up, and that PTA “works.”
You started a thread about it. You talked about it in two other threads (this one and the playtest with pregens). You're demanding specifics about the playtests on one action--PtA/FB--and have come to the conclusion that because you don't like the action, that the entire game wasn't playtested well and isn't compatible. You are ignoring the people who have said that they are actually playing a game with a mixed o5e/A5e party and saying it can't be done. And no matter how people respond to you, you are basically telling them that they're wrong because it doesn't match your expectations, which are based entirely on theorycrafting and not actual play.

And yes, you have done this repeatedly, over three threads.

And you won't even try the game for yourself and see how it plays in reality.

Are you honestly surprised that people are "aggressive" in their replies?
 

Rant

Explorer
Your compatibility issue appears to be that you can't (or haven't figured out how to) have the same specific builds you currently have in your o5e game.

This argument is pretty invalid because you don't seem to have tried to replicate the results of the build, just the elements that went into it. You just seem to be saying "this feat is different; therefore, the build is different, therefore, the games aren't compatible." You're missing a few steps there.

Your hatred of PtA/FB is clear because you started this account just to complain about it. Maybe you're brand new to ENWorld; maybe you've been here a while but decided to use an alt account so we wouldn't know who you are. Since you hate PtA/FB, then remove it from your A5e game... assuming you ever actually play the game.


You started a thread about it. You talked about it in two other threads (this one and the playtest with pregens). You're demanding specifics about the playtests on one action--PtA/FB--and have come to the conclusion that because you don't like the action, that the entire game wasn't playtested well and isn't compatible. You are ignoring the people who have said that they are actually playing a game with a mixed o5e/A5e party and saying it can't be done. And no matter how people respond to you, you are basically telling them that they're wrong because it doesn't match your expectations, which are based entirely on theorycrafting and not actual play.

And yes, you have done this repeatedly, over three threads.

And you won't even try the game for yourself and see how it plays in reality.

Are you honestly surprised that people are "aggressive" in their replies?
Yes, I am surprised. You didn’t write the game. No one person did, it’s a collaborative effort. There are things that are good and things that are bad. It’s surprising to have people react strongly to simple complaints about flawed rules. Realistically there is no way the contributors like every single rule and change in Level Up. It’s not one voice clearly, it’s a group, and some made better additions and changes than others. As players we could weed out the good from the bad, but only if we’re willing to accept that it has problems. PTA is a problem.

On compatibility, it’s been discussed thoroughly so I’m just leaving it as “it does not meet my standard for rules compatibility.” It seems fine for modules, but I don’t consider it compatible with D&D characters or D&D rules. We can disagree and that’s fine. It doesn’t meet my standard for compatibility and it might meet yours if you have different standards. There doesn’t seem much else to say beyond that, save that Level Up is objectively a different animal, compatibility wise, from an add-on like Tasha’s.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
So you’re saying it’s not -fully- compatible, then?

My specific concern here would be that most of a wizard’s strength is in its versatility and the A5e wizard appears to have gained a considerable amount of that.

It appears that the O5e wizard would need the O5e spells to remain relevant side by side.

My more general concern is that your solution does not work if the O5e wizard does not like the the A5e spells, because adopting a new ruleset (even a parallel one) requires unanimous consent. At least with my gaming groups.

Do note that this is not a criticism of Level Up, which looks to be, on the whole, a fairly brilliant game. I’ll probably never get a chance to implement it in full, but I’d like to give it a campaign one day.

However, my intent always was to lift pieces of it into my game and encourage players to do likewise. When that time comes, I’d like to be able to avoid rough transitions like the one presented in my initial example.

So, with regard to that example, and considering that I do not intend to force new options on old players, what solution would you (plural) recommend?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying & it's almost misrepresentation because compatible does not equal identical. I've allowed players to drag their feet as an excuse to engage in charop through selective unilateral veto of house rules under the excuse to needing more time to adapt/time to learn x or whatever in the past & it never ends well. Frustrations eventually rise all around from the gm needing to do things behind the curtain or eventually step in to change things players had.

It might be perfectly fine for you & your style of game & goals as a gm, but if I have a player dragging their feet to use the o5e stuff it's not a desirable thing for me. I say that because I intend to move to a5e & deliberately use as little of o5e as possible because of problems o5e itself presents for my preferred style of game/campaign. I don't want to allow the o5e wizard to exist at all at my table & intend to use everything at my disposal as a GM as well as a friend to a player to push the foot dragging player into using the new rules I wanted them to use so I can avoid o5e's problems.

A lot of us have been through shifts like this before at one point or another & someone linked to a great example OOTS strip earlier, compare tiny hut & create food & water between the two... is it fair for the o5e wizard to say "no guys I'm single handedly invalidating supply the need for finding safe places to rest & so on to shatter the entire exploration pillar some of y'all now shine in before it's even in play"?
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I’ve given two criticisms and one observation tied to them, and one isn’t especially a criticism.

Mod Note:
1) Please review the Terms and rules. Do not argue with moderation in-thread. If you feel a need to discuss, you can take it to a private message. You're new, so we can let it slide this time.

2) You've commented on the abilities and testing a dozen times across a couple of threads. It is coming off to your peers as a bit obsessed and aggressive. Please take the advice to move on to some other line of discussion.
 

Rune

Once A Fool
Your hatred of PtA/FB is clear because you started this account just to complain about it. Maybe you're brand new to ENWorld; maybe you've been here a while but decided to use an alt account so we wouldn't know who you are. Since you hate PtA/FB, then remove it from your A5e game... assuming you ever actually play the game.
To be fair, there are probably a fair number of people new to EN World who are only interested in talking about Level Up rules, because in the Level Up kickstarter comment section Morrus is directing such people here or to the Discord (wherever that is). And, for what it’s worth, Rant has said multiple times in this very thread that they like parts of Level Up (specifically calling out the monster design). So, even if they did join with the specific intent of complaining about those rules, it hasn’t all been that.
And you won't even try the game for yourself and see how it plays in reality.
Again, to be fair, Rant has made it clear that that can’t happen, because their players will not buy in. Even if Rant personally accepted the assertions that it all works fine, they still couldn’t find out through play. Assuming, that is, that the arguments to convince the players are no more successful than arguments to convince Rant have been. Which seems likely.

But carry on. I have no dog in the larger philosophical fight. My own compatibility concerns are personalized to my gaming groups (and largely revolve around how much work it will be to leave certain things out).
 

Rant

Explorer
Seems like people are reacting less to your "simple complaints," and more to your relentless badgering.
It’s odd to equate reiterating complaints on a product with personal badgering. Some iPhone owners don’t like that headphone jacks were removed. Complaining about that doesn’t typically get owners of newer model iPhones up in arms to defend the decision.
Complaining about flaws in a product isn’t a personal attack on people who own that product. Thats not badgering product owners, it’s a critique of a product itself.
 

Rant

Explorer
Challenging moderation
Mod Note:
1) Please review the Terms and rules. Do not argue with moderation in-thread. If you feel a need to discuss, you can take it to a private message. You're new, so we can let it slide this time.

2) You've commented on the abilities and testing a dozen times across a couple of threads. It is coming off to your peers as a bit obsessed and aggressive. Please take the advice to move on to some other line of discussion.
To clarify, repetition is against the rules of conduct? Pointing out flaws in a product? Restating the same point repeatedly in response to counter arguments? I’m not clear why a moderator is becoming involved in discussion of a rule system. There are no personal attacks taking place here, no inappropriate language or harsh words. Just direct criticisms of flaws in a product.

What exactly are you saying? Don’t repeat yourself? Repetitive counter arguments are circling each other. I’ve left it as “doesn’t meet my standard for compatibility” on this topic.

Be very specific. What is it you are asking to change about these posts? Is complaining about flawed rules not allowed on a forum to discuss the rules? That’s disturbing, if so.
 


Rune

Once A Fool
A lot of us have been through shifts like this before at one point or another & someone linked to a great example OOTS strip earlier, compare tiny hut & create food & water between the two... is it fair for the o5e wizard to say "no guys I'm single handedly invalidating supply the need for finding safe places to rest & so on to shatter the entire exploration pillar some of y'all now shine in before it's even in play"?
Fortunately, I was between campaigns when 3.5 came around. Good comparison, though. If I recall fly and haste both got nerfed pretty hard. And weapon sizes changed things on a fundamental level (as Belkar laments).

The truly traumatic transition came with 4e. That killed my years-long 3.5 campaign because conversion of half the party was impossible at launch. No half-orc, no monk, no gnomes.
 

So you’re saying it’s not -fully- compatible, then?

My specific concern here would be that most of a wizard’s strength is in its versatility and the A5e wizard appears to have gained a considerable amount of that.

It appears that the O5e wizard would need the O5e spells to remain relevant side by side.

My more general concern is that your solution does not work if the O5e wizard does not like the the A5e spells, because adopting a new ruleset (even a parallel one) requires unanimous consent. At least with my gaming groups.

Do note that this is not a criticism of Level Up, which looks to be, on the whole, a fairly brilliant game. I’ll probably never get a chance to implement it in full, but I’d like to give it a campaign one day.

However, my intent always was to lift pieces of it into my game and encourage players to do likewise. When that time comes, I’d like to be able to avoid rough transitions like the one presented in my initial example.

So, with regard to that example, and considering that I do not intend to force new options on old players, what solution would you (plural) recommend?
What you do is if a o5e mage teaches fireball to an a53 mage it is a rare spell. The rare version of the spell you specifically mentioned fireball is exactly just that. Now personally I would make copying it take linger cost more to show just how different the two wizards were taught.
 

Rune

Once A Fool
What you do is if a o5e mage teaches fireball to an a53 mage it is a rare spell. The rare version of the spell you specifically mentioned fireball is exactly just that. Now personally I would make copying it take linger cost more to show just how different the two wizards were taught.
Thank you! This looks like a very good (and, importantly, simple) solution. I wonder if double cost would be about right.
 

I think it's obvious by now that there are some limits to complete interoperability [which is a different thing to compatibility] between the 2 systems. The example of an o5e wizard and a a5e wizard in the same party is one of them, without some finessing by the DM/Narrator.

Similarly, some o5e subclasses won't work on a5e base classes without some adjustments, because of the way they key off the o5e base class abilities (stars druids and drakewarden druids have come up, but there will be others), while others that were in the o5e OGL are better off being replaced with the new version of the same (beastmasters, moon druids, etc). But most subclasses bolt on just fine, which is great.
 

I think it's obvious by now that there are some limits to complete interoperability [which is a different thing to compatibility] between the 2 systems. The example of an o5e wizard and a a5e wizard in the same party is one of them, without some finessing by the DM/Narrator.

Similarly, some o5e subclasses won't work on a5e base classes without some adjustments, because of the way they key off the o5e base class abilities (stars druids and drakewarden druids have come up, but there will be others), while others that were in the o5e OGL are better off being replaced with the new version of the same (beastmasters, moon druids, etc). But most subclasses bolt on just fine, which is great.
It’s funny you mention this, I will be watching a “revised beastmaster” from tashas A5E ranger in action this Tuesday! I’ll let ya’ll know how it goes
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top