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

[VanguardHero]

If you want to run Curse of Strahd in A5E, you can do so.

This is in fact my plan!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

One thing I'm interested in (which can probably be better examined when we've all had time to digest the rules more) is what tweaks can be made to O5e classes to make them more comparable to A5e classes. (For those who wonder why I would care to do so, I'll explain at the end of the post).

I haven't done the math and gone over it with a fine toothed comb, but my first impressions are:
1. Some A5e classes are about equal to O5e classes in combat performance (I'd guess Fighter and Adept fall in that category).
2. Some A5e classes are better than O5e classes even in combat performance (someone gave the example of the Wizard and I think Sorcerers and Warlocks are even more so).
3. All A5e classes are better than O5e classes in non-combat pillar participation. (Since this was, you know, an important design goal, that's as it should be, lol.)

Now we get to my hypothetical house rules. Again, without having thoroughly read them, it looks like for most of the A5e classes, you could give their respective "Knacks" to O5e classes, and the O5e classes would still not become better than the A5e classes. (Rangers and Rogues are the ones I think this could most likely actually be a problem for.) Now, if you give the O5e classes the Knacks from A5e, and some of those classes are still inferior to A5e classes, then that gets trickier.

What I'm looking into is whether it might be balanced to say that an O5e class can either get the "knacks" from A5e, OR a free ASI/Feat at 1st-level. Again, I don't expect everyone to have a firm grasp on how balanced that would be at this point, but thoughts and feedback would be appreciated.

As to my reasoning for doing this. One of my main reasons for including Level Up in my game is to provide more options for players. I like O5e, and don't want to completely replace it. I'm planning on allowing both versions of the classes, and most of the subclasses (which can be mixed and matched). I'm going to switch probably most of my core rules to A5e, but some might stay O5e. I need to analyze it fully and make the hybrid that works best for my group. I would like O5e classes to remain relevant, both in case someone just prefers them ("But I love Action Surge and getting two extra feats!") and for players that want something simple. So I need to find a way to make sure you are always getting something worth having from picking an O5e class over the A5e version. One way I can do this is to add the bonus class features from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything to the O5e classes and not the A5e classes, but some of them will need more. For instance, assuming I do so, the O5e Wizard has precisely 2 things they get that A5e doesn't by 20th-level: 1) They can cast a 2nd-level spell at-will (misty step at-will is not nothing), 2) They can change a cantrip known on a long rest. In every other way the A5e Wizard is superior, usually the entire way. Now, if I gave the O5e Wizard the choice of either getting the A5e Elective Studies, or getting a free ASI/Feat at 1st level, that might do the job. If you want simple, starting with a +2 to Intelligence will always be your friend. If you really want to switch your cantrips or you want an at-will 2nd-level spell in epic tier, then you can still get some exploration features, even though you'll be overall less flexible and effective probably.

 

[Xethreau]

To the folks saying "A5e classes are just better in every way," I obviously have no counterargument to that!

 

[Blue]

So that has two answers.

1. Yes, you can do all that. The basic goal was to allow you to run an O5E adventure using our rules.
2. Even if you couldn't the game would still be compatible with 5E. A DC 18 check and a DC 17 check are both compatible with 5E. Three goblins and two goblins are both compatible with 5E. There's no incompatibility there.

Agreed. I was looking for rough neghborhood - a DC 17 and DC 18 are similar. I was looking for things that had a big difference. If the standard DCs for Hard and higher difficulties needed to be moved up +5 because of skill inflation, or if we were moving out of bounded accuracy such that T3-4 characters can't use the same DC chart - that sort of thing.

I guess different folks can define compatibility in different ways, but to us it means that you can use O5E stuff in our game (adventures, characters, monsters, etc.) If you want to run Curse of Strahd in A5E, you can do so. Our Thursday night game has us playing Tomb of Annihilation using A5E rules. It works just fine, except that the DM keeps saying how much he enjoys the new tools at his disposal.

But a new 5E rule is compatible with 5E. Otherwise no new D&D book would be compatible with D&D! You can change a 5E rule and keep it compatible with 5E.

Now, if you define compatibility differently, then only you can decide whether it's compatible. But that's our definition and what we mean when we say 'compatible'.

I honestly believe you wouldn't put out a product if you didn't think it was great. Pardon me but I have some additional questions if it will fit my particular needs which is why I was getting more granular on compatible.

I have a table that likes 5e, isn't interested in learned other game systems, and if we introduce A5E it will be added to an existing O5e hardcover campaign and be playing right alongside existing O5E characters in a sort of "Super-expansion" sort of way. I was trying to find out how well it will mesh, including things like resource attrition as well as how close it is in the various pillars of play. I tried to make those questions broad for others who were looking for using both O5E and A5E material for their particular circumstances.

 

[Morrus]

Agreed. I was looking for rough neghborhood - a DC 17 and DC 18 are similar. I was looking for things that had a big difference. If the standard DCs for Hard and higher difficulties needed to be moved up +5 because of skill inflation, or if we were moving out of bounded accuracy such that T3-4 characters can't use the same DC chart - that sort of thing.



I honestly believe you wouldn't put out a product if you didn't think it was great. Pardon me but I have some additional questions if it will fit my particular needs which is why I was getting more granular on compatible.

I have a table that likes 5e, isn't interested in learned other game systems, and if we introduce A5E it will be added to an existing O5e hardcover campaign and be playing right alongside existing O5E characters in a sort of "Super-expansion" sort of way. I was trying to find out how well it will mesh, including things like resource attrition as well as how close it is in the various pillars of play. I tried to make those questions broad for others who were looking for using both O5E and A5E material for their particular circumstances.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I can't think of a clearer way of explaining what we mean by compatibility than how I did. You got my bestest words there! I think I've made it clear that I believe it meshes very well and has done in both O5E adventures we ran with it.

 

[Faolyn]

AFAICT, literally the only major difference outside of how PCs are built is in exhaustion and strife instead of fatigue, and requiring havens to get rid of them.

 

[Rant]

Trying to grok what you’re saying from what you bolded. Are you implying that 5E characters cannot be played alongside LU characters? Because that’s very clearly not true. We’ve been doing that since the playtests with no problems at all. It’s not like they use a differemt rules system. They’re just new classes. Like the artificer was.

That's a bit inaccurate, as Level Up is, specifically, a different rule system. That's evidently by design. It's not an add-on, its a replacement for all the core rules. So yes, it is exactly like they use a different rule system, because they do. Level Up classes use the Level Up rule system, D&D classes use the D&D rule system.

AFAICT, literally the only major difference outside of how PCs are built is in exhaustion and strife instead of fatigue, and requiring havens to get rid of them.

No, again, there are lot of differences beyond those. A bunch of core feats work differently than the D&D feats they replace. A bunch of Level Up spells work different than the D&D spells they replace. A bunch of core rules work differently from the D&D rules they replace, like critical hits, Press the Attack as a universal combat option, the armor and weapon tables, and many, many more.
Different does not mean "bad" but it does mean "different." Replacing rules is different from adding on to rules. A game expansion adds new options, it doesn't change existing rules. A rule replacement is a new system. Level Up is a new system, a new game, that's compatible with the adventures of another game.

 

[Waller]

That's a bit inaccurate, as Level Up is, specifically, a different rule system. That's evidently by design. It's not an add-on, its a replacement for all the core rules. So yes, it is exactly like they use a different rule system, because they do. Level Up classes use the Level Up rule system, D&D classes use the D&D rule system.

No, again, there are lot of differences beyond those. A bunch of core feats work differently than the D&D feats they replace. A bunch of Level Up spells work different than the D&D spells they replace. A bunch of core rules work differently from the D&D rules they replace, like critical hits, Press the Attack as a universal combat option, the armor and weapon tables, and many, many more.
Different does not mean "bad" but it does mean "different." Replacing rules is different from adding on to rules. A game expansion adds new options, it doesn't change existing rules. A rule replacement is a new system. Level Up is a new system, a new game, that's compatible with the adventures of another game.

If a new class or feat or a new spell means it's a different rule system, then every D&D book is a different rule system, because they all have new feats and spells and monsters and stuff.

 

[Faolyn]

No, again, there are lot of differences beyond those. A bunch of core feats work differently than the D&D feats they replace. A bunch of Level Up spells work different than the D&D spells they replace. A bunch of core rules work differently from the D&D rules they replace, like critical hits, Press the Attack as a universal combat option, the armor and weapon tables, and many, many more.
Different does not mean "bad" but it does mean "different." Replacing rules is different from adding on to rules. A game expansion adds new options, it doesn't change existing rules. A rule replacement is a new system. Level Up is a new system, a new game, that's compatible with the adventures of another game.

But those are not different in the sense you have to rewrite an adventure to use them.

 

[Rant]

But those are not different in the sense you have to rewrite an adventure to use them.

Absolutely right, which is why it is compatible with "adventures" despite being a different system. It is not compatible with D&D classes, or D&D rules, because it is a different rule system that overwrites D&D.

If a new class or feat or a new spell means it's a different rule system, then every D&D book is a different rule system, because they all have new feats and spells and monsters and stuff.

No, that is inaccurate. Tasha's is a poor comparison - it adds to rules and options, it does not change core rules and remove existing options.

As explained earlier, D&D rulebooks that add new spells and feats are 'additive.' They are not 'replacing' existing content and rules. There is a huge different between a 'rule expansion' and a 'rule replacement.'

Tasha's Cauldron is a rules expansion for 5e D&D. Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide is a rules expansion for Pathfinder 1. Pathfinder 1 was a 'rules replacement' for 3.5 D&D, and Level Up is a 'rules replacement' for 5e D&D.