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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

On these points, in short, a lot of the assumption that a rules replacement still works with the rules and classes its replacing - which is a difficult concept to wrap my head around - seems to hang on the broad notion that "it works."

I think because it "mostly works". As you point out there are some things that don't, but I think most people feel that even for those you can make a few fairly easy judgement calls and make it work.

 

[Rant]

The thing is, the group I’m running for would be specifically hamstrung by Level Up’s changes. It includes an Expertise as double proficiency oriented multiclass heavy skill based character who depends on double proficiency bonus, a Polearm Master+Sentinel Barbarian/Fighter defender, an abjurerer
Wizard/Fighter 1 specializing in counterspell and dispelling enemy buffs, a monk/cleric depending on Polearm master + stunning strike for personal defense, and a ranged hand crossbow pure fighter who would be least impacted since crossbow expert and sharpshooter weren’t badly impacted on Level Up.

I’ve used the monstrous menagerie which is fine, but going over some of the rules options in core went from interest to a “nope, never” quickly when I floated the idea, for reasons I’ve already noted - so apparently my group has a different mindset on how they view compatibility. The changed magic items really got to them, particularly the ones that are designed to create resources and don’t anymore, like the decanter, but the rule changes were enough that it’s a different game.

I’ve pitched a one-off short game where we just “try it” but that spun the conversation to, “if we want to play 5e we should play 5e and if we want to play something else heres my recommendation” which covered everything from 13th Age to Pathfinder 2e to The Dark Eye.

They were pretty psyched for an add-on that gives new classes and rules but not the Level Up system that changes build concepts they rely on. The monsters are fine, but the player rules aren’t exciting then and I get why, hence passing on the “notes” that these are a big deal to players who rely on those elements for their builds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel some groups (and your group in particular) are too invested in specific build options for their PCs that would be altered in Level Up. That doesnt make the games incompatible. It makes your party incompatible. Which is fine, but it sounds like a far more specific issue than you're suggesting.

 

[VanguardHero]

So you have a highly optimized group that broke the game and their interest was not in the character concepts themselves, but the mechanical superiority they have. That group not being interested in a Level Up is definitely a notch in the Positives column I think.

 

[Rant]

So you have a highly optimized group that broke the game and their interest was not in the character concepts themselves, but the mechanical superiority they have. That group not being interested in a Level Up is definitely a notch in the Positives column I think.

It’s one less group interested in the game, whatever your personal feelings on our play style. They are interested in having character depth, about half are pretty well as hard core on the role playing as roll playing, but I don’t begrudge any of them wanting to play interesting and effective characters and I build challenges to suit those alongside a story and NPCs to engage the role play heavy ones.
As a GM, it’s much more interesting to see fights against characters who make effective use of the system than vanilla builds that are as boring to watch as to play, honestly. I can craft encounters with powerful spellcasters knowing the abjurerer will tactical shut down one spell per round. I can send waves of strong enemies knowing the Barbarian/Fighter can probably lock one down with Polearm master and sentinel and the Cleric/Monk can do the same if one closes with Polearm Master and stunning strike. The pure fighter is straight damage but the group works to make the most of it, ensuring buffs like Improved Invisibility make the most of those action surges. The party can handle any sort of skill based test with good role play, critical thinking, and an MC build that leverages multiple expertises as well as the knowledge domain ability to learn any skill or tool, along with reliable talent.
I would always prefer to run for well built mechanically interesting characters than build around “softball” encounters, or non-combat challenges where the party neglected to cover anything beyond the ability to kill things.
Level Up seems to offer a whole lot of that. But it doesn’t offer it alongside the 5e builds my players prefer. If it did, I think they’d be sold on it, and so would I, as far as the player stuff. No one has issues with the monsters, though, which do make for more interesting fights from our first couple of uses of the new menagerie, so that’s something worthwhile.

 

[Rant]

Also, to add on someone’s prior comparison of Tasha’s to Level Up, very much apples and oranges. My group loved Tasha’s because it opened up a lot of exciting new options and a few of them used Tasha’s content in their current builds. It didn’t take away options or weaken them, however, so it’s not at all an appropriate comparison with Level Up.

 

[Rant]

I feel some groups (and your group in particular) are too invested in specific build options for their PCs that would be altered in Level Up. That doesnt make the games incompatible. It makes your party incompatible. Which is fine, but it sounds like a far more specific issue than you're suggesting.

It’s certainly “specific” in the sense that we all speak from our “specific” experiences and preferences with gaming, that’s a given. It’s more “universal” in the sense that ours is far from the only group that prefers to add on to a system instead of replacing it.

We get excited for new D&D books and make use of them. Some of the group pitches third party content which gets judged on a case by case basis. That has always been as an “add on” to D&D, though. Content that “takes away” is a whole different animal, or more accurately, a whole different game.

 

[Satirical Bard]

Once again, you're talking about converting an existing group of PCs to LU - and expecting everything to be the same. Not compatible. The same.

Look, we get it. You read the reams of information and still completely misunderstood what Level Up is. You may have even blown $$ on something you don't now want. We all make mistakes. We've all been disappointed in purchases that didn't meet our expectations or hopes.

But stop blaming Level Up for not being a thing it never set out or claimed to be.

 

[Rant]

Once again, you're talking about converting an existing group of PCs to LU - and expecting everything to be the same. Not compatible. The same.

Look, we get it. You read the reams of information and still completely misunderstood what Level Up is. You may have even blown $$ on something you don't now want. We all make mistakes. We've all been disappointed in purchases that didn't meet our expectations or hopes.

But stop blaming Level Up for not being a thing it never set out or claimed to be.

The Monster Menagerie is worth it largely. As to whether it is what it claimed to be, that depends on what sources people relied on and how they interpreted them. What this thread is claiming - that Level Up is compatible with D&D classes and is no more game changing than Tasha’s - I specifically disagree with. I disagree with the notion that Level Up characters can be ran alongside D&D characters.
A lot of people understood it to be a new system and so there’s no surprise with the end product. Those people should be the first to agree that as a “new system” it isn’t meant to work alongside the “old system’s” classes and characters, only with its adventures.

 

[Xer0_TLW]

It’s certainly “specific” in the sense that we all speak from our “specific” experiences and preferences with gaming, that’s a given. It’s more “universal” in the sense that ours is far from the only group that prefers to add on to a system instead of replacing it.

We get excited for new D&D books and make use of them. Some of the group pitches third party content which gets judged on a case by case basis. That has always been as an “add on” to D&D, though. Content that “takes away” is a whole different animal, or more accurately, a whole different game.

First, to be a bit cheeky, your username could not be more accurate. I think we all get the point you're trying to express, it sounds like LU is just, not for you and your table. And that's fine. In the meantime, I think everyone else in this thread will just try actually playing it before being so critical about something we've yet to mess around with, and as DMs we'll get to decide what works for our table and what doesn't.