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

[Faolyn]

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.

So you haven't actually tested it out.

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.

I disagree that it causes a "guessing game." In-game, a character is basically making an "all-out attack" that involves advancing on you. You can clearly see this is happening, and thus can respond by holding your ground or falling back. The only "meta" part is that the DM will say that it's using PtA, in much the same way that the DM would tell you that a creature has grappled you.

I don't think that the version in the pdfs wasn't playtested. I think it was written poorly and didn't convey its full meaning.

 

[Rant]

So you haven't actually tested it out.


I disagree that it causes a "guessing game." In-game, a character is basically making an "all-out attack" that involves advancing on you. You can clearly see this is happening, and thus can respond by holding your ground or falling back. The only "meta" part is that the DM will say that it's using PtA, in much the same way that the DM would tell you that a creature has grappled you.

I don't think that the version in the pdfs wasn't playtested. I think it was written poorly and didn't convey its full meaning.

We simply don’t know without more specifics on the playtest process. It reads as something that was not playtested in its current form, I think we agree on that. There are far too many cases of “giving the benefit of the doubt,” from rules like PTA to “assurance of compatibility.”

Evidence indicates it is not compatible and that PTA does not work well. The counter is a broadly worded assurance that it “worked in playtests.” Based on these forums it seems most of the playtesting is happening now, however.

That isn’t good, by the way, in case that needs to be spelled out.

 

[Blue]

We simply don’t know without more specifics on the playtest process. It reads as something that was not playtested in its current form, I think we agree on that. There are far too many cases of “giving the benefit of the doubt,” from rules like PTA to “assurance of compatibility.”

Evidence indicates it is not compatible and that PTA does not work well. The counter is a broadly worded assurance that it “worked in playtests.” Based on these forums it seems most of the playtesting is happening now, however.

That isn’t good, by the way, in case that needs to be spelled out.

Just to jump in, exposure to real world is usually several orders of magnitude larger than testing. This is just as true as when IBM releases a new version of software as it is for small RPG companies. A team literally, meant in the actual definition of that word, cannot test as much as the variations that will be seen once something hits general availability.

Continually saying that playtesting is only happening now undermines any other point you are trying to say, because it shows ignorance of just about anything new coming out, in any field. Cars come out that have recalls because they have issues that could kill people, and you know they were tested.

You have conveyed your point that you have judged the playtesting insufficient. What is your next goal? If it's to convince people that you have a valid point about PtA/FB, the barrier is that one one side we have an armchair quarterback with a short exposure to the system, and on the other side we have a team with long exposure, and some playtesting regardless if you are unaware of the details. That doesn't give you any credibility. And you aren't going to gain it by trying to pick apart their playtesting methodology - it still leaves you just a theory-crafter who has never tried the rules.

If your job is just to get your message out there - you can rest on your laurels, you have already succeeded. However, if you goal is to convince people, then your next step is provide actual data. Play with it in a variety of situations and levels. Show combat breakdowns where it doesn't work. The burden of proof the PtA/FA is broken is on the accusers and you need to step up with real play data.

 

[Rant]

Just to jump in, exposure to real world is usually several orders of magnitude larger than testing. This is just as true as when IBM releases a new version of software as it is for small RPG companies. A team literally, meant in the actual definition of that word, cannot test as much as the variations that will be seen once something hits general availability.

Continually saying that playtesting is only happening now undermines any other point you are trying to say, because it shows ignorance of just about anything new coming out, in any field. Cars come out that have recalls because they have issues that could kill people, and you know they were tested.

You have conveyed your point that you have judged the playtesting insufficient. What is your next goal? If it's to convince people that you have a valid point about PtA/FB, the barrier is that one one side we have an armchair quarterback with a short exposure to the system, and on the other side we have a team with long exposure, and some playtesting regardless if you are unaware of the details. That doesn't give you any credibility. And you aren't going to gain it by trying to pick apart their playtesting methodology - it still leaves you just a theory-crafter who has never tried the rules.

If your job is just to get your message out there - you can rest on your laurels, you have already succeeded. However, if you goal is to convince people, then your next step is provide actual data. Play with it in a variety of situations and levels. Show combat breakdowns where it doesn't work. The burden of proof the PtA/FA is broken is on the accusers and you need to step up with real play data.

Level Up (A5E) - Playtest results using pregen characters

Earlier tonight, I managed to rope some player into a playtest of Level Up. One of my biggest complaints about D&D combat is that by default it devolves into a static slugfest, so I was excited to see how "Press the Attack" and "Fall Back" might make combat more dynamic, but I was concerned...

www.enworld.org

There is a thread where another player has done so, and noted issues with the mechanic and it’s impact on balance.
To your point about real world testing, and “credibility,” playtesting, or simply a thorough read of the Press The Attack concept, would have revealed it’s riddled with issues. That’s more “this car doesn’t have tires” than something requiring months of road testing to reveal. The issues are very surface-level obvious.

 

[Blue]

Level Up (A5E) - Playtest results using pregen characters

Earlier tonight, I managed to rope some player into a playtest of Level Up. One of my biggest complaints about D&D combat is that by default it devolves into a static slugfest, so I was excited to see how "Press the Attack" and "Fall Back" might make combat more dynamic, but I was concerned...

www.enworld.org

There is a thread where another player has done so, and noted issues with the mechanic and it’s impact on balance.
To your point about real world testing, and “credibility,” playtesting, or simply a thorough read of the Press The Attack concept, would have revealed it’s riddled with issues. That’s more “this car doesn’t have tires” than something requiring months of road testing to reveal. The issues are very surface-level obvious.

And there we have people who are actually working to improve the game by pointing out bugs. Aspire to be them.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think we can assume that the internal playtesting must have had some different wording to avoid Press-spamming. (That or by some weird fluke no one thought to do it). We just don't know what that wording is yet. Nor do we know if it will be better that way (but we can hope so).

 

[Rant]

And there we have people who are actually working to improve the game by pointing out bugs. Aspire to be them.

I’ve already pointed out that Press the Attack is a problematic mechanic that needs to be removed from the game, not reworded. If I run a few sample combats with my group as this other poster did to provide anecdotal data to back that up I doubt it will result in Press the Attack’s removal.
There isn’t anything noble and valuable about playing with bad mechanics for the sake of saying you did so. Some might be “iffy” and a playtest is required to see how they pan out in actual play. Press the attack is an example that’s obvious from reading it, for those who understand and play 5e D&D, that it does not mesh well with the game.

 

[Satirical Bard]

Rant, can I ask why you're even still posting here?

You've made it abundantly clear you not only don't like Level Up at all, you don't actually want a new rules system. Furthemore, you think it's a terrible product that reflects badly on all involved, who clearly don't know anything about good game design.

You've written something like 100 posts and an entire blog article to this effect.

What are you hoping to achieve by continuing to pour crap on Level Up and its authors on its own forum, mostly in the form of repeating the same comments again and again and again and again? And why do you think this strategy is going to be an effective way to achieve that hope, rather than getting on everyone's nerves, as it seems to be doing so far?

 

[Blue]

I’ve already pointed out that Press the Attack is a problematic mechanic that needs to be removed from the game, not reworded.

You have chimed in as an armchair quarterback. Actually, I would say that the majority of armchair quarterbacks have at least seen a game of football, while you don't even have that distinction. That is not high on the credibility scale for what you pointing out mattering.

If I run a few sample combats with my group as this other poster did to provide anecdotal data to back that up I doubt it will result in Press the Attack’s removal.

Yet you have just used a thread that is doing exactly that as a resource to support your point.

Are they not doing anything useful in that thread in which case it's no support for what you are saying?

Or are they doing something useful and you are just being hypocritical here?

There isn’t anything noble and valuable about playing with bad mechanics for the sake of saying you did so.

Luckily, the goal wasn't "noble" nor "valuable". It was "credible". And yes, having actually tried something to see how if it works in actual play conditions as you expect from reading it is the minimum level of playtesting to be credible.

I seem to remember reading comment after comment from you asking about how they did their playtesting. Do you actually believe playtesting is useful, so here you are again speaking hypocritically, or in all of those did you not think playtesting was important and were just trying to win a point?

 

[Blue]

Quick question tangential to "compatibility":

If I'm running a O5E game and playing in a separate A5E game with a different group, what are the changes I am most likely to get caught on switching back and forth between those tables every week.

For example I had a DM running 5e who used to bring in a bunch of 3.x rules, like +2 for flanking, and +1 to charge, that weren't 5e. Just because he had a lot of experience with one system, and nothing in the other system was overriding that with a new rule.

I've brought Advantage into 13th Age (a d20 game) before when I was running it - not on purpose, just told them to role with advantage for something, they did it (also playing 5e), and we noticed later.

None of these are game breakers at all - those systems were pretty compatible in those ways and A5E is even closer. But they are things that tripped us up.