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

[Satirical Bard]

I think I'd check up on the 'subtle changes' thread in particular, Blue, as those are the ones that won't be as obvious as, say, combat maneuvers, etc. Also the spells winners and losers, if you're a spellcaster in a5e.

 

[Rant]

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?

Honestly, analysis and criticism of a product's merits and flaws is what I would expect from any discussion forum. Merits and flaws. There are merits I've noted. I've also pointed out flaws, and that's where we tend to get stuck conversationally - when people are rushing to deny the flaws instead of to address them. That's an odd thing I haven't encountered elsewhere.

This particular topic started as one about compatibility with D&D 5e. It doesn't meet my standards for "compatible." It doesn't need to either, as some have pointed out. It is its own stand-alone system meant to replace D&D rules, it has no expectation of compatibility with what it replaces therefore. So, why would people argue rather vehemently that is it compatible with the rules, as opposed to adventures? Not sure, but it's what we seem to be circling here.

Most of the time a subject matter forum is interested in all aspects of a hobby, a product, and so on - the good and the bad. I've rarely encountered a community response elsewhere that "denies" the bad, the flaws, the drawbacks, etc. It's not constructive to pretend something is perfect, or that it's worthless. Everything has good points and drawbacks. I'd be happy to discuss more of what I'm seeing that's good, great, even, but the hard edged denial of drawbacks is odd, to say the least.

The only thing someone "achieves" in a discussion forum is a discussion. A discussion often involves different viewpoints respectfully disagreeing on some points and agreeing on others. It's not an echo chamber or a praise and worship session for a product, it's a discussion. What I was hoping to "achieve" was a discussion. If there are things we disagree on, we disagree. That's a discussion.

I'm a bit surprised at the tone of the responses, however. Criticizing flaws in a product is a normal thing to do. Critical thinking is good, analysis is good. There's no obligation to defend the things we buy, so it's strange that reasonable criticisms of a product of mutual interest are treated as strange, when that's one of the assumed purposes of any discussion of a product.

Press the attack was brought in due to concerns over inadequate playtesting. Segueing to:

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.


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?


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?

Playtesting is important. More so before a product is released. That's how most people view it, regardless of a few outliers who think the consumer tests a product. My questions on playtesting began with the "compatibility" question. How were those playtests conducted that "assure" compatibility? It's a reasonable question. It's also not the consumer's job to test the product. But it is logically our purview to judge it. The issue of Press the Attack is separate from the compatibility question (beyond the fact that it's a universal maneuver that isn't part of the rule system Level Up replaces, but that's a bit tangential) but it's an example of the questionable nature of the playtesting, from my perspective. Again: The pre-release playtesting, not the current "in the wild" consumer playtesting.

 

[Rant]

One other note. A product like this has numerous authors. It wasn’t the passion project of one fan. So it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some of it to be very good, and some of it to be very flawed.

Attempting to discuss the thing as if it was one product in terms of quality doesn’t make sense. Some parts are better than others, clearly, and written by different authors clearly as well.

I suspect there are Level Up designers I strongly agree with and some I strongly disagree with. It might be advisable to apply this same perspective to the product. It’s very, very unlikely any player will like everything about a trio of books like this. I suspect even those who contributed some content don’t like other content.

With that perspective in mind, it might soften the blow for some people thinking that a criticism equals “hating the product.” A criticism is a reasonable sign of interest rather than indifference. It’s caring enough to be disappointed when something falls short of it’s potential.

 

[Rune]

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?

 

[Larnievc]

Typically playtesting happens before a product is released.

It was though. You’ve been told that multiple times by one of the authors.

 

[Larnievc]

Press the attack and fall back are obviously messed up from a read.

I don’t see why this is a big issue. If a berserker uses it the opponent cannot fall back.

 

[tetrasodium]

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 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

 

[Larnievc]

I think we agree on that.

I don’t think that this is the case. I certainly don’t.

 

[Larnievc]

Playtesting is important. More so before a product is released.

You’ve been told multiple times it was but you keep implying that it wasn’t.

I think I’m going to conclude that you’re analysis is flawed and leave it at that.

 

[Umbran]

I'm a bit surprised at the tone of the responses, however. Criticizing flaws in a product is a normal thing to do. Critical thinking is good, analysis is good.

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.