Level Up (A5E) Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Is Coming!

Level Up is the working title for a standalone 'advanced 5E' backwards compatible tabletop RPG coming to Kickstarter in 2021 from EN Publishing.

A crunchier, more flexible version of the 5E ruleset which you know and love. If you love 5E but would like a little more depth to the ruleset, Level Up is the game for you!

Level Up is the working codename for a standalone hardcover roleplaying game brought to you by the team which brought you EN5ider Magazine and Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters!

Sign up for news about Level Up! This mailing list is for news, surveys, feedback, and playtests. Or simply register your interest in the Kickstarter.

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition (A5E)

The standalone 'advanced 5E' backwards compatible tabletop RPG!

www.levelup5e.com

This is an ‘advanced’ version of the 5E ruleset, presented as a hardcover standalone game. It adds more customization and depth to the game. Basically, it’s a ‘crunchier’ version of 5th Edition. It's still the game you know and love. We love it too! All your 5E books will be compatible with this new game.

We already have a list of what we want to include in Level Up, although this list is not yet final We’ll be using surveys to adjust that list. We hope to include a fully developed exploration pillar, flexible character choices at each level, a new approach to heritage, martial maneuvers, a ‘cinematic/gritty’ toggle, spell-less ranger and warlord, and followers and strongholds, and more. Keep an eye out for the surveys!

We are also recruiting a diverse team of expert 5th Edition writers. We’ll have more news on that soon.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is the basic idea a no-magic Ranger, or just a spell-less Ranger, because the two ideas are quite different. A ranger about 10% more supernatural than a monk, I’m all for. A fully mundane ranger seems...wholly redundant.

How so? Other martials don’t really get much in the way of survivalist abilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How so? Other martials don’t really get much in the way of survivalist abilities.

Without anything supernatural, it is extremely unlikely to be thematically or mechanically distinct from a scout rogue or a fighter with Outlander and maybe the UA Tracker feat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Without anything supernatural, it is extremely unlikely to be thematically or mechanically distinct from a scout rogue or a fighter with Outlander and maybe the UA Tracker feat.

I disagree. The rogue is structurally distinct from the Ranger and doesn’t even begin expressing the survivalist concept until 3rd level. The Fighter is a generalist, while the Ranger is in part defined by being a specialist. Maybe in a game where classes were broader than they are in 5e a distinct Ranger class wouldn’t be necessary, but 5e isn’t that game. And besides, if there’s demand for a nonmagical ranger, it doesn’t much matter if it’s “redundant.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree. The rogue is structurally distinct from the Ranger and doesn’t even begin expressing the survivalist concept until 3rd level. The Fighter is a generalist, while the Ranger is in part defined by being a specialist. Maybe in a game where classes were broader than they are in 5e a distinct Ranger class wouldn’t be necessary, but 5e isn’t that game. And besides, if there’s demand for a nonmagical ranger, it doesn’t much matter if it’s “redundant.”

I mean, okay?

The proposal is a version of 5e where the classes aren’t as rigidly structured. Presumably the fighter and rogue will both be able to express a wider range of concepts at level 1.

I also have doubts as to the demand for a fully mundane ranger, as opposed to simply a ranger that doesn’t cast spells.

But if alternate class features are a big part of LU, then a mundane ranger is trivially easy in either mundane class.

The things that makes the ranger distinct as a concept are a focus on survivalist skills, and a supernatural affinity with nature/the land. The fact that they’re more than a scout rogue can be, in terms of moving through the wilderness and protecting the people who live on the edge of the wild. Things like primeval awareness (Aragorn putting his head to the ground and reading the battle so clearly from the churned up earth that he was able to see that the hobbits fled into the forest), hunters Mark (even flavored as “non magical” it’s very unavoidably supernatural), working with animals to a degree that only a Druid could match, etc, as well as things 5e has failed largely to give them (or have too late or in too limited a form), like ignoring difficult terrain, enhanced senses, etc.


If it’s just “the best mundane tracker”, that isn’t a ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, okay?

The proposal is a version of 5e where the classes aren’t as rigidly structured. Presumably the fighter and rogue will both be able to express a wider range of concepts at level 1.

I also have doubts as to the demand for a fully mundane ranger, as opposed to simply a ranger that doesn’t cast spells.

But if alternate class features are a big part of LU, then a mundane ranger is trivially easy in either mundane class.

The things that makes the ranger distinct as a concept are a focus on survivalist skills, and a supernatural affinity with nature/the land. The fact that they’re more than a scout rogue can be, in terms of moving through the wilderness and protecting the people who live on the edge of the wild. Things like primeval awareness (Aragorn putting his head to the ground and reading the battle so clearly from the churned up earth that he was able to see that the hobbits fled into the forest), hunters Mark (even flavored as “non magical” it’s very unavoidably supernatural), working with animals to a degree that only a Druid could match, etc, as well as things 5e has failed largely to give them (or have too late or in too limited a form), like ignoring difficult terrain, enhanced senses, etc.


If it’s just “the best mundane tracker”, that isn’t a ranger.

We have different opinions about the Ranger, I think it’s best to leave it at that and see how things shake out in the surveys and playtests.

 

[Zaukrie]

Would you consider including alternative initiative systems in the wishlist of features?

How many do you want? I have a draft PDF with over fifty.....want to read it and offer your opinions? Some are good, some I would never use but I built them anyway.

 

[Zaukrie]

Stand alone game? Interesting. That is NOT what I expected. I'm both more intrigued and nervous

 

[Morrus]

Would you consider including alternative initiative systems in the wishlist of features?

We're only writing one game.

 

[Zaukrie]

For me? Now that I know it is stand alone?

Completely different versions of the classes, where I get to pick 1-2 things every level. 5e feats and abilities are large at every step. Give me lots of small thins every level to choose from (yes, I know PF2 does this, we aren't talking about PF2).

 

[Haldrik]

For me? Now that I know it is stand alone?

Completely different versions of the classes, where I get to pick 1-2 things every level. 5e feats and abilities are large at every step. Give me lots of small thins every level to choose from (yes, I know PF2 does this, we aren't talking about PF2).

I agree. A stand-alone allows more freedom for the design.

Heh. I want ONE BIG THING at every level. Something equivalent to a feat at every level. Use this feat to gain a class feature, archetype feature, species feature, background feature, specialization feature, boost an ability to max 20, or anything.

Each big choice per level can also allow the option of two or more smaller things. Compare the feat options that allow several proficiencies. A proficiency seems equivalent in value to a minor "ribbon" feature.

So far in the experience of the 5e system so far, the feat and the half-feat seem to be popular amounts of meaningful choice.