Playtest (A5E) Level Up Playtest Document #5: Inspiration & Destiny

Welcome to the fifth Level Up playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the game’s inspiration and destiny rules.

We also wanted to thank you for all the valuable feedback you’ve given us on the playtest surveys so far. Whether you liked or disliked the material, the survey feedback shapes this game.

Download the playtest document

Take the survey

​

What this is​

This is a playtest document. We’d love you to try out the rules presented here, and then answer the follow-up survey in a few days.

What this is not​

This is NOT the final game. It’s OK if you don’t like elements of these rules; that’s the purpose of a playtest document. Be sure to participate in the follow-up survey. All data, positive or negative is useful.

What we use this for​

Your survey responses help form the direction of the game as it goes through the development process.

Don’t forget!​

Sign up for the mailing list for notifications of playtests, surveys, and news, and to make sure you get notified on Kickstarter when the project launches in 2021.

Continue reading...

 

[maceochaid]

No, absolute morality can rot in hell.

It usually does in the end.

 

[Faolyn]

I accept your apology. Although in the future, try to not assume that other people haven't also suffered discrimination.

So let’s start over. Do you think it would be useful to have Good and Evil alignments get their own destinies like Chaotic and Lawful? (I can see both sides to that). If yes it seems to me like you are saying a Good aligned destiny should have a different name than Devotion given the history of that word. Personally I am not in any way vested in the “good” destiny being called Devotion, I just want an destiny for my characters that want to invest in the Good alignment. Do you want to suggest some? I’m open to hearing those!

I strongly dislike absolute morality except for supernatural creatures. And even then, there should be wriggle room: fallen angels, risen demons, undead that were so strong-willed in life that they kept their previous minds despite their new form. I've done away with alignment for non-supernatural creatures in my games, just like I've done away with Always Evil Humanoids (with a very few possible exceptions, where the humanoid is also clearly supernatural, such as the skulk). While there is room in D&D for games where absolute morality is the rule, where there are completely un-ironic Evil Armies of the Empire of Evil that Our Heroes can slay with guiltless impunity, that's not a game I would enjoy playing in for very long. Nor do I want to play in a setting where poison and disease are Evil, but Good uses Ravages and Afflictions, which are totally different so it's OK (check out the 3x Book of Exalted Deeds if you don't recognize what I'm talking about).

And quite frankly, I don't even really need alignments for supernatural creatures, since I don't do random encounters and tend to come up with motivations for all of my monsters anyway.

There have been several occasions in these packets where the writers have used Chaos and Law as major descriptors, but we still haven't received the rules as to why yet. As a Planescape fan, I'm glad they're emphasizing Chaos and Law over Evil and Good, even if it does harken back to the old OD&D days.

So anyway, Destinies.

A major problem I'm having--which I failed to put this in my survey, more's the pity--is that they haven't truly explained what these Destinies are. Are they handed down from on high? Part of your very soul, and if you get reincarnated your new incarnation will have the same Destiny? Or are they deliberate choices each individual makes? The fact that PCs can switch Destiny suggests the latter, but is that truly the PC making a decision to change who they are, or is that simply so the player will continue having fun?

The Chaos and Dominion Destinies clearly run the gauntlet from Good to Evil. So to me, there shouldn't be Destinies that are 100% good or evil. Neither Wealth nor Revenge are 100% evil, and Wealth could be made a lot less evil if there was a Robin Hood motivation. So there shouldn't be a 100% Good Destiny either. And the fact is, Devotion isn't totally good. All of the motivations, except for Greater Good, can run the spectrum of alignments. The only thing that's entirely good about Devotion is how you get inspiration. And that can be changed, since this is only a playtest.

Motivations I considered to be (almost) completely good?

Chaos: Liberation (assuming that the people to be liberated are truly being oppressed).

Coming of Age: Young Love (assuming that you're not trying to force your affections on someone who doesn't want them).

Devotion: Greater Good (assuming that you're actually working towards the greater good). Dominion: Justice (assuming that the tyrant is truly tyrannical) or Reform (assuming that the regime truly is unredeemable).

Knowledge: A Cure (assuming you're trying to stop an actual disease or curse).

Revenge: Lost Loved One or Restoration (assuming you're not disproportional in your revenge).

Wealth: Change (assuming that the change you're bankrolling is a good one).

 

[maceochaid]

I 100% did not want to assume anything about your background. I was definitely confused why you read the Devotion background with references to self-sacrifice, protecting the innocent, and love, and thought players would pick this destiny to portray evil characters.

Do you see the sections I'm pointing to in Chaos and Dominion?

In addition, you gain the Chaotic alignment and emit a strong chaotic aura for the purposes of any feature, spell, or trait that detects or affects Chaotic creatures.

In addition, you gain the Lawful alignment, and you emit a strong lawful aura for the purposes of any feature, spell, or trait that detects or affects Lawful creatures.

-----

I like playing good characters. I almost always choose a good alignment for my characters. I hear you about good or evil races, but I don't think these destiny rules are for races, I think each character chooses a destiny to tell the story they want to tell. You asked where do these destinies come from, I think it is just the player and the DM agree on a character arc for the campaign. "Hey DM I want my Urchin Rogue to tell an underdog story" while another player says "my Noble Warlock is seeking knowledge in the world." It's more of a meta-game concept, SORT of agreeing with your DM on a "win condition," for your character. Where it comes from can be totally written by the DM and the player I feel, rather than all the destinies have a specific origin from a God or whatever. Mileage may vary, but I think this is a great storytelling tool. I don't need an in-universe explanation for everything. My character wants wealth because that is very human motivation, he doesn't need to have it "come from" any particular source.

So again, I don't know where this mindset from multiple posters is coming from, that we have to establish a categorical imperative in this rule set. I just know that I like to play characters that are GOOD and strive to be GOOD. As a DM I want to reward a player who says their motivation is to do GOOD and then roleplay that successfully in the campaign. I don't play DnD just to accumulate gold, or kill monsters. I like to feel like there is a world, where people want to do Good things in the world. I like the idea that I can work out with my DM what that will be, and that when she and I have gotten to the condition that establishes my character as GOOD they get the following condition:

In my current campaign, I have two players, one is a Warforged Paladin, the other is a Firbolg Druid. Both of them have Chaotic Good on their character sheet, but while the Warforged Paladin player is mostly just looking for treasure and mix maxing her feats, the Druid player has routinely, to her own detriment tried to pursue Good and noble actions. I disagreed with some of her choices, and at times it almost derailed my campaign when she stopped everything to go protect the talking rabbits village that was supposed to be a minor detail. But I knew that she felt she was always motivated by being good.

I would love to give her the destiny feature:

In addition, you gain the GOOD alignment and emit a strong GOOD aura for the purposes of any feature, spell, or trait that detects or affects GOOD creatures.

I feel like everyone is saying that that would be tantamount to endorsing religious oppression. It confuses me deeply, and seems way out of sync with what this rule set is trying to accomplish.

 

[Faolyn]

I 100% did not want to assume anything about your background.

Some of the things you wrote made me feel like you were. This may have just been poor phrasing on your part that led to an inference on mine.

I was definitely confused why you read the Devotion background with references to self-sacrifice, protecting the innocent, and love, and thought players would pick this destiny to portray evil characters.

The ways you get inspiration for Devotion are all Good, but only one of the motivations is actually really Good. People are Devoted to all manner of causes, and many of those causes are Not Good, and neither are all of the motivations for that Devotion. Even the description of Devotion says as much: Fanatical, lovestruck, loyal. Devotion can be a pure or foolish thing. A beloved, a nation, a cause—anything may be the object of your Devotion, but very few are worthy of it. For you the choice is clear: the love at the center of your life is worth dying or killing for and there is no limit to your service and sacrifice on its behalf.

And here are the motivations:

1 Love. They come first, above the rest of the world if need be.
2 Fealty. You swore an oath to the crown and you’ll never break it.
3 Questing. You were sent out with a singular goal and will not rest until it’s complete.
4 Ideals. You’ve taken up the banner for a cause and you’re willing to die for it.
5 A Promise. Mere words to some—an unbreakable pact to you.
6 Greater Good. Your needs are so easily outweighed by the needs of others.

Number 1 could be sweet and pure, or it could be creepy or stalkerish. Numbers 2-5 depends entirely on the decency of the country, quest, ideal, or promise. Only number 6 is pure good.

So to me, it sounds like you're hung up on the inspiration mechanic and one of the motivations, and using that to determine the entire Destiny must be Good.

I like playing good characters. I almost always choose a good alignment for my characters. I hear you about good or evil races, but I don't think these destiny rules are for races, I think each character chooses a destiny to tell the story they want to tell. You asked where do these destinies come from, I think it is just the player and the DM agree on a character arc for the campaign.

I usually play good characters as well. Two of my current characters are good (one's LG, and the other one, who is NG, is for a game that will be starting soon). My third character is CN, but I play her more good than anything else... just prone to poking things she shouldn't.

I don't need an in-universe explanation for everything.

While I normally don't either, the fact that they come with actual, in-game mechanical benefits almost requires one. 20 x your level gp shows up in your pocket every day? You transform into a creature? Hostile creatures are afraid of you, even if there's no reason for them to know that you have successfully completed your revenge?

So again, I don't know where this mindset from multiple posters is coming from, that we have to establish a categorical imperative in this rule set. I just know that I like to play characters that are GOOD and strive to be GOOD. As a DM I want to reward a player who says their motivation is to do GOOD and then roleplay that successfully in the campaign. I don't play DnD just to accumulate gold, or kill monsters. I like to feel like there is a world, where people want to do Good things in the world. I like the idea that I can work out with my DM what that will be, and that when she and I have gotten to the condition that establishes my character as GOOD they get the following condition:

You can play a character that is good and strives to be good. Nobody is saying you can't, and that is a perfectly decent motivation. And as I previously pointed out, there are plenty of good motivations for your Destiny, and plenty of motivations that can be used for good, all without declaring that This Destiny Is Good.

But historically, D&D hasn't handled Good vs. Evil all that well. Gygax said that if you convert an orc to good, you should immediately kill it because it will eventually backslide. Dragonlance apparently apparently decided that if there's too much good in the world, it would turn to fascism and therefore needed to be in balance with evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds and The Book of Vile Darkness had some pretty screwed up ideas of good versus evil, and mostly just painted Goodness as being just like evil, but wearing a white hat and using different terminology, while also deciding that Evil was just teenage edgy gorn crap and not at all nuanced or interesting. A lot of good monsters were fey with mind-control powers that they used for dubious reasons, and especially in the earlier editions, many monster entries included what parts you could sell--even though the monsters were often fully sentient--and there was no hint that this might not be a good idea.

And we don't know why LU wants to include auras of Chaos or Law yet.

I feel like everyone is saying that that would be tantamount to endorsing religious oppression. It confuses me deeply, and seems way out of sync with what this rule set is trying to accomplish.

I feel like LU is trying to create a system that is fair and doesn't make moral declarations about their PC species, and that the playtesters here are generally against making moral declaration.

Honestly, right now, I feel like I'm having the same conversation I have with people who get mad at the idea of not having orcs always be evil--except in reverse.

 

[maceochaid]

I do agree with you, this suggests that alignment will be totally revamped in Level Up and we haven't seen how that will work yet. Which is definitely confusing. I do like players having the potential of making Galahad or Galadriel characters that "radiate" goodness.

However, I disagree with your characterization of the document not explaining how the wealth happens:

The fabulously wealthy stay wealthy by creating businesses or investing wisely—then the engine of industry works tirelessly to keep the vaults full. Every 24 hours, your investments generate 20 gold × your level. You can access these funds at the banking establishments of any major city (though there may be fees for speedy withdrawals).

As for the Vengence feature, I more see what you mean,

Fulfillment Feature: Retaliatory Reputation. It has become apparent that wronging you is decidedly unwise and those without a death wish have learned to fear you.

But ultimately it doesn't bother me. Think fictional characters like Darth Vader, Batman, and Chirugh (No Country for Old Men), and Omar (The Wire). They all have this trait as a non-supernatural part of their being. You just know to get out of their way. I can definitely see why some players would like their 16th level hero to feel like a B** A** everyone runs from. Maybe change "learned to fear you" to "instinctively fear you." I don't like it when EVERYTHING is a magical power, so it is phrased as a non-magical fear to me is a plus. I would love for an Assassin Rogue, or a Champion Fighter with this power could still be a no-magic character.

As for Metamorphosis, I also feel that leaving it intentionally vague, as space for it to be a discussion between a DM and a player, while still giving some guidance on how it will go down, is a plus, not a bug. The dark ceremony that allows a Necromancer to become a Demi-Lich, will be very different from the redemptive act that allows a dragon condemned to walk the earth as a human by a Bahamut to regain his form as an Adult Copper Dragon, but the DM and the player have rough guidance that the Demi-Lich transformation should only happen at Level 20, while the Copper Dragon could happen as early as level 16. Spelling out a process by which every Metamorphosis happens would only limit the DM and player's ability to tell the story.

I think all of this is to say that perhaps there needs to be more explanation about the goal of these destinies to allow for satisfying story arcs for characters, that is a planned discussion between DMs and Players. As they tell a story collaborative together.

 

[Quartz]

With regard to Destinies, why is the fulfilment at 16th level and not after 20th level?

 

[tetrasodium]

With regard to Destinies, why is the fulfilment at 16th level and not after 20th level?

It may not be the intent, but it's definitely a few things that happen as result.

Right now long haul classes like wizard & such gain the bulk of their "cool toys" at higher levels (like 10 15 & higher) while front loaded classes like fighter warlock sorcerer & so forth get most of theirs by ten or so. Now that varies from class to class & archetype to archetype, it creates a perverse situation where a chunk of the table is looking for the next campaign & talking about their next character just as the rest of the table feels like their cool toys are about to be in reach.

By 20 the system has well & truly collapsed & is not especially useful for anything but a one shot making them a pointless "but you eventually get X so stfu" where both sides know that eventually is unlikely to ever come.

By putting them at 16 it makes everyone potentially have something cool waiting for them in the teens so late blooming classes/archetypes can get their cool toys and use them in more than one adventure where they may or may not even be useful enough to use. With one of the goals of a5e being to expand the useful range of play all of that fits in well.

 

[Horwath]

With regard to Destinies, why is the fulfilment at 16th level and not after 20th level?

it should be at 11th level.

most campaigns are over before that.

 

[Quartz]

most campaigns are over before that.

A shame. It's at 11th+ level that 3E really got going.

 

[tetrasodium]

A shame. It's at 11th+ level that 3E really got going.

While I agree on both points, it's not really surprising that 5e tends to end where statistics say it ends. Too many abilities come online around 8-12 that combine in multiplicative ways in a system where mass chunks seem balanced against each other in isolation and the negatives just accelerate the further you flog things along.