Level Up (A5E) Playtest results using pregen characters

[Anselm]

Technically true. I actually just found another issue with the text based on another conversion that was had earlier.

You cannot mix action and bonus actions by the book. That means that technically Press the Attack doesn't actually do anything, because the bonus action would occur after your attacks are over.

So Press the Attack should actually say: "You can take a bonus action to give advantage to all your attacks. Attacks against you are made with advantage. These effects last until the beginning of your next turn"

I will add it to the bug log.

Page 438: "You can declare
your intent for your turn in any order, breaking
up your movement between actions or using your
bonus action first. You can also choose to do abso-
lutely nothing.
Within a single round, you can take an action,
a bonus action, and any free actions during your
turn, and one reaction at any time."

Seems okay to me.

 

[Stalker0]

Page 438: "You can declare
your intent for your turn in any order, breaking
up your movement between actions or using your
bonus action first. You can also choose to do abso-
lutely nothing.
Within a single round, you can take an action,
a bonus action, and any free actions during your
turn, and one reaction at any time."

Seems okay to me.

The issue in Press the Attack is it says "When taking the attack action", which means the bonus action has to occur after the action. And you cannot comingle an action and a bonus action (which is not what the quoted clause allows for).

So for Press the Attack, you declare your attack action (which is 2 attacks lets say).

You then must take your two attacks before doing the bonus action. You can move between attacks because that is specifically called out in the rules as an exception, but you can't just drop in a bonus action between attacks.

 

[Satirical Bard]

May I humbly suggest at this point it would be better to wait for the corrected wording before resuming this discussion? Because right now you're parsing words and sentences that will be different when the errata'd edition comes out.

 

[Rant]

May I humbly suggest at this point it would be better to wait for the corrected wording before resuming this discussion? Because right now you're parsing words and sentences that will be different when the errata'd edition comes out.

That makes sense for analysis but raises the question of “what version of this was playtested” by the developers. If it’s getting last minute changes then it’s never been playtested up until now. If not, it begs the question of why the PDFs would contain an “old” version. If the version in the PDFs was playtested and approved then that’s troubling.

 

[Stalker0]

May I humbly suggest at this point it would be better to wait for the corrected wording before resuming this discussion? Because right now you're parsing words and sentences that will be different when the errata'd edition comes out.

The issue is that the next version will in theory be the "final" version that goes to print, so its important to bring up every concern with the ability now.

If the designers want to give us another beta of that ability, then I'd be happy to wait and provide feedback later.

 

[Rant]

The issue is that the next version will in theory be the "final" version that goes to print, so its important to bring up every concern with the ability now.

If the designers want to give us another beta of that ability, then I'd be happy to wait and provide feedback later.

I noted before that Press the Attack is extremely problematic as a rule design. It clearly needs playtesting, but that leaves me questioning what the priorities of the original playtest were like, or what shape that even took, that resulted in rules like PTA/FB.

It seems asking for more details on the playtesting is somehow stigmatized, which confuses me since every player/buyer logically would want to know that I would assume.

 

[Legendweaver]

@Rant I've been in professional (video) game development for a good while, and one thing I know is that no matter how much internal testing you do with any game, there are always big, potentially-fatal balance issues - it's just a matter of when they get discovered. This is, in fact, why we get speed runs!

There's lots of reasons for balance issues in published games of all kinds: the iterative nature of game development, the size of the feature matrix, echo-chamber testing, and the inevitable difference in scale between the dev team size and the player pool size, among many many others...

And I am confident that the Level Up folks did a ton of testing using the best methodology they could think of! I am certain many of them consider this a passion project that robbed them of time with their families and deprived them of sleep and that they poured in overtime to make this game as good as possible. I'm sure they felt great about the product they released (and they should - there's some really great stuff in this product) even though they probably figured there'd be some rough edges. And, yeah, they missed some things, too, because every game designer does. Some of those might even seem obvious to us outsiders because we come with fresh perspectives, but also, we lack the context of the original design and all the conversations and playtests that led them to this point, too.

Here's the thing, though - the Level Up developers are engaging with the community. They're collecting surveys about issues, and it seems like there's a real opportunity to work together productively to improve this thing before they seal it in ink and paper. This is a unique chance to contribute productively before the game goes to print. I'm optimistic about the game as it stands, and I'm trying to set my expectations realistically about what they're like to change (or not change), but I also want to seize any chance to improve it, too...even knowing that no matter how carefully I read through text, I'm gonna miss some big issues - and so will everyone else! When we get to the point that there are hundreds or thousands (or more, hopefully) of A5E games running around the world, I bet we'll all look back and wonder why certain issues weren't obvious during development (see contemporary criticisms of O5E balance, for example!!!!) But the more people collaborating toward positive solutions and problem solving, the better chance some of these land and make the game better for everyone who pledge support.

Anyway, for my part, I'm just hoping the developers will take the time as they need right now to listen to our biggest concerns, integrate appropriate changes, test those changes as best they can, and try to make sure the print version of the books are as polished and balanced as possible. I think there's some great stuff in LU that moves the hobby forward, and anything I can do to improve that final product (even at the eleventh hour) seems worth it! I personally think you've brought some great insights to the A5E conversation, but tone matters, and I think a lot of readers tune out when a conversation gets too...thorny. If you, like me, want to see this product improve, I think we need to all view this as a collaboration where we try to solve problems, not just articulate their nuances!

To the rest, sorry for the off-topic tangent...

 

[Waller]

I have a lot of questions myself on exactly how the playtesting worked but there seems to be a lot of resistance to that line of inquiry. We are supposed to be satisfied that everything was “thoroughly playtested” and leave it at that.

There was a massive public playtest over about 18 months with thousands of people involved. Sorry you missed it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and very publicly. After the 5E and Pahthinfer 2E playtests, it was the biggest public playtest I've ever seen for a TTRRPG.

As for why your questions aren't being answered by the designers? Gosh, I wonder why that is? I wouldn't respond to you I were them.

 

[Candour Pendragon]

There was a massive public playtest over about 18 months with thousands of people involved. Sorry you missed it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and very publicly. After the 5E and Pahthinfer 2E playtests, it was the biggest public playtest I've ever seen for a TTRRPG.

As for why your questions aren't being answered by the designers? Gosh, I wonder why that is? I wouldn't respond to you I were them.

There was a playtest of a lot of things, but if Press the Attack and Fall Back were involved, they were very, very low-key. I followed the whole playtest for months, and don't recall them being brought up.
Also, this: "Gosh, I wonder why that is? I wouldn't respond to you if I were them" is rude and totally uncalled for. This is a legitimate inquiry about something that, no matter the angle of examination, appears wildly unbalanced.

 

[lichmaster]

I was hoping they would simply remove press the attack and fall back since these are neither balanced or easy to use. It adds headaches, and meta-game guessing games, not a layer of tactical consideration. The number of fixes to make them work suggests an easier option: Remove press the attack and fall back. These are not a good fit for the game.

Just changing Fall Back so that all instances of Press the Attack do not give advantage and no OAs are triggered on either side may already be enough. Maybe one could add that for any instance of PtA the character Falling Back has to make a further 5ft step back, thus enhancing the intended effect of forcing mobility on the combat (a large gang of goblins trying to push PCs down a cliff could add some very interesting aspects to an otherwise maybe more mundane combat). These fixes are very easy to implement, and probably the design team has already come up with something better. And the intentions behind PtA and FB ARE a good fit for the game, so it's just a matter of finding the right wording.