Level Up (A5E) So much seems wrong with Press The Attack and Fall Back

[Larnievc]

Press The Attack and Fall Back are flawed enough I would have to remove them both from gameplay altogether. I was hoping to give the system a run, but since it's not actually "compatible" it can't play alongside traditional 5e classes and builds, so I'd need to start a new game altogether that's "exclusively" Level Up, instead of adding Level Up elements to an ongoing 5e game.

How does that one rule make the whole thing not compatible?

 

[Rant]

That may be true, but that ship sailed 2 years ago with this particular product.

DungeonCoach just did a detailed homebrew book on kickstarter, if you'd rather that sort of thing.

Much appreciated, skimming that product does make it look intriguing, but after this I think I will likely be a lot more cautious with investing in Kickstarter tabletop RPG products, going forward. Better to wait and get a good idea of what the end product is, to avoid any more misconceptions.

Sharpshooter (now Deadeye) is level-locked to 8th+ level, and now only gives +20' to short range, rather than turning long range into short range. So a longbow now has a short range of 170 feet, not 400 feet. A shortbow becomes 100 feet, not 320 feet.

The 'called shot' is now -PB/+PBx2 rather than -5/+10 as well, which I imagine most people would consider a nerf.

The damage portion improves Sharpshooter, and the range issue is largely not one given that few battles take place at extreme ranges. Sharpshooter (now Deadeye) is marginally better than its O5E version. It's now an "ideal" exchange of attack and damage relative to any given tier of proficiency, rather than too extreme a risk at lower levels and not enough payoff at very high levels. It matches the Pathfinder Power Attack/Deadly Aim, essentially, one of the good things to come out of the book, certainly.

Just want to point out that just because you think something needs to be fixed doesn’t mean it actually needs to be fixed.

What may seem needless to you feels essential to others. I get that this product is not what you want or thought it was, but it is what others wanted and need. I certainly joe they don’t change it to make it more like what you want. That would be a real shame.

Naturally, everyone will come to their own conclusions. These are mine alone.

 

[Rant]

How does that one rule make the whole thing not compatible?

Forgot to address this. In short, "balance" is not one class or race or build in a vacuum, it's the interaction of classes, races, feats, and spells, as a whole. The inclusion of something like Press The Attack and Fall Back shifts the balance and uniqueness of things like a Barbarian's Reckless Attack and the usage of reactions in turn for Fall Back. Spell changes alter the balance of caster classes. Feat changes alter the balance of martial classes. Adding in Level Up elements to an O5E game doesn't work. The rules all tie too closely together, they aren't designed in a "pick and choose" fashion. It isn't "one rule" therefore, but all the numerous changes to core rules and existing content that make the game incompatible with O5E in the sense that most players define "compatibility." A lot of OSR hacks are technically compatible with old school modules, but they are not "compatible" in the sense that they can be plugged into a game alongside original D&D player facing content.

A core 5e Fighter or Barbarian could see combat parity with a Level Up character assuming they have access to feats and mechanics as written in O5E, which complimented O5E classes. The same is true for O5E classes of all types. As noted, a game could theoretically have both side-by-side if the O5E builds are "only" O5E and access the original versions of Feats, Spells, Items, etc., and the Level Up versions are "only Level Up" content-based. Using the underlying Level Up mechanics damages the efficacy of O5E class functions, and skews the functionality of the game altogether. Trying to use them side by side as I'm describing is another logistics challenge, as monsters and opponents also have to determine if they are "original" 5e-based on Level Up based, but it would work better than applying the underlying Level Up rules replacements and still using O5E classes alongside the new ones. That would be the "worst case" way to use the new rules, as it would make the original builds worse, where the new classes are designed around the altered core rules. Such a usage doesn't actually reflect the true "balance" between the old content and the new, if the old content is worsened by new core rule changes, which it is.

Press The Attack and Fall Back are problematic mechanics entirely, however, and would need to simply be removed from the game.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Press The Attack and Fall Back are problematic mechanics entirely, however, and would need to simply be removed from the game.

Why?

 

[Waller]

Press The Attack and Fall Back are problematic mechanics entirely, however, and would need to simply be removed from the game.

You can keep repeating it but that’s clearly not going to happen.

 

[Rant]

You can keep repeating it but that’s clearly not going to happen.

To clarify, I'm now aware they will not be removed from the text of the "gaming product," my meaning is they would need to be removed from "a game I run," in this case.

 

[MarkB]

On balance, I'm starting to really like this set of options. At first glance it can seem like the point of it is to gain advantage, and that the defender can easily negate it by using Fall Back - but in many situations the pushing-back aspect will be the whole point of doing it, and if the opponent refuses to fall back, getting advantage on your attacks against them will be the consolation prize.

Or in other situations you'll use it tactically against an opponent who's already expended their reaction, and therefore has no option but to grant you advantage on your attacks.

It can even serve as a risky alternative to disengaging. Encourage an opponent to commit their reaction to using Fall Back, and your own character can now move away from them without fear of taking an opportunity attack.

 

[Morrus]

On balance, I'm starting to really like this set of options. At first glance it can seem like the point of it is to gain advantage, and that the defender can easily negate it by using Fall Back - but in many situations the pushing-back aspect will be the whole point of doing it, and if the opponent refuses to fall back, getting advantage on your attacks against them will be the consolation prize.

Yep. It’s about forced movement.

 

[Rant]

Why?

I elaborated on that in a prior post. An Attack Option with a built in "negating option," like the reworded Polearm Master, is not an appropriate design paradigm for 5e. No existing O5E mechanics function with that paradigm, but similar concepts appear several times in new Level Up mechanics.

As a practical matter, it creates the "guessing game" scenario I noted, which is not "tactical" given that it's far too "meta" to describe as "tactics." To elaborate, an character judging that a foe with a spear will likely take a poke at them as they close to melee, but they need to take them down to aid their allies, resembles a "tactical decision." Deciding if they will close to that foe and avoid the attack, or save their reaction for the possibility of a Press The Attack against them, or if they will Fall Back from a Fighter's Press The Attack and risk a Rogue's Press The Attack, is well beyond "tactical" consideration and adding to the "meta tactics" and "guessing games" that detract from a game, rather than adding to it. Add on the fact that the detriment of Fall Back, outside of using a Reaction, is Disadvantage on attack rolls for the character using Fall Back, and how this does not impact many spell-focused characters, it is a flawed mechanic. It could add that, in addition to Disadvantage on Attack Rolls, characters who cast spells following Fall Back have their spells resisted with Advantage, to make it less of a "no brainer" for casters, but at this point it's already clear the simpler answer is to scrap both Press The Attack and Fall Back.

PTA and FB add too much complexity, imbalance, and meta-game guessing games relative to what it offers at the table, in short.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I elaborated on that in a prior post. An Attack Option with a built in "negating option," like the reworded Polearm Master, is not an appropriate design paradigm for 5e. No existing O5E mechanics function with that paradigm, but similar concepts appear several times in new Level Up mechanics.

As a practical matter, it creates the "guessing game" scenario I noted, which is not "tactical" given that it's far too "meta" to describe as "tactics." To elaborate, an character judging that a foe with a spear will likely take a poke at them as they close to melee, but they need to take them down to aid their allies, resembles a "tactical decision." Deciding if they will close to that foe and avoid the attack, or save their reaction for the possibility of a Press The Attack against them, or if they will Fall Back from a Fighter's Press The Attack and risk a Rogue's Press The Attack, is well beyond "tactical" consideration and adding to the "meta tactics" and "guessing games" that detract from a game, rather than adding to it. Add on the fact that the detriment of Fall Back, outside of using a Reaction, is Disadvantage on attack rolls for the character using Fall Back, and how this does not impact many spell-focused characters, it is a flawed mechanic. It could add that, in addition to Disadvantage on Attack Rolls, characters who cast spells following Fall Back have their spells resisted with Advantage, to make it less of a "no brainer" for casters, but at this point it's already clear the simpler answer is to scrap both Press The Attack and Fall Back.

PTA and FB add too much complexity, imbalance, and meta-game guessing games relative to what it offers at the table, in short.

Ok, it seems you really misunderstood what LevelUp is. This is exactly then kind of thing LevelUp promised and what we want from it. Your perspective is just of kilter to the intent of the game. Bad for you, good for everyone else that paid attention.

PS I disagree that they are unbalanced and too meta-gamey (of course those are just opinions too)