Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Pretty easily as a Rogue with some Skill Tricks :) Everytime we encounter a creature with a poison attack, I use the poisoner's kit to harvest poison from it (usually autosucceed since I have d10 expertise and Resident Expert from Human which means I roll a 10 at the d20 mininum). Then I use Analysis to determine the recipe for the poison in 10 minutes, then Unstable Poison to brew one dose for free (but can't have more than one). Then use the poison on three pieces of ammunition as per the rules. I use the "real" poison only in emergencies, but with PB uses of Blackblade from subclass I rarely run out.

Also: Just scavenging with the poisoner's kit has a good chance of netting you free poison.
Good to know, thanks for the rundown!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Ok- the fighter has Stunning Assault and it's crazy crazy good 😆
Stunlock the young green dragon (they don't have legendary resistance) for the whole fight and everyone focuses it down. Ouch.

Level 5 party and they handled the cr10 young dragon and 8+ hobgoblins and 2 hellhounds.
Man, sometimes it feels like 5e characters are nuts. A5E too 😂
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Berserkers and Stunning Assault continue to be the stars of the show. Bard's hymns are very cool, although I do wonder if bards needed that kind of bump!

This thread is about classes, but some of my players have discovered that you can get multiple resistances from your origin selections.. a5e origins seems to give players quite a bit more potency than 5e's.
 

thuter

Explorer
I think Adepts with stunning assault may even be worse. At lvl 12 with Unlikely Wield and Addtional Attack they make 6 attacks each turn via two-weapon fighting. They gain additional exertion from their class as well as +1 to maneuver DC's. Adepts don't get the Tempered Iron tradition at level 2, but can get it via the Warrior Monk archetype (which replenishes Exertion on crits as well) or with a dip in Fighter. If you really want to go all out stunning machine, 3 levels of Figher nets you the Technical Fighting Fighting Style and Maneuver Specialization (though Two-Weapon Fighting Style deals more damage), for another +2 to maneuver DC, as well as +4 damage for each attack made with Stunning Assault (though I would say only during the action part of it, so 3 attacks at best, though a case can be made to extend this to all attacks you make until the start of your next turn), and reducing the Exertion cost of Stunning Assault to 2.

Case report: Garoul Lvl 12 Adept Warrior Monk | Lvl 3 Fighter (any)
15 Exertion points (5 from Adept, 10 from PB)
3 Attacks per action, 3 attacks as a bonus action
Garoul natural weapons can be used as unarmed strikes with dual wielding and finesse properties. Due to Adept these deal 1d8 damage. We have +2 to attack and damage rolls with these due to paragon gift.
As our action, we use Stunning Assault and attack 3 times at +12 to hit, for 1d8+11 damage, stunning on a DC21 (!) con save.
Then we use a bonus action to attack twice with our "other" unarmed strike, and once with a third dual-wielding weapon we wield (not sure if DM lets you make another unarmed strike here, I will assume a dagger wielded between our toes, as per the feat's suggestion) for another 2 attacks at +12 to hit, for 1d8+2 damage, and a third attack with said dagger at +10 for 1d8 damage. Each of these also stun on a DC21 con save. All this does not take magical weapons into account, although our unarmed strikes count as such due to Garoul Paragon gift.

Were we to crit with any of our unarmed strikes, we regain 2 exertion from Warrior Monk, but even without it we should be able to Stunning Assault for 7 continuous rounds without resting. Toss in the Death destiny fullfillment gift, and enemies will be making those con saves with disadvantage.

I have yet to see it in play, but I am slowly getting convinced this may be a problem... Even though casters get their 8th level magic at this point as well, and their spells are getting to ridiculous levels too.
 

evildmguy

Explorer
I only have experience from the DM side and am not as up on Maneuvers as I would like to be.

First campaign, they played a marshal, druid, rogue, wizard, and ranger.

I think the standout was the marshal. The ability to let someone else attack, especially the rogue for sneak attack, was cool.

I think the druid showed us their versatility. The player had the druid be defense with healing and did well. Spells that hindered enemies. At some point, after nearly losing friends, the player had the druid go offensive and that worked as well.

The ranger character made it impossible to use Supplies, or at least try to diminish them, because they were in plains, with a few blasted bad land areas, and could gather three during Journey Activities and double that if they did it all day. Maybe even more? We still tracked them, and there were times I wanted to use supplies more, but the ranger could always get more.

I can't say the rogue or wizard were standout but it was our first campaign with Level Up.

In the current campaign, they are playing two fighters, a bard, a wizard, and a sorcerer.

The bard is definitely impressive with Battle Hymns. I had to check and recheck at the things they can do. It also took us a bit to understand the game mechanics of them. Quite nice, though.

One player with a fighter is obsessed with getting their AC as high as possible. While a few points are on me, they got to a base 30 AC and with activated maneuvers or feats can get to 35 AC. This one attacks up to three times with Stunning Assault moving after stunning an enemy and once stunned three bad guys that were just close enough to do that. I think their DC is 20 and with my bad rolls, the bad guys are usually stunned. It's making me question why constructs aren't immune to stun.

The other fighter has good armor and a two handed weapon and can dish out some punishment. We probably cheated on several maneuvers. One of the things I do like about 5e/LU is how a lot of low level things are viable at high levels. When we found a maneuver that seemed to be no good after Extra Attacks were earned, we modified it to still work. It does mean that this fighter is the attacker and can do five attacks without haste and good damage.

I think the wizard and sorcerer are good classes. I like the rare spells. As with the rogue and wizard from the other campaign, I can't think of anything that makes them stand out. They throw spells well. The sorcerer specialized in fire but took a feat to change damage type to deal with the plane stuff on planes with fire resistant/immune creatures.

To expand on that, from what I have seen, wizard, rogue, and sorcerer do well in their roles. I haven't seen them do anything that made me say wow. I don't know if that's LU, the players, or just how the characters have organically grown. It's more when I think over the campaign, the other classes are the ones I remember.

LU was a compromise for the group. I prefer PF, two like 5E, the other three are open. LU gave us deeper options (gaining more proficiencies at higher levels, and expertise dice make them feel like they are good at skills, learned more, and improved) and we have felt it is better. I also appreciate all of the supplements that have come up. I feel like they have put out as much as 5E has in a third of the time.

As for myself, I need to learn maneuvers better, incorporate Maladies more, and use exploration challenges. I modified Fatigue and Strife, removed Doom (at least in the 'casual' way I found it to be there), and like the extra conditions. My only issue is like 5E, LU still has a lot of GM fiat and I prefer rules/guidelines to handle things knowing I can tweak as I want.

I also want a sourcebook based on BG3 because I liked how it did magic items much better. I use FR and it has always had a lot of magic. The idea of them only finding a dozen magic items across a campaign in FR means they have touch choices. We are tweaking those rules as well.

Again, we have loved LU and it will be the fantasy system we play the most, I'm sure. We are currently using Foundry in the winter but are local and play in person spring to fall.
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
I only have experience from the DM side and am not as up on Maneuvers as I would like to be.
The biggest this with bard hymns that we missed at first was that the hymn focus/specialization (4+8) are CHOOSE ONE. Hymns can be non-concentration OR they can affect 1+CHAbonus OR etc etc etc.
That's actually a commonality in a5e, players (and myself) often miss the CHOOSE ONE part of features- not sure why!
 

Selganor

Adventurer
I know why... There are some features that you have to pick one when you get the feature (and can't easily change it) while done allow you to change the option on a short (or long) rest.

But if you just grab all the options at once... That's just munchkinism ;)
 

Glororhan

Explorer
Stunning Assault is so offensive, the fighter with stunning assault definitely dominates at my table, and it's gotten to the point where it warps the design of encounters considerably. I'm actually working on a combat maneuver template that I'm planning to apply to a lot of monsters primarily to defend against stunning assault. And yeah, almost no monsters are immune to stun, and there's no equivalent to magic resistance for combsg maneuvers!

The same fighter also uses a mount, and mounts are super OP in Level Up since the mount spends its own bonus actions to dash and disengage, which breaks action economy. But at least they can't bring mounts into most dungeons :).

We also have a Bard and Marshal as part of the core players. Bard hymns are definitely super nice, though otherwise bards are a little less of a powerhouse due to (mostly justified) nerds to spells. Marshal is an interesting if somewhst finicky class. We had a rogue in the party, and so they were having fun using one of their actions letting the rogue get in an extra sneak attack on their turn every round.
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Stunning Assault is so offensive, the fighter with stunning assault definitely dominates at my table, and it's gotten to the point where it warps the design of encounters considerably. I'm actually working on a combat maneuver template that I'm planning to apply to a lot of monsters primarily to defend against stunning assault. And yeah, almost no monsters are immune to stun, and there's no equivalent to magic resistance for combsg maneuvers!

The same fighter also uses a mount, and mounts are super OP in Level Up since the mount spends its own bonus actions to dash and disengage, which breaks action economy. But at least they can't bring mounts into most dungeons :).

We also have a Bard and Marshal as part of the core players. Bard hymns are definitely super nice, though otherwise bards are a little less of a powerhouse due to (mostly justified) nerds to spells. Marshal is an interesting if somewhst finicky class. We had a rogue in the party, and so they were having fun using one of their actions letting the rogue get in an extra sneak attack on their turn every round.
I haven't implemented it yet, but if you find Stunning Assault problematic I thought of a decent fix for it:

On the first fail it Rattles- and if a Rattled creature fails vs it they're stunned.

A5e has already made Rattled the mini-stun; if a creature is immune to Stun, they're immune to Rattled.

It also introduces a teamwork angle, if other characters have ways to Rattle creatures then they can set them up for a Stunning Assault

But other than that, making Elite creatures much more frequent is another way to handle it... But I don't like that personally because an Elite creature is supposed to be a Big Bad thing and counts for double the XP.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top