Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8059514" data-attributes="member: 12731">Clearly broadcasting the specific design goals will be critical to a product such as this one. &quot;Advanced 5e&quot; means completely different things to different people.How important is 5e compatibility? What does &quot;compatibility&quot; mean in this context (to the dev team)? Being able to use 5e adventures is one thing; being able to multiclass freely between 5e and a5e classes would be a completely different thing. For possibly the first time, the online element needs to be central: how easy would it be to use a5e characters in a roll20 or fantasy grounds campaign?Focus on new stuff or focus on upgrading existing stuff? Will there be a &quot;Fighter&quot; class intended to replace the 5e Fighter, or will there be, say, a &quot;Warrior&quot; class intended to supplement the 5e Fighter?&quot;upgrading&quot; can mean different things. For a spell, it can mean making a poor/weak spell a contender again, buffing it to be on par with a good spell of the same level. That's an example of a small tweak. On the other hand, for a class, it can mean completely ripping out the guts of, say the warlock or sorcerer class, reassembling its constituent parts to enable many more archetypal characters. That's an example of a bigger tweak. Yet another form of upgrading would be to take a cue from PF2 and make monsters more fearsome. (Presumably the A5E monster book can assume &quot;options on&quot; games, including feats, and whatever stuff the game adds. The 5E Monster Manual suffers from being written with an options-off assumption that makes its critters too easy to overcome by any group except those running without feats, m/c, items or an appreciable amount of powergaming)Is the focus on taking the game in a new direction? Or more conservatively, bringing better support for, say, 3E (or OD&amp;D etc) concepts that 5E let fall by the wayside (for Paizo to pick up the pieces)? Or even more conservatively, just focusing on what 5E already offers, but adding more crunch - in the &quot;spirit&quot; of 5E (without putting a &quot;personal touch&quot; on the new content).An example of expanding the game would be followers or strongholds. But that's stuff that likely could be used for 5e itself. If any such supplementary material is planned, what is the reason for tying it to this specific product? (What does strongholds have to do with A5E? Why does it need to be in the A5E rules as opposed to a general 5E supplement?)At this stage the answers aren't important. I'm supplying questions, not asking for answers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8059514, member: 12731"] Clearly broadcasting the specific design goals will be critical to a product such as this one. "Advanced 5e" means completely different things to different people. How important is 5e compatibility? What does "compatibility" mean in this context (to the dev team)? Being able to use 5e adventures is one thing; being able to multiclass freely between 5e and a5e classes would be a completely different thing. For possibly the first time, the online element needs to be central: how easy would it be to use a5e characters in a roll20 or fantasy grounds campaign? Focus on new stuff or focus on upgrading existing stuff? Will there be a "Fighter" class intended to [I]replace[/I] the 5e Fighter, or will there be, say, a "Warrior" class intended to [I]supplement[/I] the 5e Fighter? "upgrading" can mean different things. For a spell, it can mean making a poor/weak spell a contender again, buffing it to be on par with a good spell of the same level. That's an example of a small tweak. On the other hand, for a class, it can mean completely ripping out the guts of, say the warlock or sorcerer class, reassembling its constituent parts to enable many more archetypal characters. That's an example of a bigger tweak. Yet another form of upgrading would be to take a cue from PF2 and make monsters more fearsome. (Presumably the A5E monster book can assume "options on" games, including feats, and whatever stuff the game adds. The 5E Monster Manual suffers from being written with an options-off assumption that makes its critters too easy to overcome by any group except those running without feats, m/c, items or an appreciable amount of powergaming) Is the focus on taking the game in a new direction? Or more conservatively, bringing better support for, say, 3E (or OD&D etc) concepts that 5E let fall by the wayside (for Paizo to pick up the pieces)? Or even more conservatively, just focusing on what 5E already offers, but adding more crunch - in the "spirit" of 5E (without putting a "personal touch" on the new content). An example of expanding the game would be followers or strongholds. But that's stuff that likely could be used for 5e itself. If any such supplementary material is planned, what is the reason for tying it to this specific product? (What does strongholds have to do with A5E? Why does it need to be in the A5E rules as opposed to a general 5E supplement?) At this stage the answers aren't important. I'm supplying questions, not asking for answers. [/QUOTE]

Verification