Level Up (A5E) What Interests You about "Level Up"?

Retreater

Legend
I didn't miss it, I just understood them as separate thoughts. Given that @Retreater rejected A5e, and the 2nd line clearly applies to A5e, I assumed that it must not really be a determining factor. So I went back to the proceeding line, and assumed that was they more important one and PF2 must be providing something on that front that I missed. I could be wrong, buy Retreater hasn't responded, so I don't know. Maybe they somehow completely missed all of the interesting character options in A5e and your interpretation is 100% correct.
Sorry about the confusion regarding my previous statement. I was commenting that I didn't see the tactical depth or sense of wonder in O5e that I liked. I wrote that PF2 had the tactical depth - and that I thought Level Up had the potential for tactical depth.
PF2 took a while for me to get into because I kept comparing it to PF1 (which I had grown tired of). I think Level Up will take some effort for me to like because of my comparisons to O5e.
I didn't miss it, I just understood them as separate thoughts. Given that @Retreater rejected A5e, and the 2nd line clearly applies to A5e, I assumed that it must not really be a determining factor. So I went back to the proceeding line, and assumed that was they more important one and PF2 must be providing something on that front that I missed. I could be wrong, buy Retreater hasn't responded, so I don't know. Maybe they somehow completely missed all of the interesting character options in A5e and your interpretation is 100% correct.
I haven't been on here a lot and haven't had a lot of time this weekend to read through A5e with these posts in mind - but I will. I wouldn't say I've "rejected" A5e (which would be boxing it up and putting it in storage). I'm seeking a guide from fans of the system to help me as I give it a thorough read, since I've only skimmed it so far because it didn't hit me as a system I had to read through and devour in the first week I had it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
I haven't been on here a lot and haven't had a lot of time this weekend to read through A5e with these posts in mind - but I will. I wouldn't say I've "rejected" A5e (which would be boxing it up and putting it in storage). I'm seeking a guide from fans of the system to help me as I give it a thorough read, since I've only skimmed it so far because it didn't hit me as a system I had to read through and devour in the first week I had it.
What I would suggest doing is picking one class and doing a side-by-side comparison with o5e to find out which one you prefer.

Or just try making a sample character. As I said before, I find characters almost build themselves even when you go in with no prior idea of what you want.
 

WarDriveWorley

Adventurer
What I would suggest doing is picking one class and doing a side-by-side comparison with o5e to find out which one you prefer.

Or just try making a sample character. As I said before, I find characters almost build themselves even when you go in with no prior idea of what you want.
I second this. Doing a side by side helped my players really grasp the differences
 

Novak

Explorer
What I would suggest doing is picking one class and doing a side-by-side comparison with o5e to find out which one you prefer.

Or just try making a sample character. As I said before, I find characters almost build themselves even when you go in with no prior idea of what you want.

Yes, this is really essential as part of an informed comparison, and also the easiest way to see how extensive the changes are.

Further, although ALL of the classes are extensively reworked, I think the changes are most dramatic and visible for the martial classes.

I would recommend a side-by-side of any of the following pairs: Fighter/Fighter, Adept/Monk, Berserker/Barbarian.
 

Jahydin

Adventurer
So for those that are using A5E, do you just run the official adventures as is or do you try and convert them over as much as possible?
 

Anselm

Adventurer
So for those that are using A5E, do you just run the official adventures as is or do you try and convert them over as much as possible?
There's nothing really to convert. You can add some additional elements (journeys) but beyond any references to barbarians or paladins you just run them as written and everything should work no problem.


I'm running the 5e Gears of Revolution AP with level up. I don't even need to think about that it was technically written for 5e and not LU. There's been 0 conflicts.
 

Lord Mhoram

Adventurer
I've really been spending a lot more time with A5E since I got the physical books. I'd been focusing on Pathfinder 1st for the past little while.

To me O5E was nice and simple (especially compared to my other go-to games HERO and PF1), and I enjoyed GMing it, but there was just a little too little mechanically to grab me as a player. I like a bit more mechanical depth when I create characters - Level Up gave me just the right amount of added mechanical depth, which helped me enjoy it away from the table more.

Those extra mechanics really open up some avenues. I love the Follower and Stronghold rules. Give you a way to really become part of the world without taking over what it is you are adventuring for (as the Campaign options did in Pathfinder). The maneuver system is amazing for flavor and extra bits for combat. I found the exploration/journey system to be at just the right balance point for tying in mechanical use and story use, and as a storytelling tool really opens other avenues up. And there are just small little things all tucked here and there that I found just, for lack of a better word, nifty.
 

Horwath

Hero
What I love:

1. Class design, love lot's of little features added that are not directly combat based, but can be used in combat if used in a right way at the right time and/or location.

2. Exploration challenges.

3. Followers and strongholds

4. Fatigue/strife/haven mechanics

and there is also something I dont like:

1. Racial/background/heritage ability bonuses.
LU5E was finished after Tasha's so some foresight about how abilities would be calculated based on background/race/ancestry/whatever should have been applied and the floating +2/+ or +1/+1/+1 should have been in LU5E by default and balanced around that.

outside of that, I love the heritage/culture/background influence of character creation.

2. Feats...
We didn't have(Or I missed it) feat playtest material. and it shows.

Most feats are just same bad versions of PHB ones. Not a lot of work has been put into making all feats to SS/GWM/PAM/CE/Lucky standard.

If the feat does not compete for 4th or 8th level increase to PRIMARY ability, then it is an under powered feat.
No one cares about taking 1st feat at 12th level. 90% of campaigns are done by then.
 

Ondath

Adventurer
and there is also something I dont like:

1. Racial/background/heritage ability bonuses.
LU5E was finished after Tasha's so some foresight about how abilities would be calculated based on background/race/ancestry/whatever should have been applied and the floating +2/+ or +1/+1/+1 should have been in LU5E by default and balanced around that.

outside of that, I love the heritage/culture/background influence of character creation.
I disagree. A5E already allows a lot of leeway on putting ability scores where you want by tying them to Backgrounds instead (and even there only one is determined, the other one is still free-floating IIRC). I find this to be a much more elegant than Tasha's quick fix of having all scores be floating. I think score bonuses should come from somewhere (but admittedly racial essentialism was not the right way to do it), otherwise it's just a choice without any context. Why is a new Monsters of the Multiverse Goliath getting a +2 to Int if they choose? There is no explanation in fiction and we adopted floating bonuses only because it's a band-aid solution anyway. I reckon bonuses will be tied to some (non-essentialist) reason in 5.5e.

But Level Up already found an elegant non-essentialist reason in the form of backgrounds, and I think it works really well. Of course your former profession before adventuring would affect your abilities! It makes sense and it makes no assumptions about culture or biological traits.
 

Horwath

Hero
I disagree. A5E already allows a lot of leeway on putting ability scores where you want by tying them to Backgrounds instead (and even there only one is determined, the other one is still free-floating IIRC). I find this to be a much more elegant than Tasha's quick fix of having all scores be floating. I think score bonuses should come from somewhere (but admittedly racial essentialism was not the right way to do it), otherwise it's just a choice without any context. Why is a new Monsters of the Multiverse Goliath getting a +2 to Int if they choose? There is no explanation in fiction and we adopted floating bonuses only because it's a band-aid solution anyway. I reckon bonuses will be tied to some (non-essentialist) reason in 5.5e.

But Level Up already found an elegant non-essentialist reason in the form of backgrounds, and I think it works really well. Of course your former profession before adventuring would affect your abilities! It makes sense and it makes no assumptions about culture or biological traits.
Honestly, I would prefer no bonuses at all and just have modified point buy system.

But, as we are still tied down with option of rolling for stats as an option, having +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 floating, give more option to "fix" random rolls.
 

Anselm

Adventurer
the floating +2/+ or +1/+1/+1 should have been in LU5E by default and balanced around that.
They are free floating. Background are fully customizable RAW (just like in O5E). Since ability bumps are in the background but you can change which stats get them. (Sidebar on Pg 75)

While maybe it's the abilities themselves you're not a fan of for the feats, at least battle caster and deadeye require level 8 and deadeye's bonus damage is linked to proficiency bonus. The polearm savant added a way to negate the opportunity attack by burning a reaction as well. I can't find gwm and lucky equivalents. Are they in?

Edit: I also see I missed your point about feats. Apologies.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
I can't find gwm and lucky equivalents. Are they in?
the lucky equivalent is fortunate. basically the only difference is that you can't use it on a roll where you have disadvantage, which...seems to defeat the entire purpose of the name of the feat while not doing a lot to nerf it.

the gwm equivalent is powerful attacker. it gives you a free maneuver you can use for no exertion which basically fulfills the purpose of the first bullet point of gwm, and the +10 to damage attack can be used with any two handed or versatile melee weapon and only imparts disadvantage - but not ALWAYS disadvantage, which means you can negate it with advantage, which means it's unironically even more busted then regular gwm.

why they didn't just go the sharpshooter -> deadeye route for powerful attacker i will never know.
 

Horwath

Hero
the lucky equivalent is fortunate. basically the only difference is that you can't use it on a roll where you have disadvantage, which...seems to defeat the entire purpose of the name of the feat while not doing a lot to nerf it.

the gwm equivalent is powerful attacker. it gives you a free maneuver you can use for no exertion which basically fulfills the purpose of the first bullet point of gwm, and the +10 to damage attack can be used with any two handed or versatile melee weapon and only imparts disadvantage - but not ALWAYS disadvantage, which means you can negate it with advantage, which means it's unironically even more busted then regular gwm.

why they didn't just go the sharpshooter -> deadeye route for powerful attacker i will never know.
I always found -X/+2X attack/damage trade good in terms of math.
But, I hate that you can get +10 damage at 1st level(Vhuman/custom) or even at 4th level.
It's too much of a swing.

So, my options were always; take +1 STR/DEX with GWM/SS instead of "power attack" part,

or re scaled to:
-1 att / +2 dmg,
at 5th level -2/+4,
at 11th lvl; -3/+6,
at 17th lvl; -4/+8,
 

Anselm

Adventurer
Thanks! Had trouble locating them.

but not ALWAYS disadvantage, which means you can negate it with advantage, which means it's unironically even more busted then regular gwm

I guess I'm confused. It does always give disadvantage. Negating disadvantage with advantage means that an attack could have been better and you can never have full advantage on the attack.

"A powerful attack has disadvantage"

I'm fairly sure the fortunate tweak was done to prevent the quirk of turning disadvantage into super advantage.
 

lichmaster

Adventurer
the lucky equivalent is fortunate. basically the only difference is that you can't use it on a roll where you have disadvantage, which...seems to defeat the entire purpose of the name of the feat while not doing a lot to nerf it.
The description is quite different:
"You gain 3 fate points. Whenever you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw and do not have disadvantage, you may spend a fate point to roll an additional d20 and choose whichever result you wish. You may do this after the initial roll has occurred, but before the outcome is known. If you have disadvantage, you may instead spend a fate point to choose one of the d20 rolls and reroll it. Alternatively, when you are attacked, you may choose to spend a fate point to force the attacking creature to reroll the attack. The creature resolves the attack with the result you choose"
So you can use the feat with disadvantage, it just works differently (you can reroll the worst result of a disadvantage roll)

the gwm equivalent is powerful attacker. it gives you a free maneuver you can use for no exertion which basically fulfills the purpose of the first bullet point of gwm, and the +10 to damage attack can be used with any two handed or versatile melee weapon and only imparts disadvantage - but not ALWAYS disadvantage, which means you can negate it with advantage, which means it's unironically even more busted then regular gwm.
Again, the description says something different
" Before you make a melee attack with a two-handed weapon or versatile weapon wielded with two hands, if you are proficient with the weapon and do not have disadvantage you can declare a powerful attack. A powerful attack has disadvantage, but on a hit deals 10 extra damage"
Which means that if you already have disadvantage you cannot just declare a powerful attack for +10 damage. It has to be a willing sacrifice.

EDIT: by how it's written, if your initial attack does not have disadvantage and you decide to make a powerful attack, you attack with disadvantage. You would not benefit from advantage given by other sources (this is how I'd rule it)
 
Last edited:



lichmaster

Adventurer
yes, but old PA scaled too fast also. with 2Hander and Leap attack feat, it got pretty crazy pretty fast.

This scales slower than PB in 5e
I agree, but it may be too slow.
Maybe later I'll run some numbers, but +10 with disadvantage may be ok in terms of balance. It's a huge bonus at low levels, but the chances to hit are roughly halved.
With a -x/+2x you also re-introduce static situational bonuses or penalties in the game, which I'd rather get rid of completely
 

Horwath

Hero
I agree, but it may be too slow.
Maybe later I'll run some numbers, but +10 with disadvantage may be ok in terms of balance. It's a huge bonus at low levels, but the chances to hit are roughly halved.
With a -x/+2x you also re-introduce static situational bonuses or penalties in the game, which I'd rather get rid of completely
if you do not want to fiddle with the numbers, then making it a half feat without that works great.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
I guess I'm confused. It does always give disadvantage.
there are some abilities that impose disadvantage on a roll that can't be negated by advantage (i.e. even if you have advantage you still roll twice and take the lower result). that's what i was referring to.
It's a huge bonus at low levels, but the chances to hit are roughly halved.
this isn't true at all - while dnd and level up consider disadvantage to be about a -5, it's actually closer to a -3 (specifically about -3.33). i guess in very specific circumstances that can equate to halving your chances to hit, but in those circumstances a -5 is going to be straight up worse.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top