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

[tetrasodium]

You just agreed with him all the way down.

I don't think I did.

 

[Jmarso]

I may have hosed myself with this kickstarter.

There were a lot of facets of LU that interested me at the outset, so I dove in. But almost at exactly the same time, I got heavily re-involved with AD&D and 2E AD&D and quickly rediscovered what made those editions so great in the first place, and how, in many ways, they kick the snot out of 5E (and by extension, LU).

I just got my physical books last week- and it's been quite a while since I hit the 'buy' button on the initial kickstarter. At this point I honestly don't know that I'll ever use/run this system, and those gorgeous books may just end up being expensive paperweights. I do intend to go back through them, however, in more detail than I did the original PDF's. I remember having good things to say about some of the stuff I read in the digital files- before I dove back into earlier editions of the game and rediscovered the simplicity, balance, and lethality I'd been missing.

All that aside, no regrets. If nothing else, it's nice to support an effort like this financially, because a tremendous amount of work went into by the creators. I'm going to be very leery about doing it again in the future, though.

 

[Faolyn]

Finally, I'm a little concerned that Exploration needs to be a near-constant presence, or the classes and options that rely on it become unviable. I.e., if my campaign structure is that levels 1-2 are in a town, levels 3-4 are exploration outside, levels 5-6 are in a big city, etc, does playing a Ranger or taking any knacks that focus on exploration make sense? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a concern and potentially exerts a lot of force over how I have to think about arcs, etc.

To be fair, that was always a problem with rangers--they were built for the wilderness, not the city. But LU rangers do have a variety of abilities that are useful in a civilization. And anyway, this would be a good case for telling the players that you are planning a game that spends a lot of time in a city, so they should take that into consideration when they choose their class.

 

[Morrus]

• Finally, I'm a little concerned that Exploration needs to be a near-constant presence, or the classes and options that rely on it become unviable. I.e., if my campaign structure is that levels 1-2 are in a town, levels 3-4 are exploration outside, levels 5-6 are in a big city, etc, does playing a Ranger or taking any knacks that focus on exploration make sense? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a concern and potentially exerts a lot of force over how I have to think about arcs, etc.

I think you’re conflating “exploration pillar” with “wilderness”. You can explore dungeons and cities.

All classes have exploration knacks (they’re called something different for each class but they all have features for the exploration pillar). If you don’t use the exploration pillar of the game, it’s an even effect across the board.

The ranger might be an exception, but we have non-wilderness ranger archetypes. But if the campaign really lacks an entire pillar, I’d expect you’d tell your players in advance. If you don’t use the combat pillar, tell them before they choose a fighter. If you don’t use the social pillar, tell them before they chose an bard or a marshal. We feel these things are easy to handle.

But the basic design is — every class has combat, social, and exploration features. Whatever pillar of the game you are playing, your character can do something. We don’t like on here having to watch while other people play D&D. That’s no fun.

 

[Retreater]

I may have hosed myself with this kickstarter.

I say this after most Kickstarters.
I've gone all-in with so many Savage Worlds products, which I don't expect I'll use.
And I totally understand what you say about the feel of TSR's games.
Here's where you'd expect a "but." However, I'm not going to disagree with anything you wrote.

 

[lichmaster]

There were a lot of facets of LU that interested me at the outset, so I dove in. But almost at exactly the same time, I got heavily re-involved with AD&D and 2E AD&D and quickly rediscovered what made those editions so great in the first place, and how, in many ways, they kick the snot out of 5E (and by extension, LU).

Just out of curiosity: what made those editions so great in your opinion?
I did start playing with 2e a very long while ago, and absolutely loved it. There's some aspects of that edition that I feel were special and in some way have been lost in modern edition, but at the same time modern games' mecanichs and several design choices are just plainly better. Maybe that's because game design evolved a lot, technically, and it did improve.
But my question is genuine: what do you feel 2e has that makes it so special?

 

[Retreater]

Just out of curiosity: what made those editions so great in your opinion?

I know you weren't asking me directly - but here's my take.
Nostalgia: it's what I started playing.
Literary-based: the old games are more deeply connected to fantasy/swords & sorcery literature and classical mythology (instead of the D&D brand in the WotC era)
Resource management: no endless cantrips to negate the need for torches, etc.
Open interpretations of rules (esp. magic)*
Creatures with story and adventure baked in**

*Here's two examples of what I mean - there are more.
Command spell: You used to be able to issue simple commands, whatever was applicable to the situation or entertaining for the group.
Light spell: Cast it in the eyes of an opponent to blind them, instead of "it can only be used for this specific function, and you can't be creative with it."

**Here's two monsters - there are more.
Werewolves: The curse of lycanthropy was hard to be rid of, and required actual investigation to find the alpha wolf and perform a ritual. Merely defeating a werewolf required silver weapons or wolfsbane - you had to investigate what you were dealing with. Now it's just "wail away on it and eventually get through its resistance - or if you have a magic weapon you have no problem at all."
Mummies: You were unlikely to cure mummy rot. You will watch your companion slowly wither away. Now, it's easily saved against, and simple to sure. These are just a standard monster now.

So, to me, the magic of D&D is gone. It's a predictable game of balanced combat, not a world to explore and lore to uncover. The unification of rules has made the game easier to play, but also has transferred a blandness to everything. Which is why I get more excited about games like PF2 or (potentially) Level Up. If the game isn't going to have that element of wonder, it should at least be tactically interesting with lots of character options - because O5e does none of it well.

Just my 2 coppers.

 

[Ondath]

I think the reaction you had is tied to A5E using the same chassis as O5E to a great extent, which makes the two systems very similar - but only superficially. A5E uses a lot of stuff from 5E's toolbox, but usually in wildly different ways, and it's these subtle differences that really make it a different (and IMO better) system. I haven't read the comments before, so I might be repeating some stuff others have already said.

• The exploration pillar is really fleshed out. O5E's exploration rules are fairly barebones and don't really tell you how to run interesting exploration encounters unless you already know how to do that from the earlier editions of the game. A5E adds things like specific exploration challenges, detailed region tables and general advice on how to handle travel that really fleshes out this pillar. (though I should say that as much as A5E fleshed out exploration, they similarly abandoned any guidance on social encounters. I was really disappointed by Trials & Treasures when the only guidance for social encounters was a list of traits an NPC might have. Compare that to O5E DMG's excellent guidelines on setting DCs for requests according to the difficulty of the request and the opponent's demeanor, and I really think A5E's social encounter rules feel wafer thin.)
• A lot of player options are expanded, adding some stuff that you could theoretically homebrew to your O5E game, but which required a lot of menial work. Strongholds are the standout to me, as I couldn't find a stronghold system that satisfied me in 5E until Level Up. The fact that the strongholds' benefits come from stronghold feats that give more stuff the more money you spend also means that you've effectively got guidance on how much money you can spend to get a feat of a specific utility. You can expand on this idea to add things like special training that takes money but grants you a new feat or balancing the party's treasure with extra boons. Also, a lot more mundane item options like armour and weapons from different materials, hirelings and nonmagical healing items.
• The Monstrous Menagerie redesigns every classic monster to make them more interesting and better balanced. The way A5E uses the CR system is much more intuitive and makes balancing encounter much easier. Hats off to Paul from Blog of Holding for that.

Overall, the system is 5E, but it almost serves like a second draft that treats the 2014 PHB-MM-DMG as a final playtest and makes some final changes according to the feedback we got over the last 7 years.

 

[Waller]

(though I should say that as much as A5E fleshed out exploration, they similarly abandoned any guidance on social encounters. I was really disappointed by Trials & Treasures when the only guidance for social encounters was a list of traits an NPC might have.

Whole social stuff doesn't have the sheer amount of extra stuff that exploration does, it's there.

Every class has social abilities (or antisocial abilities!) Even the fighter and berserker have them.

Also there's a social encounter section in the exploration section of T&T.

 

[Jmarso]

Just out of curiosity: what made those editions so great in your opinion?
I did start playing with 2e a very long while ago, and absolutely loved it. There's some aspects of that edition that I feel were special and in some way have been lost in modern edition, but at the same time modern games' mecanichs and several design choices are just plainly better. Maybe that's because game design evolved a lot, technically, and it did improve.
But my question is genuine: what do you feel 2e has that makes it so special?

The simplicity in character creation and leveling up (usually less than ten minutes for either), the simplicity in NPC creation, (especially random encounters on the fly), the lethality of the game in terms of un-nerfed monsters with save-or-die threats, and spells whose effects could last in terms of weeks or months, and not be shrugged off with a save at the beginning of each round. Everything you want to do with a character in later editions you can do in the earlier ones, and you aren't limited. Same thing with backgrounds. Any outlandish act can be accomplished with a called shot, an attribute check, or something similar- it doesn't require feats or skills. And the lack of skills necessitates actual roleplaying, not players just yawning, and rolling the dice against a skill to do something like intimidate or bluff a foe. I also like the fact that combat is streamlined and faster, as players and monsters both have fewer hit points. Combat rounds with five or six players around the table don't take a half hour to resolve, due to players flipping through pages of skills and feats that allow multiple attacks and effects in a single six second round. In 2E, despite a combat round being 1minute, a table of a half dozen players can resolve the round usually in less than ten minutes, sometimes a lot faster in a cut-and-dry situation.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot that 5E gets right, and a lot left to be desired about the older systems. For example, I HATE the monetary value hauled for XP aspect of the earlier systems. But taken overall, I've re-discovered that a game of 2E or AD&D is just more fun to play, covers more ground per game session, and results in more 'fear and cheers' than an equivalent game of 5E. At this point I'm not sure I can go back to playing 5E. I'm also convinced that the perfect version of D&D lives somewhere between 2E and 5E rulesets, and could be brought forth with some effort and skull sweat.