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

[Retreater]

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.

 

[Faolyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.