Level Up (A5E) What is off the table?

[Li Shenron]

Well call me confused too but I have already forgotten what are the main purposes.

From the short description on top of the forum section I only get that Level Up is:

1- advanced
2- standalone
3- backwards compatible

Backwards compatible (to 5e) means someone can bring their PC built using the 5e PHB and expect it work in a game using Level Up rules without adjustments. Same if the DM brings her own monsters, or adventures. This means that changes to the fundamental mechanics of ability scores, HP, AC and combat actions are out. It also means that changes to the general mechanics of skills, feats, advantage/disadvantage and spellcasting are possible for new Level Up characters only in a way that doesn't invalidate how things work for 5e characters which will continue working using their 5e version of those rules. It is also expected a reasonable degree of balance between LU and 5e characters.

Standalone means if you knew nothing of D&D, you could buy Level Up and play it with no further needs. It implies rules for all pillars, and an array of classes will be provided.

Advanced is more ambiguous. "More character stuff" can count as advanced in a quantitative sense, but it's not really what Level Up is about. So what is it about? It can mean primarily two things: deeper or evolved. Advanced as deeper would mean rules modules that add complexity to a certain area of the game, such as more stuff to do during downtime, mass combat rules, wounds systems, more tactical weapons properties, more granular skills... Advanced as evolved means to change how something works now into something that works (presumably) better, like modifying concentration rules, or rules for rests and healing, or a different action economy.

If we just look at threads here, it appears the majority of posters just try to hope that Level Up will "fix" what they consider issues with 5e, so definitely "advanced as evolved" i.e. a game revision. The problem is, the majority of those who are NOT posting, is because they see nothing to fix, and have no interest in such changes, not to mention that everyone wants a different fix for the same thing. Either way, "fixes" will likely break compatibility and contrast with purpose 3, unless they are built-into the new character classes in a way that doesn't make them straight more powerful than 5e classes.

"Advanced as deeper" is probably much safer overall, and I don't see anything that is out by default, except what is already mentioned to be off the table for various reasons (i.e. mass battle rules).

 

[Zaukrie]

My guesses:

No changes to the types of magic
No new initiative systems (but maybe new bonuses or feats or stuff that work in that current system)
No new monsters (in the first book....... )
No mass combat
I doubt it will come with the three action economy of PF2, since monsters aren't built that way.

It won't be a game that requires you to have the current PHB to play.......but it won't try to re-write it all.

 

[tetrasodium]

I doubt it will come with the three action economy of PF2, since monsters aren't built that way.

"Sure they are. if damage iduce are >1 split it into multiple attacks using this guideline..."

 

[CubicsRube]

Who said it's not a dessert topping?

Will there be LevelUp sprinkles as a stretch goal?

 

[clearstream]

If we just look at threads here, it appears the majority of posters just try to hope that Level Up will "fix" what they consider issues with 5e, so definitely "advanced as evolved" i.e. a game revision. The problem is, the majority of those who are NOT posting, is because they see nothing to fix, and have no interest in such changes, not to mention that everyone wants a different fix for the same thing. Either way, "fixes" will likely break compatibility and contrast with purpose 3, unless they are built-into the new character classes in a way that doesn't make them straight more powerful than 5e classes.

"Advanced as deeper" is probably much safer overall, and I don't see anything that is out by default, except what is already mentioned to be off the table for various reasons (i.e. mass battle rules).

I agree. I personally desire fixes, but I think Advanced here must mean additional... more-complex, crunchier or more extensive. Book of Nine Swords, not 3.5ed. Which then suggests the obvious challenge: a lot of what is presented as "advanced" is often simply broken. Power-creep. So far, 5ed designers have done reasonably well at avoiding it.

IMO Level Up should not be power-creep. That will require strong design direction to achieve... to remind designers that they are extending, not twinking.

 

[Umbran]

I think it won't be a balance or rule fixing exercise.

Yes, well, 5e itself is the result of playtesting by thousands. I doubt this project will have that level of testing. So, this project generating rules that are more complex, but somehow less buggy, is probably not a realistic expectation.

 

[Umbran]

IMO Level Up should not be power-creep. That will require strong design direction to achieve... to remind designers that they are extending, not twinking.

The more choices a player has in building their character, and the more rules options there are to work with, the greater the possibility for optimization. I don't know how you'd meet some of those desires, and somehow not have power creep.

 

[Lanefan]

The more choices a player has in building their character, and the more rules options there are to work with, the greater the possibility for optimization. I don't know how you'd meet some of those desires, and somehow not have power creep.

A good start would be adopting a hard-line design mantra "No benefit without penalty". Gain something here, lose something of equal or greater benefit somewhere else.

Otherwise, yes, all this will do is play into the optimizers' hands. End result: stock 5e characters, while technically fully compatible with A5e, will end up left behind.

 

[Umbran]

A good start would be adopting a hard-line design mantra "No benefit without penalty". Gain something here, lose something of equal or greater benefit somewhere else.

Yes, well, the problem there is that, as the rules and grow more complicated, you can hide the penalty in places where they aren't of significant impact.

Not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying it can be difficult, and expectations should be set accordingly - expect some power creep.

 

[FrogReaver]

A good start would be adopting a hard-line design mantra "No benefit without penalty". Gain something here, lose something of equal or greater benefit somewhere else.

Otherwise, yes, all this will do is play into the optimizers' hands. End result: stock 5e characters, while technically fully compatible with A5e, will end up left behind.

Im afraid you’ve hit the nail on the head.