Blog (A5E) Keeping it Classy: Updated Core Classes in Level Up

[Timespike]

This is interesting. I remember I read more than once that traditions were compared to magic schools, and I knew you were also using other "tags" on spells alongside the classic schools, but I don't know how far the implications of the new tagging system goes. With this kind of description as "damage, crowd control, movement", etc, the distinction is more clear (and way more practical than the traditional ones). I think most caster classes still have at least limited access to most of these new tags, but we'll see how far that goes. I mean, a druid for sure has "damage" as a tag, but probably no fireball. There's overlap but is not complete.

Exactly! And this is why you don't want to give all the combat schools to all the martial classes from the jump. You'll run over niche protection and wind up with homogeneity.

And the fighter social and exploration abilities are some of the best in Level Up, in my opinion. Andrew had a really clear vision of what he wanted to do, and he nailed it.

Also, regarding Tarzan. If you want to make a character like that with only adept levels, there are a couple of (non-synergy) feats that I worked on that you may find useful. Go look through the feats section when you get your copy of the rules. You'll find them pretty quickly, I think.

 

[lichmaster]

Exactly! And this is why you don't want to give all the combat schools to all the martial classes from the jump. You'll run over niche protection and wind up with homogeneity.

I still think that it could be fun to experiment with more relaxed tradition requirements (just because I like free form systems), but I see your point. If that was the design from the get go, though, the fighter class would could have used many features to empower the maneuvers, or come up with something else.

And the fighter social and exploration abilities are some of the best in Level Up, in my opinion. Andrew had a really clear vision of what he wanted to do, and he nailed it.

I was re-reading the berserker playtest material, and I really liked those. Don't know if and how they changed, though.

Also, regarding Tarzan. If you want to make a character like that with only adept levels, there are a couple of (non-synergy) feats that I worked on that you may find useful. Go look through the feats section when you get your copy of the rules. You'll find them pretty quickly, I think.

I surely will. (Many) years ago we were playing War of The Burning Sky, but instead of 3.5 we were using Trailblazer, which was just a superior version to 3.5 in every way, probably similar to what A5E will be wrt O5E.
In that campaign, there was a cool character, a monk/druid that was literally blending the animal styles of kung fu with actual animal fighting from shapeshifting. Actually, he could partially shape shift (using Trailblazer's version of the druid) and still use martial arts like a monk. On top of that, he could cast produce flame to envelope his kung fu claws with flames. That was really a cool concept!

I hope in some way A5E will allow crazy and fun combinations like this

 

[Timespike]

I still think that it could be fun to experiment with more relaxed tradition requirements (just because I like free form systems), but I see your point. If that was the design from the get go, though, the fighter class would could have used many features to empower the maneuvers, or come up with something else.

A couple things on that:

Keep in mind that one of the constraints the design team was working with was backwards compatibility. So if the goal was to build an entirely new, non-compatible system that just hung onto some key concepts like proficiency and bounded accuracy, some more features like you suggest may have made it in. Remember also that just including maneuvers at all represents a significant upgrade and change from O5E, which had nothing of the sort. There are Level Up-specific subclasses, too, so don't be surprised if some of what you want shows up in them.

If you want to tinker, by all means, tinker, but I would suggest trying it as written for a while first. The lead design team put a lot of thought, revision, and incorporated playtest feedback into the final designs. You may not wind up agreeing with their decisions, and that is both fine and your prerogative, but they did have reasons for them. I know that in at least a few of those cases, those decisions were made not just for flavor reasons, but to avoid players having a bad time.

Someone else in the thread mentioned the idea of a rogue with Adamant Mountain maneuvers, and that was a good example. Adamant Mountain tends to work best with a big, tough, hold-the-line type of character rather than a sneaky, mobile, and quick one. Can someone who has achieved some system mastery make weird combinations work? Of course! But I don't recommend you start from there.

Finally, those constraints leave room for game design that creates exceptions to them. A stereotype-defying berserker subclass that gets access to one of the more "disciplined" combat schools like Razor's Edge or Unending Wheel is going to feel a lot less special if the local house rules give every martial character access to every maneuver school from the jump, just like a specialized Theurge subclass for the wizard will feel less special if single-classed wizards have been given access to the cure wounds and restoration spells already.

All of that said, play the game how it's most fun for you and your table. Just recognize when you're coloring outside the lines and be ready for the occasional bit of weirdness that only can happen when you do.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That "reserve" feature on the fighter table also looks interesting. Based on some odd wording in one of the combat maneuvers, I'm guessing it might mean that fighters get that many exertion points for free on each of their turns, before they have to dig into their pool. (It might not be that, but there is that maneuver with odd wording...)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've never had any problems with multiclass cheese (thank the gods) and have never seen any of the builds that this article talks about (which makes it seem a little obsessive) but, I suppose I can imagine them, and appreciate the fix.

Either way, the alternatives shown look pretty good.

 

[Faolyn]

That "reserve" feature on the fighter table also looks interesting. Based on some odd wording in one of the combat maneuvers, I'm guessing it might mean that fighters get that many exertion points for free on each of their turns, before they have to dig into their pool. (It might not be that, but there is that maneuver with odd wording...)

According to the playtest packet, they just get an additional point at those levels, so at 4th level, they have 5 points instead of 4 (8 points at 8th level, 11 points at 12th level, 14 points at 16th level). So not quite as good as what you're thinking--unless they've changed it from the playtest. Which would be nice. At the least, I wish they had Reserves (5) at 20th level, for 17 points, but I guess so few games go up to that level that it doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Timespike]

I've never had any problems with multiclass cheese (thank the gods) and have never seen any of the builds that this article talks about (which makes it seem a little obsessive) but, I suppose I can imagine them, and appreciate the fix.

Either way, the alternatives shown look pretty good.

Some are worse than others. I'm actually playing an O5E Valor bard 8/paladin 2 in the campaign my Saturday group is running. He's very effective, though I wouldn't call him "broken" by any stretch. The single-classed bear totem barbarian is deadlier, the druid is a better spellcaster, and the warlock with a splash of cleric is a much better ranged combatant. What makes him fun is his versatility. But I've heard absolute horror stories about the Vengeance paladin/Hexblade warlock combo, the infamous "coffeelock" and so on.

 

[VanguardHero]

Multiclass Cheese is a good thing to target since it's a lot harder to fix the busted Subclasses that you can't actually touch, but that's fixable by DMs trimming what o5e content they allow. Though the one I find most egregious, the Bladesinger, no longer eclipses Martials by virtue of then getting to do Stuff, so that one you did actually fix without touching xD

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Some are worse than others. I'm actually playing an O5E Valor bard 8/paladin 2 in the campaign my Saturday group is running. He's very effective, though I wouldn't call him "broken" by any stretch. The single-classed bear totem barbarian is deadlier, the druid is a better spellcaster, and the warlock with a splash of cleric is a much better ranged combatant. What makes him fun is his versatility. But I've heard absolute horror stories about the Vengeance paladin/Hexblade warlock combo, the infamous "coffeelock" and so on.

I assume that LU has been very careful to avoid broken combos when it comes to players mixing LU material with O5E stuff. That's gotta be hard to do. I can't imagine playtesting every option available crossed with every other option available (in both games). Were there any points where the design team had to really rethink how something worked based on how things combined when you crossed A5E/O5E streams? Do you think there's a plan in place for if/when something unforseen comes up? (I guess errata, but is that the only way to go?)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

According to the playtest packet, they just get an additional point at those levels, so at 4th level, they have 5 points instead of 4 (8 points at 8th level, 11 points at 12th level, 14 points at 16th level). So not quite as good as what you're thinking--unless they've changed it from the playtest. Which would be nice. At the least, I wish they had Reserves (5) at 20th level, for 17 points, but I guess so few games go up to that level that it doesn't matter all that much.

Hmm.

Then that makes Instinctive Counterattack make even less sense. It costs 2 exertion points, but its effect is: "When your exertion pool is not empty, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack."

The only way that makes sense to me is if it is possible to have an empty exertion pool and still spend 2 exertion points. This is also a 3rd degree maneuver, and fighters get "Reserves (2)" at exactly the same level that they get 3rd degree maneuver access, hence my guess.

Maybe there is a decreased cost with maneuver specialization.