Level Up (A5E) Changing Mechanics or Adding to Them

[DND_Reborn]

Is one of the goals of Level Up to utilize existing mechanics (adding to them) or change how they are used?

Example:
Using existing mechanic: Death saves become DC 15 for a more deadly game.
Changing the mechanic: Death saves become a Constitution check instead of an untied saving throw because your physical health (i.e. CON) should alter your body's chances of stabilizing from injury.

I am asking because obviously this changes the design potential of Level Up depending on the intent of the authors.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Is one of the goals of Level Up to utilize existing mechanics (adding to them) or change how they are used?

Example:
Using existing mechanic: Death saves become DC 15 for a more deadly game.
Changing the mechanic: Death saves become a Constitution check instead of an untied saving throw because your physical health (i.e. CON) should alter your body's chances of stabilizing from injury.

I am asking because obviously this changes the design potential of Level Up depending on the intent of the authors.

I'm in the same boat!

I'm mostly asking for the rest mechanic; is there any possibility of modifying them or is the game set in stone with 1-hour short rest/8 hour long rest?

How far can the game bend the rules assumption before it is considered non-compatible with 5e. Is a book like AiME with modular cultural trait, modular monster traits, journey rules, hoard generation and weapon/armor trait a good example of what A5E could be like or more an SRD + Xanathar extra rules?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hopefully, @Morrus will chime in his views since they are driving the project (with feedback provided, of course).

As I see it, the goal should be to utilize existing mechanics by adding variant rules to the systems that are already in place. This way it can be as compatible with 5E, which is supposed to be a goal as I understand it.

Example: When you suffer a critical hit, you must make a death saving throw. If you fail the saving throw, a death save failure is recorded until you finish a short or long rest or regain any hit points.

This uses all existing mechanics: critical hits, death saves, and how death saves reset when you gain hit points. But, it also adds an element of danger to combat as having a failed death save already marked when you go to 0 hit points, starting you out that much closer to death!

 

[aco175]

I think everything needs to be looked at through the glass as being backwards compatible.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think everything needs to be looked at through the glass as being backwards compatible.

But is playing with the length of rest still backward compatible? Is adding more skills to the list still compatible? I'd say yes, but by seeing the answer on other post, I'm not sure anymore

 

[Zaukrie]

I think everything needs to be looked at through the glass as being backwards compatible.

Disagree. It needs to be reasonably balanced, but things that are new or different don't need to be backward compatible. A new ranger can be built that has nothing to do with the current ranger, for example. I don't only want options, give me alternatives.

 

[Charlaquin]

Disagree. It needs to be reasonably balanced, but things that are new or different don't need to be backward compatible. A new ranger can be built that has nothing to do with the current ranger, for example. I don't only want options, give me alternatives.

I think a completely different ranger would meet the bar of full backwards compatibility. If you can just port it over to regular 5e without having to make changes on either end, it’s backwards compatible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A new ranger can be built that has nothing to do with the current ranger, for example. I don't only want options, give me alternatives.

This is my point. I don't think making a new ranger would be an option so much as making new subclasses for the existing ranger chassis.

But, either way, that is what I am asking of the designers. Do they want an alternative ranger class, or alternatives for class features using the existing class?

This isn't about what we want, it is about the design goals of the developers... and for that I am simply waiting a response from someone (ahem, Morris?) in position of authority.

 

[glass]

Disagree. It needs to be reasonably balanced, but things that are new or different don't need to be backward compatible. A new ranger can be built that has nothing to do with the current ranger, for example. I don't only want options, give me alternatives.

Provided you can use the L5A classes alone, or seemlessly alongide the PHB classes, a "new ranger" would be an example of adding not changing (although for clarity I would prefer it if the classes did not reuse the existing names for the new classes).

_
glass.

 

[Morrus]

Yep; a revised class is fully backward compatible in the same way that a new class is.

By backward compatible we mean you can use 5E stuff in Level Up. It doesn't mean you can necessarily do the reverse, though I imagine 99% of the time that won't be a problem.