13th Age General
Best D20 around.
>>43530325
>Best D20 around
True, but /tg/ can't into it
>>43530367
Why?
>>43530325
>best d20 around
Not really a competition to begin with.
>>43530400
Probably because there isn't enough to fight about. Character builds are pretty simple but all are effective, there aren't any shitty rules that need to be lawyered to death, and there haven't yet been any broken/controversial supplements to start a CoDzilla/Weeaboo Fightan Magic argument.
13th Age best age, best d20, Prince of Shadows a pimp.
>>43530400
I just assume they haven't forgiven Rob Honsoo for creating the single greatest d20 based game of all time that happened to be premised on the exact things they hated: game balance, legible and specific rules, and eliminating rules lawyers.
Which is a shame, because 13th Age is probably the closest experience to AD&D there is.
>>43530560
>prince of Shadows
>bestI see what you did their, criminal scum.
What's the point of this passive aggressive thread? Almost nobody uses this rule set.
This is worse than those Fantasycraft shills. At least they discuss the system somewhat and don't just cry about how /tg/-senpai ignores them.
>>43530740
Fantasycraft is garbage everyone can see is garbage.
13th Age is a glorious golden cupcake full of delicious goodness, but /tg/ cannot see it for what it is through their tears of shame that they could not accept 4e for its greatness.
>>43530702
What do you think the Prince stole from the Dwarf King?
In my campaign, the Prince stolejust one coin; the insult cannot stand.
I was kinda into this pre-release but the icons and stuff were just really uninteresting.
>>43530325
Why is it the best D20 around? What's better than the other systems that I would prefer this one?
>>43533070
A 10th-level Fighter swings for 10d8 or 10d10 with every attack, all day long, and never runs out of maneuvers.
>>43531887
You know because it is a dwarf, but that seems too perfect.
>>43530325
13th age is a sad attempt to keep 4e alive. An attempt that failed.
13th age is boring and too game-y.
I would play it in my group, but I would rather run D&D.
>>43533355
>13th age is a sad attempt to keep 4e alive.
4e: a game based on interesting grid combat
13th Age: a game that you would need to houserule heavily to introduce a grid to.
wat
>>43533379
a game is a game??? where are these mysterious games that are not games??
>>43533931
Yeah, it's a problem.
When I run 13th Age, I kill the ritual rules. Instead I just make out-of-combat magic a 'background' roll.
Your barbarian wants to use magic to disguise the party as orcs? How? Oh, I see, you have the "wise shamanic magician +3" background. Go ahead!
How do people feel 13th Age compares to Shadow of the Demon Lord on the balance side of things?
You may have noticed that I have yet to bring up the barbarian. This is because the barbarian is the least mechanically competent class in the entire system, right from level 1, full stop. If anyone has any positive anecdotes regarding the barbarian, I am dead certain that it has to do with the GM not actually attacking the barbarian effectively, the player having selective memory and recalling only the barbarian's few shining moments, or merits that are not actually barbarian-specific. (The fan-made talents found in Pelgrane Press's website may be able to redeem it to an extent, but the chassis is unsalvageable.)
The barbarian is one of the "three stooges" classes of 13th Age, alongside the paladin and the ranger. Such classes' *only* progression from their classes is an additional talent at levels 5 and 8. Levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are dead levels for them. The barbarian has access to exclusive champion-tier talents and epic-tier talents, but these really are not that much better than heroic-tier talents; they are about 1.5 times as better at best. (No, Ancestral Warband is not especially reliable.)
The barbarian is a non-skirmishing frontliner class that does nothing but mindlessly attack every round. The barbarian has base HP 7, base AC 12 in light armor, base PD 11, and base MD 10. That is distressingly fragile for a non-skirmishing frontliner. A level 1 barbarian with Str 16+2, Dex 8, Con 16+2, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8 has HP 33, AC 15, PD 16, MD 11, initiative +0, which is rather pathetic for a non-skirmishing frontliner.
>>43536135
For comparison, the ranger has base HP 7, base AC 14 in light armor, base PD 11, and base MD 10. A level 1 bow ranger with Str 8, Dex 16+2 (Dexterity is almost certainly better than Strength out of combat), Con 16+2, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 8 has HP 33, AC 19, PD 16, MD 12, initiative +5, which is significantly superior to the barbarian's baseline, and all the more so since the ranger can stay back, skirmish with a bow, and pick targets freely, compared to the strictly melee-restricted barbarian.
The barbarian's only real class feature, apart from the talents that every class receives, is rage. A barbarian rolls two d20s for all melee attack rolls and takes the higher result, and furthermore, if both rolls show the same die and the attack is a hit, the attack is automatically a hit. Even taking into account that every class has miss damage on its attacks that matter, this is actually *quite* good, and pushes the barbarian's at-will damage to one of the highest in the game.
However, there is a major catch to rage:
>Recharge 16+: After a battle in which you rage, roll a d20 and add your Constitution modifier; on a 16+, you can use Barbarian Rage again later in the day.
The rules for recharge powers are murky and inconsistent between the combat chapter and the glossary because Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet simply cannot agree, but the barbarian class entry makes how it works for rage clear: you have one shot at recharging rage.
>>43536149
Assuming Constitution 18 (and thus Constitution modifier +4) and a standard four-battle adventuring "day," if a barbarian rages during the first battle and tries to rage as often as possible during subsequent battles, they have a 55% chance of being able to rage for only one battle, a 24.75% chance of raging for two battles, an 11.1375% chance of raging for three battles, 9.1125% chance of raging for all four battles, for an average of (0.55 * 1) + (0.2475 * 2) + (0.111375 * 3) + (0.091125 * 4) = 1.743625 rages per day, which is really rather pathetic considering that this is the barbarian's only class feature apart from talents, and considering that this assumes the barbarian is trying to rage as often as possible (without any regard for conserving it).
Thus, we are looking at an astoundingly frail, non-skirmishing frontliner whose only class feature apart from talents works for less than half of the day's battles on average. Even when it *does* work, they are still metaphorically wrought of paper and will be shredded apart by enemies' focused fire.
There is no good mechanical reason to play a barbarian in 13th Age. For those interested in the mechanics of a "savage strongman," the fan-made stalwart class from the Pelgrane Press website is far more viable: http://pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-age-class-stalwart/ (the author clarifies in the forum the base hit points are supposed to be 7, not 8)
Touhoufag I know you never get a ton of responses but I do appreciate your mechanics analysis.
I really don't like how limiting various classes are.
There isn't much room for a rogue to do anything but 'Yep, that's a dagger/rapier' for example.
That and a lack of grid based combat really hurts such a combat heavy game.
>>43536422
This is absolutely true. There are only one or two "correct" mechanical builds possible for any given class, albeit with a few minor variations for those builds. Even the spellcaster classes, for all their versatility and excellent scaling, have very little to distinguish them.
In my opinion, 13th Age is a system that does not know what it wants to be. On the surface, it wants to be a combat-heavy system with *extremely* rules-lite noncombat mechanics (backgrounds), but the way combat tactics and positioning works is so laissez-faire that combat is a process of everyone doing their own thing and not really cooperating that much, mowing down enemy after enemy on their own and simply "looking cool."
For such a combat-heavy system too, the game goes "Eh, you figure out how it works" for some rather critical rules too, such as recharging powers, the precise nature of being "nearby" or "far away" in relation to different combatants, and situational modifiers.
A different game that does fully capture both rules-lite noncombat mechanics and 4e-style grid-based tactical combat is Jim McGarva's Strike!, which I would strongly recommend to anyone seeking out a game that is essentially Fate + Burning Wheel out of combat and 4e in combat.
Any chance anybody have a link to a PDF of said game?
Would appreciate it greatly
>>43530367
I didn't like the big dice pools at higher levels. Most of the rest seemed pretty good.
>>43533532
>a game is a game??? where are these mysterious games that are not games??
don't act like a fucking imbecile
>>43531048
You are garbage.
>>43537929
Fukken sweet!
Thanks a bunch
>>43530400
>Why?
There is almost no competition in the d20 system, even for games only loosely based around it.
That sets the bar VERY low.
It's far, far, far from the best RPG that uses a d20 though.
>>43537929
Thank you for your kind thoughts and deeds, I enjoyed the discussion.
>>43538938
That's not a very good pic.
>>43539046
Set your zoom to 100%, reads perfectly fine on a normal 1080p monitor.
Either way, I'm sorry, I like things big.
>>43539146
No, I mean, the content is useless and doesn't give a good view of 13th Age.
Well, the criticism is interesting because I'd heard nothing but good things about 13th age previously, and I rather liked what I saw when I read through the book. Can anyone who's had experience playing with the system comment about how effective martials actually are vs casters in play?
>>43539453
This. It's more of a collection of nitpicks, useful for starting arguments but not much else.
>>43539600
>>43539453
Yeah, this.
>>43539596
It's all a lie, martials are actually stronger AND more versatile than casters. Don't even read through it.
>>43539453
>>43539600
Seconded.
>>43539600
Exactly, it's as non-valid as a 3.x trying to say wizards are better than martials and it is just trolling.
>>43539596
I've run and played in several games. For all the number crunching and theory that can be stacked against them, martials have never underperformed casters in my experience. They do fill different roles and have different strengths and weaknesses, but the only complaint I recieve is that some classes are more interesting than others. Which is fair, since that is a design feature to compensate for different kinds of players. Thankfully new material has been coming out to add more character options (I am particularly pleased with what the Glorantha sourcebook's paladin alternative is shaping up to be, for example).
>>43540800
I'm the player that was as a dual-wielding ranger in that game.
Do you know how boring it was that my only option was to spam basic attacks (whose effectiveness was locked to escalation dice; the encounter never lasted long enough for that to matter) and stand by as people did everything out of combat? I found myself switching over to monk at level four.This was despite cheesing my ranger's backgrounds to essentially give me +8 thanks to me futzing a custom race. Leveling them up up did nothing. Not having a single usable ability at levels 2, 3, and 4 made the scaling even worse.
Swapping to monk made it more fun. Their kit allowed some more interaction between skills, but even then it came down to picking the best styles and ignoring anything else interesting as the opportunity cost gap between choices can't be ignored when everyone is shitting out numbers higher than you without trying. Even then, the scaling felt like it had pacing problems even on the useful styles. There was just no flexibility to choose cool things over things that would actually be useful.
Even if 13th Age is better than most d20 games (I like the fluff, but the rules are really hit or miss), I still would enjoy 4e (or STRIKE!) over it just because 13th Age still suffers from martials lacking interesting, meaningful choices.
On a related note, I still cannot understand why anyone beyond entry level Dee and Dee newbies/normals who don't know any better would play D20 3.PF-esqe games.
>>43541314
Have you considered that maybe 13th Age is perfect and that there's just no possible way to have interesting or meaningful choices?
>>43541823
>>43541922
I meant for martials and you knew it, I mean, if they did something interesting it would just be magical weaboo bullshit.
>>43542024
That comment is so stupid, I read it as pic related.This is what /tg/ actually believes, though.
Durability comparison: level 1 fighter vs. level 1 cleric
Level 1 fighter: Str 16+2, Dex 8, Con 16+2, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base HP 8 (with an extra recovery, not that that is going to come up often), base AC 16 with heavy armor and shield, base PD 10, base MD 10
Result: HP 33, AC 19, PD 15, MD 11, initiative +0
Level 1 cleric: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 16+2, Int 10, Wis 16+2, Cha 8, noting that Dexterity and Wisdom are far more useful out of combat than Strength
Base HP 7, base AC 15 with heavy armor and shield, base PD 11, base MD 11
Result: HP 30, AC 20, PD 14, MD 12, initiative +3
The cleric has roughly the same overall durability as the fighter, which is rather concerning given that this cleric build is supposed to be the back-row support type.
The level 1 fighter swings in melee with a longsword with +5 attack vs. AC and deals 1d8+4 damage.
The level 1 cleric uses Lance of Faith, a ranged attack, and swings with +5 attack vs. PD (4 points lower than AC on average) and deals 1d6+4 holy damage.
But this is okay (I am being non-sarcastic here), because the cleric is in trouble when engaged with multiple enemies, and their spells are not especially good.
By level 5, however, the cleric's spells have most certainly begun to shine brighter than the fighter's maneuvers (especially considering the cleric's noncombat utility from free ritual casting), and the fighter is looking to be on shakier ground in comparison to the cleric.
>>43530325
Sure, it's best if you like being handed out a character sheet and forced to play the exact same character everyone else of that class is, was and will ever be.
>>43543365
If everyone is exactly the same, that's balanced.
Isn't that a good thing?
>>43542024
Bruh, it's not even hard to give options to martials without it being magical weeb shit. I mean, I added a maneuver system to a low magic OSR campaign and it's essentially "martial can force a charisma save rather than rolling against AC by bluffing" and whatnot.
Or hell, mighty deeds from DCC is excellent. When the fighter wants to do some crazy improv shit, they can add a mighty deeds dice which scales to the roll. And then there's an example list of 10 moves like blinding, cutting hamstrings, etc. for if you don't want to deal with making mechanics up on the fly. The maneuvers are all strictly better than basic attacks and since there's no limit on how often a fighter can use the mighty deeds dice, it encourages rocking face in every combat.
I mean shit, it's not that hard to make a game more interesting than "I basic attack all the time"
>>43530560
I don't like the game's approach of making some classes purposefully simpler than others.
>>43543553
Why not accept that some people have different tastes in fun?
Some people really just want to be a 3e fighter, and hit stuff.
>>43543545
To be clear on how martials work in 13th Age, the barbarian, the paladin, and the ranger do little apart from mindlessly basic attacking.
The fighter is a little different: the fighter mindlessly basic attacks, but *also* gets to randomly trigger one of several maneuvers. It is therefore less about making important tactical decisions and more about seeing what the dice give you.
The rogue and the commander are more tactically engaging martials because they involve actually picking from different powers to use and trying to see which one best suits the situation at hand. Of course, that is how every spellcasting class in this game works too; even the mostly randomized chaos mage still has to make important decisions between spell choices from turn to turn.
>>43543553
And of course, the bulk of the martials are the ones in the "deliberately simpler to play" pile.
Again, the martials are not mechanically behind the casters at the lower levels, but the casters begin to pull ahead past those levels because the casters simply scale much better.
>>43543553
I love 13th Age but this is my only major gripe with the game. From what I've read they're playtesting more complex versions of the paladin, fighter, and ranger and intend for those to be options along with the current versions so you can play the one you want.
>>43543678
What would be the point of randomly triggering maneuvers? They could change nothing but giving the fighter a choice in what maneuvers they want to use and it would add reams of tactical depth to the game.
>>43543750
see
>>43543553
Roll them tables, yo
>>43543666
If your idea of fun is doing nothing and saying, "I ATTACK HIM WITH MY SWORD XD" for 4 hours while everyone else tells a story, just go play videogames.
>>43543666
Ideally, some if not all classes would have options that provide simpler playstyles/mechanics, instead of the whole thing being "hit things: the class" Like say a D&D 5e champion fighter vs a battlemaster, or a 4e essentials slayer vs a core fighter
>>43543802
>badwrongfun
>>43533532
3.5 is shitty.
4e is game-y.
5e is boring.
13th Age is boring and game-y. There's no reason to go niche over name brand for 13th Age.
>>43543853
>le badwrongfun meme
Do you actually find that fun? Seriously? In a genre where storytelling and roleplaying is rewarded, you just want to mindlessly hit things? You rather be a two dimensional character in someone else's story?
>>43544083
Do you really feel like you're in a position to tell other people what they should find fun?
>>43544225
I suppose it takes all types, even easily entertained and amused people whose lack of interaction adds nothing tangible to the enjoyment of others.
When faced with two options, why would you ever go for the inferior one? And when you have but one option that is strictly terrible, why settle for that?
Since this thread brought up some interesting points about 13th Age, I am left to wonder: are there any D&D-like games that deliver on D&D's promise without invalidating entire groups of classes by design or by accident?
While 4e did mostly achieve balance, it did so at the cost of introducing a slew of other problems.
>>43544761
What is D&D's promise?
>>43544604
>whose lack of interaction adds nothing tangible to the enjoyment of others.
Wow, you seriously only see the game as 1 dimensionally about combat...
I take it that you play a lot of this game?
>>43530325
Being the best d20 is sort of like being the tallest midget, or the smartest retard. Yeah, you can technically make the claim, but who gives a shit?
All snide comments aside, it's a decent game, it just suffers from the same problem as 4th ed. People who hate d20 out of hand won't like it, because d20. People who worship at the throne of d20 won't like it because it's not similar enough to 3.X. That leaves you with a large segment of the market never going to like you no matter what.
>>43544851
Congrats about missing my entire point.
>>43544855
What's your suggested fantasy RP?
Dungeon World? RuneQuest?
>>43544903
Was it:
>"If you don't bring l33t dps, why should we choose you at the table? That option is inferior, it does less damage."
?
We can only interpret what you say, not what you meant to say.
>>43544806
A world of adventures where everyone gets to play an equally important part in the party's journey from zero to hero.
>>43544604
>Be guy
>Highly educated, really entertaining and funny around the table, really charismatic
>Focuses so much of his energy on making the game good for everyone else, that he just likes to basic attack or do comical shenanigans in combat.
>Get yelled at by gigantic subhuman whale claiming that he's stealing all his fun away
>watch as whale is asked to never return by everyone else
Life is good.
>>43545119
You can easily do that even in something like Pathfinder...
>>43545035
>If all you want to do is hit things and not add to the story, which is also governed by making out of combat skill checks, rolls, and other mechanically dependent things alongside actual roleplaying, please go play a video game because you might as well be an NPC who just does basic attacks.
Which is why you might as well play a better game that isn't as terrible as 3.PF and its clones. It's like you hate options and complexity.
>>43545119
I thought the promise was loosely strung together dungeon crawls and combat encounters with the promise of tons of loot, so you can to it again for better stuff until you die and have to reroll
>>43545169
Because a fighter is totally as important as a caster in that system. Suuure.
>>43544604
Some people prefer simple and easy over complex and optimal.
>>43543431
Why don't you go play a video game instead, then?
>>43545527
That doesn't seem very social.
13th Age fans BTFO ITT
Pretty sure shitposting isn't allowed outside of /b/, y'know, the rules and such.
However, this thread really did not go how OP wanted...
>>43545169
>>You can easily do that even in something like Pathfinder...
>>43546854
>My own inadequacy means everyone else is bad too!
>>43546961
Good god, denying caster vs martial is embarrassing in the year of our lord 2015
>>43544949
Not that anon, but d100 is the superior static probability system. RuneQuest + more HP = infinitely better than D&D D&D
>>43547712
>2015
>The year anon decided that being retarded and not thinking about things was the only way to not be embarrassing.
>>43547738
How best to get into runequest? 6th Ed?
>>43548277
I recommend RuneQuest 6. There is a free "essentials" pdf and starter adventure on the design mechanism website. It's about a session worth of material with pregens.
>>43547807
A baboon has better syntax than you
>>43543313
>By level 5, however, the cleric's spells have most certainly begun to shine brighter than the fighter's maneuvers (especially considering the cleric's noncombat utility from free ritual casting), and the fighter is looking to be on shakier ground in comparison to the cleric.
Dude, what? I've been playing Clerics non-stop since day one and Clerics just don't have enough spells. Almost all their spells are daily, which doesn't sound so bad except when there's usually a hell of a lot more dudes than you have spells in an encounter. This means you'll probably burn like one fucking daily spell in an encounter, then hope your lance or combat boon will see you through.
Cleric spells are good, they're great, but I've found it hard to pull my weight once I've blown my carefully rationed spell.
>>43548559
The exception to this is the Strength Cleric, who can fight pretty well. However that's at the cost of a Domain and/or Ability Scores that could be put to better use in your Defenses or getting more Wisdom for your buck.
>>43548559
So it has the same problem as 3.5?
>>43548559
>>43548601
I should probably stop but let me sperg out some more. The Cleric is just not getting the crazy use out of ritual casting that you think he is. Almost every GM I've played with has given only limited use to ritual casting and it's usually just to supplement a background roll I or someone else was already going to make.
Case in point, I cast Circle of Protection (A 7th Level spell, might I add) to give us a bulwark against a hostile environment as we explore. You know what that got interpreted as? A +2 bonus on our Background Checks while exploring and a +1 on one Saving Throw we made when a demonegg blew up in our face.
Wow, I'm so OP.
>>43548809
Only really low level 3.5. You never have enough spells to really stop thinking of them as a valuable resource. You have to pick your spells well and then choose exactly the right time to use them, otherwise you just blew your spell to no effect. God help you if you roll shit.
Now this is all for the Cleric. I dunno for the Wizard or anything.
>>43548922
>>43548971
Thank god you finally understand!
This is exactly why Fighters are good in 3.5, they can keep trucking all day with little effort at their peak efficiency.
Meanwhile all the cleric is doing is giving a minor bonus every hear and now.
>>43544083
What does the classes complexity have to do with role playing?
>>43548980
No, you're wrong. Fighters are bad in 3.5 because spellcasters all eventually get enough spells to where it would take an extremely contrived situation to run out and many of their spells are very powerful. That's not the case in 13th age because, at least the Cleric, just doesn't have enough spells to where he can spend them almost at will to instantly solve problems.
>>43549029
>>43544083
This is coming from a guy who has never played the game, and is an honest question.
>>43549029
Because classes directly impact how you can roleplay by means of what they can and cannot do mechanically. Otherwise, why have in and out of combat rules in the first place if you're going to handwave everything? The less your class can do, the less options to roleplay you have.
Which is why I actually like stuff like FATE that lets you do things with roleplaying.
>>43545119
Adventurer Conqueror King is pretty great in the zero to hero to Lord Of All. It's based on OSR games so if that isn't your jam, you may have issues.
>>43549030
Sounds like 5e.
>>43549151
Not really. Cantrips in 5e are a perfectly viable fallback for spellcasters. They even scale.
>>43549119
Okay so 13th Age has acutal mechanical rules for role playing? Or are you talking normal d20 shit like intimidate, diplomacy, and what not? Once again, this is coming from a guy that has never played the game or even looked at a book. Just asking questions.
I love playing wizards and sorcerers in this game, force salvo alone makes the class worth it
>>43549177
But cantrips do very little damage compared to fighting, and getting boosts to that damage is rare as shit.
>>43549030
It's funny, because I have always heard this, and recently played in my first ever high level 3.5 game. The fighter (level 14 at this time, I believe) didn't seem underpowered at all. There was a dungeon where he got separated from us and stumbled upon a much higher (18th) level mage and his troupe. OOC, we all said our good-byes and expressed our condolences, but he proceeded to wreck the shit out of that guy. Both groups surprised, he won initiative with Improved Initiative, charged in, Great Cleaved his way through all the underlings but one, made a saving throw (a charm spell or something) and scored on his attack of opportunity, killed the other minion the next round and cleaved into the mage, then grappled him to death for style points. I think there were a couple other saves in there... but most mages set up their Contingencies to act against other mages, set up their defenses against scrying, and so on. They don't expect people to run up and hug them.
Also, by the time we got out of that dungeon, we were flat out of spells, which meant the end of the campaign when we ran afoul of a dragon and were essentially defenseless. Could have used more fighters.
I absolutely love the icons system. In the hands of a good GM, icons can make the campaign incredible, while giving PCs a lot of tools to roleplay with.
>>43549480
Reminds me of PF, the time we had a mid-level (sub-10) barbarian with a dimensional lock pin a succubus(Who had something like 7 levels rogue, 4 levels wizard) who could use a FREE action to dimension door away anyways, but she couldn't overcome his massive CMD to use a magical ability while pinned..
And everyone around was coup de gracing left and right...
The GM was very mad at his waifu dying.
>>43549503
The actual icons presented are pretty shitty though, excepting maybe the Crusader.
>>43549480
This story is one of a few options: a) fake, b) the Mage enemy was played like shit, or c) the fighter rolled so high it proves nothing. It's probably b & c combined. A Mage should have a higher DEX and +5 to initiative, which is better than the feat. The DM positioned minions that got slaughtered by great cleave. The fighter made a save to negate an effect. All signs that the Mage was faaaar from optimized.
>>43549575
This story sounds much more fake because the barbarian (the best pure martial btw) is using abilities that require almost dedicated investment against someone he has no reason to be touching. On top of that, any spell caster without freedom of movement is not even close to optimized.
I'm glad your small anecdotes are supposed to be disproving issues that the dev teams admit are there.
>>43548559
>>43548922
Let us have a look at some examples of rituals in the rulebook.
>Example ritual 1: The PCs acquire a fearsome bow created by the Diabolist. Simply carrying the bow threatens to overwhelm the rogue who has no intention of using it. No NPC with an ounce of good-intention is willing to take the risk of disposing of the bow. So the wizard improvises a magic item destruction ritual using Acid Arrow, the perfect spell for disintegrating a demonic bow.
Acid Arrow is a *LEVEL 1* spell, and it is being used as the crux for destroying an artifact created by one of the thirteen most powerful people in the setting.
>Example ritual 2: Two of the PCs have been thrown in irons and dragged into a gladiatorial pit that serves one of Axis’ arenas. The PCs actually want to be there, but they need their weapons and armor, which will enable them to accomplish their mission in the arena instead of the gladiators’ weapons that are designed to get them killed. So the group’s wizard uses a Sleep ritual on the guards watching their gear so that the rogue can sneak the PCs’ real weapons to them, while the ritual casting bard executes a Glamor ritual to hide the switch. The plan is a lot of trouble, perhaps, but when it’s time to assassinate an archduke in the arena, two spells is a small price for creating such a set up.
There is no "Glamor" spell, so I am assuming that it is referring to Disguise Self, a level 1 Utility Spell. This means that the PCs' plan to assassinate an archduke in the imperial capital's arena is banking on two rituals, one from a level 3 spell and another from a level 1 spell. That places an emphasis on even low-level rituals.
>Arm torn off by an owlbear? Hopefully there’s a cleric around that can help with a healing ritual.
Cure Wounds is a level 1 spell. Its ritual version is being used to restore a severed limb.
If this is what rituals of level 1 and 3 spells can do, can you imagine what rituals of level 5, 7, and 9 spells do?
>>43543666
>I don't like a thing.
>WHY ARE YOU NOT OPENMINDED
Yeah, no. You like 3e, go play 3e.
>>43545119
>A world of adventures where everyone gets to play an equally important part in the party's journey from zero to hero.
And 4e is not that... how? Because you don't start as a complete zero?
>>43554448
>"Why didn't the fighter just not make his save?"
>"Why didn't she just cast freedom of movement while pinned and unable to cast?"
Oh god, /tg/, never stop.
>>43557527
Why does it matter? If you win on the statistical average (let's say 51% of the time) that's basically the same as passing every roll you make and the other person failing every roll.
>>43530325
I'll be running a game of 13th age soon. Neither I nor any of my players have played the system before.
With that in mind I have a question: How do you handle out-of-combat magic / rituals? I was thinking of using background rolls like for non-magical non-combat stuff. So for example D20+INT+LVL+Background(Enchanter) could be used to identify a magic item.
>>43536135
Don't barbs have that whirlwind attack thing?
I played a test game I think 2 years ago and I remember making a wild-elf barbarian. It was just a level 3 game, but the double roll on all attacks+attacking everyone around me+ the chance for the wild elf to go twice on a round meant that although my defense was kidna shit, we finished encounters really, really fast.
This may drop off at higher levels tho.
>>43538380
another chump with no examples
>>43538380
>>43530560
>>43530582
>>43530325
>best
>what is Fantasy Craft
Also
>>43530325
>pike axe
>archer in the front
>nigga swinging nunchucks in random directions
The more I look at this image the fuckier it gets.
>>43539678
>Thankfully new material has been coming out to add more character options
Which would you recommend? Aside from the paladin one.
>>43543365
>exact same character
I don't think you know what "character" means.
>>43557527
You just embarrassed yourself, anon.
>>43548559
>>43548922
>>43548971
>>43549030
You are correct at the lower levels: the cleric has limited spell slots, and one of them is almost certainly going into Javelin of Faith (which is superior to melee, given that PD is 4 lower than AC on average, and that a cleric is not proficient with martial weapons short of expending one of their talents on it).
By the higher levels, this simply is not true. Since you brought up Circle of Protection, a level 7 spell, I will be assuming a level 7 cleric.
A level 7 cleric has access to the Heal spell twice per battle, on top of every other spell they have. Upon each full heal-up, a level 7 cleric can prepare two level 5 spells and five level 7 spells. Since a cleric has ritual casting by default, it is fully possible for a cleric to prepare a spell with the intent of using it later in the day to solve a major noncombat problem.
These spells can provide some rather good effects. (Circle of Protection is somewhat of a trap option, since it is too unreliable and luck-based.)
Level 7 Javelin of Faith (at-will, standard action) deals 6d10 + 2x Wisdom modifier holy damage. This is actually *more* damage than what a level 7 longsword and shield fighter puts out (5d8 + 2x Strength modifier damage). It is also significantly more accurate due to targeting PD rather than AC, and it is a ranged attack too.
Level 7 Bless (daily, quick action) grants three creatures a +2 bonus to attack rolls until the end of the battle and 4d10 temporary hit points. This is a very good buff by 13th Age standards.
Level 7 Cure Wounds (recharge 16+, quick action) grants a creature two free recoveries and a saving throw against each applicable effect.
Level 7 Mighty Healing (daily, quick action) grants three creatures a heal using a recovery, for 150% of the usual healing too.
All of this is before any class talents, and all can be converted into rituals.
At level 7, barbarians/paladins/rangers have one more talent than they did at level 1!
>>43557803
Whirlwind Attack is one of the better talents, but it is not as good as it seems: you need to start your turn adjacent to two or more enemies (you cannot simply move up to two enemies), and a -4 penalty to AC and PD is a major blow to your defenses that is asking to get yourself killed, particularly given the barbarian's fragile chassis.
>>43557798
As written in the core rulebook (as I have explained in >>43555573), a ritual using a level 1 spell is apparently powerful enough to destroy an icon-created artifact. That does not quite seem right.
You would be better off following >>43534005's suggestion and handling rituals through background rolls.
As an aside, it seems that several of my posts in this thread have been deleted for reasons I cannot determine. They can be read here: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/
>>43558199
Not saying Whirlwindsaves the class or anything, I'm just saying that I think from my short play experience that the design intent behind the barbarian was that it kills everything so fast it has effectively more staying power because stuff doesnt have time to kill him.
That is of course only my assumption based on very limited play data.
>>43558267
This would probably work out more aptly if the barbarian could actually use its main class feature more often.
>>43558295
We thought that must have been a typo/missed error or something and played as if it was just recharge 16+ on any attack, because otherwise it'd be retarded.
Admittedly, I really haven't looked into designer comments/errata/whatever, so that was probably a houserule.
>>43558323
the Glorantha 13th age Berserker class seems to be the go to for people to replace the barbarian. But that is still in playtests
So anyone else subscribed to 13th age monthly? been tempted to run a game again just to include this hypothetical encounter
>>43557823
Examples of what?
I don't think he was trying to give examples of how 13th age was a good d20.
>>43559528
Absolutely rad. I guess I'll have to get in on that newsletter.
>>43559528
I had subscribed to 13th Age monthly.
I have been severely disappointed by it so far, and I have considered it a waste of my money. I had expected more player options to expand the woefully small amount of options in the core rulebook and 13th Age, not GM-oriented fluff piece after fluff piece mixed with a scant few GM mechanics and, very rarely, a player option.
I had even purchased the quasi-official Deep Magic under the expectation of having spells for all the classes of the game, only to instead open up a book of 555 wizard-only spells of extremely questionable balance. Why, the book even expands the wizard's cantrip list for free (i.e. wizards automatically gain all of the cantrips in the book) with useful and practical effects, and it allows wizards to freely prepare any spell in the book on a full heal-up!
>>43557872
They all look pretty neat. I like the fighter and rogue alternatives but think the sorcerer alternative would be better if its summoning abilities got a strong buff. One summoning per level seems really weak.
>>43559596
Where are these?
>>43559595
>wizard only spells
Woah there buddy, I get that you're on a roll here but let's at least try and be honest. I agree that the choice to let wizards pick and choose whichever spells they want without any talent investment is questionable, especially since there are so many goddamn spells in that book. But saying the other classes can't pick up those spells is false. You do have to invest a talent or two, depending on how "deep magic" you want to go, but the option is very much there.
>>43559596
What I mean is: Is that 3rd-party material? If so, by whom?
Additionally: As we'll be playing via Roll20, I thought we might as well use a combat grid, if only for clarity's sake. As far as I can tell, that should be pretty easy to work into the game, right?
>>43557824
>>what is Fantasy Craft
An over-crunchy d20 game?
>>43534219
Having read both books but only run SotDL, I couldn't really tell you about balance. I could tell you that SotDL feels more like D&D than the last 3 editions of D&D.
>>43559615
In the Glorantha playtest packets. I think there's also a cleric alternative in the latest one but haven't read it yet.
>>43559663
>I could tell you that SotDL feels more like D&D than the last 3 editions of D&D.
Are we still doing this? I'd hoped we stopped when 5e came out.
>>43559649
Yeah, I played a game where the rest of the players insisted on having one. Just have the GM decide ahead of time how many squares away equals close, long, and very long ranges.
Johnathan Tweet, one of the two main writers of 13th Age, claims:
>I'm proud of 3E, and I'm glad that Paizo rescued it when Wizards ditched it. I like a lot of the improvements that 4E made, but I was not happy with the overall package. With 3E, we tried hard to make the game feel more like D&D than 2E did, but 4E made the game feel less like D&D, actually less than 2E. A problem with 3E was too many player options and not enough balance. A problem with 4E was too few player options and too much balance.
>It's hard for me to play 3E these days because the balance issues are too clear to me. I'm not really interested in playing 4E, either, because it's too boardgamey. 5E has some surprisingly nice bits, but it doesn't seemed tuned for the serious play that my group engages in. That's why Rob Heinsoo and I wrote 13th Age.
>Are you talking about any system in particular? In 13th Age, we took class balance really seriously, and we put massive detailed work into hand balancing every class-class combination for multiclassing. If class balance is off, the whole game is off.
I have to wonder what Mr. Tweet thinks "feels like D&D." It is rather ironic that he brings up player options and class balance, because 13th Age is dreadfully lacking in them even a few years after its release, and the class balance is questionable past levels 1-3.
>>43559643
I will concede that. I suppose what I should have typed was "spells accessible to other classes by default and without talent investment."
It is, however, astoundingly arbitrary and irksome that barbarians, paladins, and rangers must sacrifice all but one of their talents if they wish to be a Deep Magic Adept. Such a stipulation is wholly unnecessary.
>>43559726
>too much balance.
This is the kind of bull that leads to (sadly not) abortions like Beast: The Primordial.
>>43559781
This.
It breaks the game if someone picks an option even slightly stronger than what I picked.
To give everyone an idea of just how poor the balance in Deep Magic is, for starters, it grants wizards *43* (by my count) new cantrips that any wizard can automatically cast at-will. These cantrips confer non-negligible effects such as:
>BREATHLESSNESS
>You do not need to breathe for a number of minutes equal to your level.
Water breathing.
>LEAP
>When making a skill check for a high or long jump, reduce the DC by one difficulty level.
A +5 bonus to jumping skill checks.
>SLIDE
>You glide across flat ground as though skating on ice, moving twice as fast as normal. The cantrip lasts up to 5 minutes.
Doubling movement speed.
>WOTAN’S REDE
>When making a skill check related to knowledge, Wisdom, musical performance or poetry, reduce the DC by one difficulty level.
A +5 bonus to many mental-based skill checks.
And then we have level 1 spells like this:
>SHADOW BOLT
>Close-quarters spell
>At-Will
>Move action to cast
>Target: 1d4 nearby or far away enemies in a group
>Attack vs: Automatic hit
>Hit: 1d6 negative energy damage.
A move action at-will close-quarters spell that targets 1d4 far away enemies and deals an automatic 1d6 damage? What could possibly be wrong with that at level 1?
>>43539674
> non-valid as a 3.x trying to say wizards are better than martials
> it is just trolling.
I don't know who's trolling who anymore.
>>43559829
Hey, since people count splats against 3.x, can we count deep magic against 13th age, or do we have to wait for brainless consensus first?
>>43559726
You shouldn't have used that kind of careless hyperbole, not when you're supposed to be making this long-ass in-depth analysis of system flaws. It calls into question whether you actually cracked open the book or just regurgitated some forum post you saw somwhere. Likewise, it calls into question your entire spiel; are you being objective or purposely exaggerating supposed flaws to make your argument look better? Did you give us relevant info or just copy and paste whatever you could find that pushes the narrative? If you expect to be taken seriously, you can't do lazy shit like that, because people in the know are going to call you out. Because of course they will, its 4chan.
>>43559879
Is it hyperbole to say that the wizard is insanely OP when he is?
Forgetting to mention that if other classes spend a ton of class features they too can get some wizard spells doesn't make it hyperbole.
>>43559726
The "Feels like D&D" line is astroturfing, and works as such.
>>43559879
>the defense force managed to find a minor, off-topic to distract him, victory assured!
I feel bad for you, OP.
>>43559905
When part of your argument depends on the idea that only wizards can ever get that sweet, sweet, magic boost?
Yes. Yes it is.
>Oh look, /tg/'s actually talking about 13th age!
>just some touhoufag bitching
Great.
>>43559829
Deep Magic also has the audacity to widen the wizard's Utility Spell power *for free*. There are many spells in this book labeled "utility spell," allowing a wizard to simply point at such a spell and go "I am casting that with Utility Spell."
These confer non-negligible effects right from level 1:
>COMPELLING QUESTION
>Close-quarters spell (utility spell)
>Daily
>Target: One nearby creature
>Effect: You ask another creature one simple question that it is able to answer with a single word.
>Attack vs: MD
>Hit: The target must answer you as truthfully as possible in a single word. The GM may assign a modifier to the target’s MD based on how important the target considers the information. Asking someone whether she is the king’s murderer, for example, involves a closely guarded secret and provides a +2 bonus to the target.
>Miss: The target is free to lie or not answer.
Interrogating people. (Nothing stops you from using a skill check augmented by Wotan's Rede to discern a lie in case you miss.)
>GECKO’S GRIP
>Close-quarters spell (utility spell)
>Recharge 16+ after battle or quick rest
>Quick action to cast
>Target: You or a nearby ally
>Effect: The target can travel up and across vertical surfaces or traverse ceilings as a normal movement. The target must have at least one hand free to climb in this manner, and not be wearing footwear. The effect lasts for 5 minutes outside of combat, or a number of turns equal to the level at which the spell was cast.
Spider climbing, with a recharge chance too.
>LOKI’S GIFT
>Close-quarters spell (utility spell)
>Daily
>Target: One nearby enemy
>Attack vs: MD
>Hit: The target reveals one potentially embarrassing secret about him or herself, or someone else. The secret may involve personal wrongdoing (cheating at gambling) but not something life-threatening or dishonorable enough to put the creature in mortal danger.
>Miss: The target is aware that you tried to control their mind.
Interrogating people again.
>>43560017
>MARVELOUS MUSIC
>Ranged spell (utility spell)
>Recharge 16+ after battle
>Target: 1d4 nearby or far away allies
>Effect: You conjure forth beautiful music from the aether that plays until you dismiss it, or until the end of the battle. Any target that is attacked during marvelous music’s duration gains a +1 to attack rolls.
Granting bonuses to attack rolls.
>PENDULUM
>Ranged spell (utility spell)
>Daily
>Target: You or a nearby creature
>Effect: The target’s attacks, saving throws, and skill checks do not require die rolls. Instead, they always follow this sequence: 20, 1, 19, 2, 18, 3, 17, 4, and so on, until the spell expires. The initial result of 20 occurs when the target next makes any die roll. The spell expires after one hour, the end of the current battle, or the end of the next battle (whichever is sooner).
Assuring a natural 20 when you most need it.
>STONE STRIKE
>Close-quarters spell (utility spell)
>At-Will
>Quick action to cast
>Target: One nearby or far away creature
>Effect: You conjure a stone and throw it.
>Attack: Basic ranged attack
>Hit: 2d8 damage.
>Miss: Damage equal to your level.
Quick action attacks at-will! AT-WILL!
All of these are level 1 spells that do not even take their own spell slots, and simply act under the rules for the Utility Spell power. I have not even touched the higher-level spells.
>>43559879
I apologize for forgetting that other classes could access the spells in the quasi-official Deep Magic supplement via talents.
>>43559905
Oh, I have played a wizard in 13th Age previously. The character was mediocre at levels 1-2 (save for Evocation + Acid Arrow one-shotting powerful enemies), somewhat decent at levels 3-4 given the wider range of more useful battle and utility spells, and all-destroying and all-utility-fying at levels 5+.
>>43560037
It is also worth noting about wizards in general that the Evocation talent makes many wizard daily spells, such as Acid Arrow, Force Salvo, Lightning Bolt, and Fireball, unreasonably strong, although Acid Arrow scales poorly.
100 damage (50 damage on a miss) with Fireball or Lightning Bolt at level 5 is no joke when level 6 enemies have an average of 90 hit points.
>>43560095
Another point that must be made about spellcasters is that one of the weakest classes in the game happens to be a spellcaster class, the druid.
Yes, the druid is by far the most customizable class in 13th Age, with each of its talents granting a whole new playstyle... but no matter what permutation of talents a druid takes, they will be a much weaker version of another class, particularly given their terribly frail chassis. Even worse is that there are actually "trap combinations" that conjure forth a woefully weak, unfocused mess.
If anecdotal evidence is valid, one player in a 13th Age game that I was to play in at one point had disavowed the system after seeing just how much weaker their druid was compared to my cleric and another player's occultist.
I am willing to say that all of 13th Age's classes are balanced with one another at levels 1 to 3, but the barbarian and the druid are simply unacceptable even at those levels.
>>43560193
That's a shame, I always considered the design philosophy behind the druid to be the strongest feature of 13th Age, but such a thing, as with all clever things in RPGs, carries with it the incredible risk of either being stupidly OP or completely useless
I guess this is sort of the problem with 13th Age as a whole, it's overly ambitious, with wonderful ideas, but weak execution.
Speaking of which, my second favourite class design philosophy-wise is the monk, how does the monk fare? It seems worryingly weak due to MAD, but that may just be me projecting fears born from years playing 3.5 on to a different system
>>43560915
The monk is one of the classes that I have had the privilege of seeing in play for a long while, as per my fellow player's post in >>43541314.
The monk's MAD actually does matter, in that you have to pick two out of:
- Decently scaling damage (particularly at the level 5 and 8 breakpoints for double or triple your ability modifier to damage) from Strength
- Appreciable hit points from Constitution
- Appreciable ki points from Wisdom
Dropping the third is probably the best pick, which is counterintuitive, since the monk class entry makes ki points out to be important.
The class would have been better off without the MAD; having the monk's damage key off, say, Dexterity or Wisdom would hardly make it that much better a "martial" than a commander or a rogue.
There are some clearly "correct" choices for many of the styles though, and some of them have scaling issues in the form of damage that scales poorly or not at all (e.g. Original Venom's ongoing damage).
The monk is a so-so class overall in my opinion.
Scaling problems seem to be *the* most common mechanical issue in 13th Age from a character class perspective. They are quite insidious, since they are nearly invisible during the low levels (the levels that receive by far the most playtesting, reviews, and anecdotes), and yet they have far-reaching consequences by later levels.
>>43560193
To give people an idea just how bad the druid is, let us consider a player who wants to be an elementalist with a little terrain manipulation on the side.
They take Elemental Caster Adept and Terrain Caster Initiate for their talents. The only things they ever receive from their class at level 1 is *TWO* level 1 daily spells, and a single at-will power based on their current terrain (which goes away in a city or a large body of water). They actually have to spend feats to gain more at-will powers. That is downright terrible. To add insult to injury, they have 6 base hit points and base AC 10!
The "horrifically bad faux-martial druid" version of this is someone who takes, say, Shifter Adept and Warrior Druid Initiate, resulting in a fragile frontliner who can barely perform their advertised role.
>>43560193
>>43561123
>>43561258
This is all very informative, how would you suggest fixing the barbarian or the druid, or the spell bloat Deep Magic brings? Personally, I'm using Deep magic to give spells out to my players as rewards to learn or find in spellbooks, rather than having all utilities available as you mentioned. I do agree the simple martials and druids are flawed, curious as to your opinion on how to flesh them out.
>>43561721
Swap everyone to the chassis of the bard or the commander and work something out from there.
>>43559879
>not recognising Touhoufag
How new are you?The poster you're arguing with has legit autism FYI
>>43557824
>what is Fantasy Craft
Garbage.
>>43559726
>I have to wonder what Mr. Tweet thinks "feels like D&D." It is rather ironic that he brings up player options and class balance, because 13th Age is dreadfully lacking in them even a few years after its release, and the class balance is questionable past levels 1-3.
As someone who has run a 13th Age campaign to 10th level and the end of the Age, I can unequivocally say you're a fucking retard.
A 10th level Paladin is an absolute face-wrecker in combat, and they're the lowest option class.
While the Wizard and Sorcerer were plenty powerful by the end of the game, it wasn't like the Bard and Rogue weren't just as dangerous. And none of them would have survived serious encounters without the Paladin, specialized in holding down the biggest monsters.
>>43562640
>complex, clearly cited and reasoned arguments
>no u are retarded
Gee, I wonder which of these posters I'm more inclined to believe.
>>43543802
If you have 4 hours of combat in 13th age, you're doing it wrong.
>>43562662
The guy with the campaign anecdote rather than the one wallposting about his rage-boner?
/13g/ Touhouposter general
>>43557892
I think you miss the point. Sure, you can pretend your character is different from everyone else, but when you can do the exact same thing every other person of that class does and be in no way different, it's the same fucking character.
>>43563302
>you can pretend your character is different from everyone else
Yeah. That's called roleplaying.
Why is 13th age general harder on the game than 3eaboos are hard on 4e, is it that bad?
I'm definitely not trying it after an entire general of negatives even from its supporters.
>>43562662
>Gee, I wonder which of these posters I'm more inclined to believe.
Behold, /tg/, the Republican voter.
You built this.
>>43563681
Because there isn't normally a 13th age general, so we don't have enough of an echo chamber going.
The game is much better than 3.pf or 4e or 5e.
And really, if that guy's criticism is enough to put you off a game, welcome to /tg/. Have fun learning to hate every game.
>>43564055
It's not the concise, pragmatic arguments.
It's not the amount of points presented.
It's the absolute absence of counter points to what he says.
And I know he doesn't hate everything, I saw him sharing pdfs and boosting LotW just like he shared all the pdfs here.
A smart man learns from his mistakes, a genius learns from thr mistakes of others.
>>43564248
>It's not the concise, pragmatic arguments.
>It's not the amount of points presented.
Okay, well in the event you're not samefagging, the reason I, at least, am not bothering to argue is I hate to engage longwinded arguments like this, I've got much to into it with Delta Green and Apocalypse World and other games before and it burns me out, and the sheer amount of posts here means anything I say will be drowned out unless I waste far too much time on it. And I don't actually care about 13th Age that much, or fantasy in general. It's my second favorite fantasy game, but not what I usually play, I'm only chiming in now because I think you're getting a pretty warped opinion of the game without playing it.
I do agree that 13th Age Monthly is a complete waste of money for anyone but the GM, just based on the description. That sort of thing is for people who like a ton of campaign ideas fed to them, not for players.
>>43564373
>much to into it
Much too into it.
Sorry, can't let that sit there and not correct myself.
>>43562957
Oh, you mean the one that noted several times about how he did, in fact, play the game? In fact even citing another poster as a former group-mate?
Go fuck yourself.
>>43564373
As far as I know, TF doesn't samefag, I was just echoing the idea that >>43562662
Put into my head.
You don't have to be the guy, but SOMEBODY has to refute this stuff or it is a death knell.
>>43558138
>A level 7 cleric has access to the Heal spell twice per battle, on top of every other spell they have. Upon each full heal-up, a level 7 cleric can prepare two level 5 spells and five level 7 spells.
And that's not fucking enough. The spells are good. Very good. But once you've cast your spell, you're down to mindless spamming of at-wills just like the others. Speaking of that
>Level 7 Javelin of Faith (at-will, standard action) deals 6d10 + 2x Wisdom modifier holy damage. This is actually *more* damage than what a level 7 longsword and shield fighter puts out (5d8 + 2x Strength modifier damage).
A level 7 Longsword fighter is doing 7d8+(STR x 2) damage, plus or minus any magical item bonuses. Weapon Damage scales with level automatically. This means the Fighter is actually doing only 2 points less damage with his basic attack, plus whatever riders his maneuvers are getting him. He does more damage with a two-handed weapon.
Now let's get to rituals
>>43564689
I mean another reason I don't care to argue is that all this math isn't really relevant to the game I played. The best thing about 13th Age is the Icon relationships and all the related mechanics for improving an actually interesting story while still being a dungeon-crawly game.
The fact that I don't give 2 shits about swordmath is probably the reason Fantasy is not my go-to genre, but I do think 13th Age is a really good game, and I really don't see why this stuff should be a death knell for it. That seems crazy to me, but I also don't really care enough to go make a big argument about it.
It isn't something that effected my campaign, and it isn't what I like about ANY of these sorts of games anyway. But why not just read the rulebook and form your own opinion? It's not like it doesn't pop up in the pdf threads all the time.
>>43555573
>Acid Arrow is a *LEVEL 1* spell, and it is being used as the crux for destroying an artifact created by one of the thirteen most powerful people in the setting.
Except actual artifacts are special. Whether or not it was created by the Diabolist, this is just the destruction of a magic item and that's something which can be done through other means.
>There is no "Glamor" spell, so I am assuming that it is referring to Disguise Self, a level 1 Utility Spell. This means that the PCs' plan to assassinate an archduke in the imperial capital's arena is banking on two rituals, one from a level 3 spell and another from a level 1 spell. That places an emphasis on even low-level rituals.
These are things which can be done by a Background Check. If you have spells to spend on a Ritual, should you? Yes, of course, but their presence is not pass/fail.
>Cure Wounds is a level 1 spell. Its ritual version is being used to restore a severed limb.
There aren't even rules for losing limbs! You could make up any bullshit to deal with GM bullshit.
Finally, the most important part of all this is that you need to have an appropriate spell prepared for whatever ritual effect you might want, and casting that spell as a ritual removes it until your next full-heal up. Your full-heal up could be a very long time from now and as a Cleric that really fucking sucked to burn a spell on a Ritual when 9 times out of 10 we could have just made a skill check. That's IF I had an appropriate spell ready.
As a level 10 Cleric, I have 9 Spells, plus Heal. So when I prepare spells, I have to figure out what spells I want to actually use, then dedicate at least one to Javelin or Combat Boon for an At-Will option, then figure out what spells might possibly, maybe be useful as a Ritual and hope I anticipated the oncoming challenges correctly.
I'll say it again. Clerics do not have enough spells to be a dominate force. You are extremely limited by your number of spells.
>>43564793
To put that more pithily, this is like someone complaining about not liking the chargen mechanics in Lamentations of the Flame Princess. I really don't notice that part, I don't want to argue about it, and it isn't any of the things that makes me like the game or anything that makes me hate a game.
But I know it sure as fuck isn't broken and terrible.
>>43559726
>Johnathon Tweet
>One of the main designers of DnD 3rd edition
>Directly responsible for caster supremacy
>Directly says he doesn't understand the balance issues of 3e
Did people pay this person money?
I'm in a goddamn nightmare, that's the only explanation.
>>43564695
>>43564793
This is good, you don't have to refute it if you can just say ANYTHING positive about the game.
No one seems to be trying too.
>>43564695
>This means the Fighter is actually doing only 2 points less damage with his basic attack, plus whatever riders his maneuvers are getting him. He does more damage with a two-handed weapon.
But what about the point that he attacks a higher AC than casters?..
>>43564822
>Your full-heal up could be a very long time from now
This is contradictory to what was said earlier, who is correct? How often can a Cleric adjust the spells they know?
>>43565092
If you read many of the threads about more obscure games on /tg/ you'll notice that the conversation tends to be dominated by just a few posters for long periods of time. It doesn't mean anything one way or another.
>>43565092
>This is contradictory to what was said earlier, who is correct? How often can a Cleric adjust the spells they know?
Only on full heal. How often that is depends on your GM.
>>43565156
Yes, but usually there isn't such a huge disparity in the points.
Normally even if one of the two posters has flawless reasoning and the other is retarded, other people step in to give some good points while the two people go at eachother.
It doesn't feel one-sided, it feels like somebody, somewhere thinks the game is at least playable.
>>43564689
>As far as I know, TF doesn't samefag
He doesn't, but his hyperbole is astounding. For example, the Ranger is one of the worst classes in the game. Nobody contests that it utterly lacks features and versatility. With that said, it's still a real big dog in damage in a game where HP damage is still one of the best, if not the best, ways to end an encounter. Rangers are very valuable contributors, despite their design leaving much to be desired.
>>43565092
>But what about the point that he attacks a higher AC than casters?
For the most part it's not a big deal. Anecdotally, martial classes tend to get their to-hit boosting items more frequently and with more potency while spellcasters (especially those that dabble in melee) tend to have more spread out rewards. Fighter maneuvers also capitalize reasonably well on missed attacks, so they're almost always making a contribution.
>This is contradictory to what was said earlier, who is correct? How often can a Cleric adjust the spells they know?
It's on a full heal-up.
>>43565183
touhoufag is a man of extreme opinions. That's just how he is. Take everything he says that isn't purely mathematical with a grain of salt.
>>43565047
>Did people pay this person money?
>I'm in a goddamn nightmare, that's the only explanation.
You read that wrong, dude.
He says he can't play 3e any more because the balance issues are so obvious to him. This is the guy who designed it.
He told Wizards that and they fired him, pretty much.
>>43565183
>huge disparity
>flawless reasoning
>game is at least playable
Wow. The amount of conviction in your language for someone whose opinion of a game comes from reading what one guy on 4chan wrote is nuts.
I think 13th Age is more than playable, it's a good game. So do at least 3? other guys? Despite the 55 posters in the thread, it doesn't look like very many people are actually talking one way or another. It doesn't have a big 4chan following.
>>43565235
it's times like these i miss nazimod
>>43565405
I also liked it when quality content got deleted for no reason, /tg/ is better without.
>>43565405
I don't. I mean, I don't disagree with his base assertion here. I would like Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers to have more options and complex decision making too. I don't think anyone is against that. I just think that the way he is stating it is far too radical and exaggerates the situation
>>43565092
It has already been stated above that the Icon relationship mechanics and backgrounds are well liked by some. I'd add the escalation die and how the simplistic movement system allows both for quicker combat and more freedom for stunts, as the game facilitates theatre of the mind quite well.
>>43565047
You can't read.
>>43566224
>It has already been stated above that the Icon relationship mechanics and backgrounds are well liked by some.
Please mention how they're good/why they're liked.
>>43565092
You're basically asking people to waste their time and energy engaging with a troll because you're too lazy to form your own opinion.
>>43566274
Google "13th age review." Or read the book yourself and make up your own mind. We are not here to spoonfeed you. You lazy sack of shit.
>>43566376
Good point, it's a good thing the dozens of posters saying the game is shit and giving good reasoning were here to spoonfeed everyone.
>>43566274
Icon relationships facilitate roleplaying by giving the PCs connections to the Big Powers of the setting even at low level, allowing both players and the GM to improv new challenges/solutions.
Backgrounds are the skills of 3.5 and 4e but much more simplified and flexible, and allow PCs to further tie their character into the setting and add to world building.
>>43563580
How fucking dense are you?
>>43562640
>A 10th level Paladin is an absolute face-wrecker in combat, and they're the lowest option class.
I am curious as to what makes you say this given the paladin's almost complete lack of scaling with Smite Evil.
What was the paladin able to bring to the table that a cleric could not?
>it wasn't like the Bard and Rogue weren't just as dangerous
Oh, the bard is most definitely a full caster, and on par with the cleric and the wizard. The bard scales *incredibly* well.
The rogue is the second most competent "pure martial" in the system, lagging behind the commander.
>And none of them would have survived serious encounters without the Paladin, specialized in holding down the biggest monsters.
The paladin has not meaningfully improved its capacity to do so between levels 1 and 10 all that much. The paladin has been doing the same thing at levels 1 and at levels 10 in a strictly linear progression, particularly given that poorly-scaling smite damage.
>>43567026
Smite scales well because it gets a +4 to hit and half damage. It's accuracy attached (usually) to a good sized handful of d10s with per-battle refresh. Strength Clerics have to wait a long time before being able to come close to that, and a Paladin can easily grab Strength Domain anyway. Even if the passive does nothing for them, the powers associated with it are stronger on a Pally.
>>43567026
>>43567139
Paladin's Challenge is also a flat 20% penalty to disengage or attack other creatures, which can be improved. At epic, your challenge being vulnerable to your attacks is a godsend.
>>43564695
I had mistyped that and should have written 7d8 rather than 5d8, yes, which is still less than 6d10.
>The spells are good. Very good. But once you've cast your spell, you're down to mindless spamming of at-wills just like the others.
Two level 5 spells, four level 7 spells apart from Heal, and two Heals each encounters. Given a standard four-encounter workday, that means a cleric can fire off four or five quick action spells each encounter and save the rest for Javelins of Faith, and then use one or two other spells to solve problems via rituals. Remember that heal-ups are not tied to anything day-based, but rather, something "3/4/5 battles a day"-based.
This is the class working as intended, and I am confident that each of those spells is outputting a more useful effect than whatever the barbarian, paladin, and ranger have gained at these levels.
>this is just the destruction of a magic item and that's something which can be done through other means.
If its destruction could have been accomplished by other means, we would have seen the wizard simply fire off Rays of Frost and cantrip Acid Arrows to try to dissolve it. But no, the way the example is written, it is pushed that the ritual is the best and clearest way.
>can be done by a Background Check.
By default, background checks do not allow major, wide-reaching magical effects to be created. (They really should, but that is not the default.)
>There aren't even rules for losing limbs!
There actually are rules for losing limbs given monsters such as the owlbear.
>removes it until your next full-heal up
A full heal-up comes every 3/4/5 encounters, so this is little different than having expended the spell as a daily. You could very well get your slot's worth. Also on a heal-up, a cleric can prepare spells and think about rituals in advance; if we are entering a demonic fortress, perhaps I could open up with a level 7 Circle of Protection ritual, perhaps.
>>43567254
>fire off four or five quick action spells each encounter
Dude what? Almost all Cleric spells are Daily. Once you spend it, it's gone until healup. What are you smoking?
>>43565186
>With that said, it's still a real big dog in damage in a game where HP damage is still one of the best, if not the best, ways to end an encounter. Rangers are very valuable contributors, despite their design leaving much to be desired.
This is true at the lower levels. At, say, level 5 though, literally the only thing the ranger has gained from their class at that point past level 1 is an additional talent, and upcoming levels 6 and 7 are dead levels too. The level 5 wizard, on the other hand, can blow away encounters with Evocation and Fireball or Lightning Bolt.
>Anecdotally, martial classes tend to get their to-hit boosting items more frequently and with more potency while spellcasters (especially those that dabble in melee) tend to have more spread out rewards.
Mechanics-wise, spell-boosting items are just as common as weapon-attack-boosting items and work more or less the same way, starting off with generic attack and damage bonuses that come with minor beneficial effects. Your GM handing out weapons more often is just that, your GM.
>>43567254
If you're counting Heal as your "quick action spell" you're being really pedantic. Heal is basically a class feature.
You can generally spend one, maybe two spells per encounter if you want to prevent yourself from tapping out early. Again, remember, you will ever only have 9 Spells (Heal aside). In 4 encounters, that's two spells each, plus an At-Will option. That's your peak. That's as good as you get. Ration that out into Rituals too.
>If its destruction could have been accomplished by other means, we would have seen the wizard simply fire off Rays of Frost and cantrip Acid Arrows to try to dissolve it. But no, the way the example is written, it is pushed that the ritual is the best and clearest way.
Gee whiz, an example of Rituals pushing Rituals. This isn't going to go anywhere.
>By default, background checks do not allow major, wide-reaching magical effects to be created.
No, but Rituals can accomplish things that can be attributed to your background and/or skill. For example, I could state that my Bloodied Veteran background says I know how to apply a Healing Potion to a bandage and reattach the limb. A Healing Potion is roughly equivalent to a daily resource in opportunity cost and is a valid approach to the solution.
>A full heal-up comes every 3/4/5 encounters, so this is little different than having expended the spell as a daily. You could very well get your slot's worth
Or you could not. That's the risk about reserving slots for Rituals and why Rituals really aren't as gamechanging a thing as you're implying. If you planned wrong, you've essentially wasted a slot.
>>43567291
That was poorly communicated on my end. What I meant is that across, say, four encounters, you can activate four or five of your quick action spells (not that you have four or five each encounter; that is just silly). Each time you do so, you will influence the battle in a major way.
For instance, a level 7 Bless grants three creatures a +2 bonus to attack rolls and 4d10 temporary hit points. That is a *major* benefit in 13th Age, especially when stacked up against the relatively mediocre effects produced by level 7 fighter maneuvers every round.
Yes, you are back to spamming Javelin of Faith, but at least you are dishing out considerable, accurate (PD is 4 lower than AC on average) damage from a distance with around the same overall durability as the fighter, as my calculations in >>43543313 show.
>>43567412
>This is true at the lower levels. At, say, level 5 though, literally the only thing the ranger has gained from their class at that point past level 1 is an additional talent, and upcoming levels 6 and 7 are dead levels too.
That has pretty much next to nothing to do with how well Rangers deal damage, a fact that was demonstrated at release and continues to be true. Their damage output is one of the things that is absolutely not wrong with them. If you have a Ranger in the group, he will be one of the best guys (if not the best) at killing things. And, well, killing things is very important.
>Your GM handing out weapons more often is just that, your GM.
That's why it's an anecdote.
>>43567478
>Gee whiz, an example of Rituals pushing Rituals. This isn't going to go anywhere
Isn't that the designers fault?
>>43567478
>If you're counting Heal as your "quick action spell" you're being really pedantic. Heal is basically a class feature.
I had awoken just half an hour ago from five hours of sleep after heavy medication, so do pardon my pedantry and my poorly communicated points.
In any event, yes, what I *should* have said was that the cleric can fire off four or five quick action spells *across* four encounters, then fall back on supplying allies with Heal and harming enemies with Javelin of Faith. Outside of combat, the remaining spells get used as part of rituals to solve noncombat problems in ways that background skill checks simply would not be able to.
To summarize your own points on rituals, you do not seem to place much value on them and think that things like destruction of Icon-created artifacts and ripped limbs can be solved by background skill checks and potions (I personally think that should be possible), but my reading of the system gleans an implication that, no, this is something you actually need a ritual for. Go fetch a cleric or a wizard to do the job.
>>43567585
The ranger continues to scale and scale in damage, but very little else. This is a linear progression. The ranger has learned to do very, very else, and will be a non-versatile one-trick pony throughout its entire career.
A class like, say, the wizard scales in damage, but the suite of options they have access to also expands dramatically, granting new ways to control the battlefield and to apply utility spells outside of combat. This is a quadratic progression.
>>43567492
A 7th level Bless grants 2d10 THP, for an average of about 10 THP. Steady Now gives Con Mod, and then Con Mod x 2 to the Fighter which can be refreshed, which are numbers within the same ballpark.
>>43567675
>but my reading of the system gleans an implication that
Just your impression. There is no ruling on the matter and please be more sure to divorce your opinions from fact.
>>43567492
>Yes, you are back to spamming Javelin of Faith, but at least you are dishing out considerable, accurate (PD is 4 lower than AC on average) damage from a distance
I want to talk to you about the problem with Javelin of Faith's damage scaling. When the damage jumps, it jumps to around the level of a weapon attack, then drops off for a level or two before jumping back again. The jump to a d10 is huge, because until then Javelin is relatively lackluster. It sucks that you have to wait until level 7 until you're up there with the Longbow again.
>>43567732
That is way, way over any background examples in the book, are you sure you're not just pretending the rules give you what you want?
>>43567492
I keep coming back to this post, but I also want to make one more point.
The comparison between Fighter and Cleric in this case is one between Apples and Oranges. The Cleric Class is designed to make the entire party better as a unit and its spells are for that. The Fighter's maneuvers are designed to boost (for the most part) solely the Fighter or an adjacent companion. Cleric Spells are designed to be popped off at the beginning of an encounter while Fighter Maneuvers are made to be used every round to improve the Fighter. Both are very good at what they do, but their aims are different.
>>43567693
Actually, it grants 4d10 temporary hit points. Read the power more closely.
>>43567732
We know for a fact that the core rulebook pushes a level 1 spell ritual as being powerful enough to destroy an icon-created demonic weapon at the very least. That is the one ritual example we have that has no ambiguity on what spell or spells are being used.
We do not know if background skill checks can accomplish the same thing. That is up to the players and the GM, and it is therefore important for you to note such a thing as well.
That means that it is *certain* that a level 1 spell ritual can destroy an evil artifact, but *uncertain* that background skill checks can accomplish the same.
>>43567820
Javelin of Faith has strange scaling:
Level 1: 1d6 (average 3.5) + Wisdom modifier
Level 3: 3d6 (average 10.5) + Wisdom modifier
Level 5: 6d6 (average 21) + 2x Wisdom modifier
Level 7: 6d10 (average 33) + 2x Wisdom modifier
Level 9: 8d10 (average 44) + 3x Wisdom modifier
Compare this to a longsword's progression; I feel that a comparison with another shield-user is fair if the Javelin-of-Faith-user bears a shield:
Level 1: 1d8 (average 4.5) + Strength modifier
Level 3: 3d8 (average 13.5) + Strength modifier
Level 5: 5d8 (average 22.5) + 2x Strength modifier
Level 7: 7d8 (average 31.5) + 2x Strength modifier
Level 9: 9d8 (average 40.5) + 3x Strength modifier
Of course, the longsword scales at even-numbered levels too, but it does not target PD, which is statistically 4 lower than AC on average, nor does it deal holy damage.
Make of this what you will.
>>43567947
No, man, have you been to convention play? They let all sorts of crazy shit happen if you make a case for it. Backgrounds are supposed to represent broad competency related to your character's origins. If you can make the case and have the resources, it makes sense that you be able to do it if you roll well. Even if you don't make the roll, you should make some kind of fun and interesting impact on the session. Most of the rules are keyed to this philosophy.
>>43567956
Yes, but that's the same argument as 3.5. Making everyone better and having spells is way better than just being able to solo your CR+2.
>>43568026
So should every class be designed around party wide buffs?
>>43567993
>Of course, the longsword scales at even-numbered levels too
And this is important because a level is a long time.
>>43565178
Though, that "depends on your GM" should be taken with the understanding that the book does tell you "4 average fights" is the RIGHT number, with fewer harder fights or more numerous easier ones being the trade.
So, for instance, assuming TF's' numbers are right, a level 7 cleric can prepare a total of 7 spells beyond their at-wills, or an average of 1.75 spells a fight beyond their at-wills.
>>43566309
That's a disingenuous statement. Touhoufag is not a troll. He's just an autist, who is very dedicated to the idea of proper distinction between classes. If some classes are objectively, mathematically better than others, he gets upset.
He's one of the more dedicated pure-math analysts that /tg/ has. He's also, in a very real sense, mildly insane.
The real issue you guys are having is the general "That's not a problem, my players are fine with it!" And in that sense, you're technically right, and objectively wrong.
My friend has a car, one of the doors is permanently child-locked. That's a problem. Does it ruin his driving experience? No. Does it mess it up when only 2-3 people are in the car? No. But if there are 4 people, one is at a distinct disadvantage. Heck, depending on the choice made by the 3rd person, it might affect him.
Now, this doesn't mean my friend should throw away his car. But it does mean he has to warn people where to sit, and if he wanted someone to buy his car, it would definitely be something he'd have to mention.
Your game has some (probably relatively minor) problems. Yes, TF might be blowing them up a little bit, but calling him retarded, and saying that his math doesn't matter, is the wrong way to confront that.
>>43568037
Isn't that Sean K. reynolds game where each character is a colour of phoenix that boosts the whole party?
>>43567956
The point I am trying to make is that the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (fighter least so out of all four examples) improve at their roles linearly. Yes, they certainly get better at a steady pace, can keep up with challenges, can slug it out with level-appropriate monsters, and so on and so forth.
The bard, cleric, wizard, and similar classes, however, not only scale linearly with their improving spells, but quadratically as well, gaining new versatile options inside combat, utility options for battle as well, and *actual noncombat powers*, all at a rate superior to those of the noncaster classes.
It is a matter of scaling beyond levels 1 to 3, not a matter of what the classes are like at such low levels.
>>43567997
Strange; page 181 of the core rulebook explains that during a convention game, a gnome bard's ritual (albeit with an extra ingredient from a half-orc fighter) was the foundation for redeeming the Diabolist and ushering into the world the 14th Age.
Magically redeeming an icon by way of ritual and pushing the world to the 14th Age seems rather strong, even if it does take a sacrifice.
>>43568058
Martials admittedly *do* have an edge at even-numbered levels, although casters at least have a few more highest-level spell slots to work with.
>>43568059
>So, for instance, assuming TF's' numbers are right, a level 7 cleric can prepare a total of 7 spells beyond their at-wills, or an average of 1.75 spells a fight beyond their at-wills.
Do remember the 2/encounter Heal spell, which is very useful in any combat.
>>43568096
Not important.
>>43568126
>The point I am trying to make is that the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger (fighter least so out of all four examples) improve at their roles linearly. Yes, they certainly get better at a steady pace, can keep up with challenges, can slug it out with level-appropriate monsters, and so on and so forth.
>The bard, cleric, wizard, and similar classes, however, not only scale linearly with their improving spells, but quadratically as well, gaining new versatile options inside combat, utility options for battle as well, and *actual noncombat powers*, all at a rate superior to those of the noncaster classes.
I'm the Cleric player you've been arguing with all day, and I like to think I'm good at the game since I've been playing it from launch and minmaxed the fuck out of 3.x enough to be banned from tables.
The difference is not linear vs quadratic. It is, at best, linear vs geometric. The options are nowhere near as versatile as you are implying, and many of them mostly keep the class well within its role. For all the time I've been playing Cleric and all the GMs I've been under, not once has a Ritual been the crux of a campaign or even an encounter. Not once has one of my Spells alone made the difference in a fight.
I want to agree with you. Spellcasting classes have more options, and I want all classes to have more options. But I cannot agree with your hyperbolic statements that attempt to trudge up the ghost of 3.5. The difference is there, but it is not an irreconcilable gap like it is in that game.
>>43568096
That actually sounds like kind of a cool game idea coming from SKR.
Hilarious that the old 3.x argument of BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN *MY* GAME get trotted out for a game that supposedly 'fixed' 3.x.
Will 13th Age ever recover from this thread on /tg/?
>>43568278
Don't even, nigger.
>>43568278
Well, if you want in on a secret..3.x isn't even that bad, it's still the most widely played rpg in the goddamn world, and has a constant general here on /tg/ since /tg/ was created.
In reality, people really DO want variety, they don't want everyone to do the exact same things, and they're okay with one class killing good and being durable, and another class killing almost as good and having a shitton of options. It doesn't come off as unbalanced in actual play as in theorycrafting.
One of the weaknesses of trying to use math for an RPG I guess?
>>43568278
I don't think anybody disagreed with the concept of Spellcasters having more stuff, and that all classes need to have similar extra stuffs. Most of this thread has been telling touhoufag that he is really overstating the issue by comparing it to 3.5, where many classes couldn't even do what they were set out to do.
>>43568240
I question your ability if you consider Circle of Protection a spell worth bringing along in an adventure as anything but ritual fodder. If you actually *did* bring it as ritual fodder, then good on you.
So now we come down to my opinion, my anecdotes, and my experience versus yours. My anecdote regarding champion-tier wizards and rangers can be found here ( https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/#43540800 ), and backed up by my fellow player here: >>43541314 . The conclusion that can be drawn from that is that, why, yes, the wizard was indeed able to blow away encounters with judicious use of Evocation talent and daily spells, and also able to heavily influence the story by way of rituals (similar to the example rituals in the core rulebook, only scaled up for higher-level spells).
Your anecdote proves the opposite: that the spells are not as good as they seem (in my opinion, when I had played a cleric as mentioned in >>43560193, they *were*, and I was able to ration them out), and that rituals did not quite match up to the examples in the core rulebook.
The first, I cannot pinpoint the cause of. The latter, I can point squarely at your GM, who is not giving you anything close to the example effects the core rulebook prescribes for rituals.
>>43530325
This was based on Dragon Age at some point right?
>>43568320
>comparing it to 3.5
Not really.
>>43536163
Stalwart looks very fun
Are there any other fan-made classes like that?
>>43568310It's not so much the game not being as unbalanced as people think, but rather that, after the game has existed for so long, the vast majority of DMs know what is and isn't unbalanced and take steps to avoid letting the stronger classes dominate
>>43568486
Oh, yes, certainly.
http://13thage.org/index.php/classes
I would avoid the classes by Martin Killmann; he emphasizes quantity over quality and puts out material of questionable balance. "Hits" has no correlation with quality whatsoever on this website.
You will want to gravitate toward the works of Christopher Allen, Kenderama, Paul Fanning, and Ryven Cedrille, all of which have been competent enough to have had their classes posted directly to the Pelgrane Press website.
>>43568367
>The first, I cannot pinpoint the cause of.
I've eventually stopped taking any spell that's not an accuracy or damage buff. Sure I'll have something on my list but it's just to spawn some kind of Ritual later (usually for Recovery purposes). The other spells just didn't have the impact I wanted, which was finishing enemies faster. AC Bonuses and Damage spells I just ignore, but I'll occasionally pick up a debuff for a strong enemy. The problem being that I cast it first turn and then go back to being mindless. It's faster and easier to just let the party just roll over things like an avalanche. Do I feel like my buffs help? Of course I do, or I wouldn't play Cleric. I'm far from the MvP, which you seem to imply I should be.
>The latter, I can point squarely at your GM
All of my GMs? Forever? Because nebulous in-game time aside, most of their rationale is that I'm usually only burning a Daily spell, so I should only get an effect equivalent to a Daily spell. The only times I got something big was when we essentially had to go get plot devices to sacrifice. Rituals in the games I played were mostly used when either we want to make certain checks easier or we wanted to do something for which we just didn't have an applicable background. They don't fundamentally change the way the game is played.
>>43568668
>All of my GMs? Forever?
Yes? He pretty clearly pointed out that they were not following the rules as written.That means they were cheating you.
>>43568705
Then that would explain why I don't think Rituals are the secret to real Adventure Power.
>>43568367
Wait, you were devastating encounters with fireball? That's 1d3 dudes. 2d3 if you're planning on blowing up your party with it. Maximum six dudes. Most of my games have a minimum of 3 enemies per character.
>>43568813
Fireball can only hit 1d3 people? That's really stupid.
>Tomahawk missile
>1d10 people max
So the lesson here is to nerf ritual magic? I think instead of having it basically do whatever the characters want, its primary use will be to let you use a Magical Background in place of a more appropriate one.
>>43566274
Icons provide the same impetus to action that deities do in other settings, but are still pieces on the board, meaning they can be directly stymied or assisted.
>>43567026
>particularly given that poorly-scaling smite damage.
Smite's real value is in the +4 to hit and turning half of the damage (as high as 10d10+4d12+15, which is nothing to sneeze at) into Holy-typed damage, meaning it's not as easily mitigated as a normal physical attack.
The real show-stoppers for Paladins are Bastion and Paladin's Challenge, which allow them to firmly control the most dangerous enemies on the battlefield and shield the must vulnerable ally (read: Wizard) from egregious harm.
Paladins are really low on combat options, which makes them relatively boring to play in combat, but that was what the player wanted. I was shocked it ended up working so well, but it's made to neutralize the biggest threats while the glass cannons pound on them. The fact that every once in a while the Paladin lands a blow for 150 damage certainly doesn't hurt.
So their combat options are pretty boring, but outside of combat the character was plenty interesting and good background choices made him a very strong character in a wide range of situations.
>>43568813
Fireball friendly fires only if your allies are in the group AND you miss.
>>43569194
My smoking Fighter is aware.
>>43568894
>Smite's real value is in the +4 to hit
Which you have to drop a feat for; it does not even come with the basic package.
>4d12
Another two feats down. +4d12 damage is actually negligible by level 10; level 10 characters are supposed to be facing level 12 monsters, which have 360 hit points on average! +4d12 damage is a drop in the pond for such enemies.
Also, nothing about the paladin's smite does holy damage.
>The real show-stoppers for Paladins are Bastion and Paladin's Challenge, which allow them to firmly control the most dangerous enemies on the battlefield and shield the must vulnerable ally (read: Wizard) from egregious harm.
You are talking about Bastion with a 3-feat investment and Paladin's Challenge with another 3-feat investment.
All this time, I have been referring to clerics and wizards with zero feat investment.
Please bear in mind that the paladin is at its peak at level 1. That is when +1d12 damage on the smite (in conjunction with the +4 attack bonus and the half damage) is at its most powerful, because then the enemies have only 27 hit points on average.
The paladin slowly, slowly drops off from there, because all the upgrades it receives are an extra talent at levels 5 and 8. Yes, feats can make them better, but *every other character also has good feats to take*.
>>43568892
And the room goes quiet.
>>43569434
It's only been 3 minutes, let everyone gather their spaghetti first anon.
>The paladin slowly, slowly drops off from there, because all the upgrades it receives are an extra talent at levels 5 and 8. Yes, feats can make them better, but *every other character also has good feats to take*.
Is a pretty damning way to end the post.
So I was told there would be links and shit for broke niggas.
>>43568096
It's made by Keith Baker...
Do you even realize how significant of a difference that is?
>>43568892
This is what was suggested back in >>43534005, and I agree that it is an elegant way to handle such a thing.
>>43569369
>>43569468
If we are bringing talents and feats into play, allow me to showcase precisely what sort of talents can be brought to bear with classes like the bard:
>Jack of Spells
>Choose another spell-casting character class. You can choose one spell from the spell list of that class, of your own level or lower, as an extra spell you know how to cast. You can even improve the spell you’ve jacked by taking its feats up to your tier, if it has any.
>This spell is a bonus spell, not included in your bard class count. You can’t jack spells that come from class talents.
>Adventurer Feat: You can use your Charisma as the ability score that provides the jacked spell’s attack bonus and damage bonus (if any). Other ability score references remain unchanged.
>If you jacked a spell from the wizard, you also gain three cantrips of your choice from the wizard; you can cast them like a wizard who lacks the Cantrip Mastery talent.
>If you choose to jack a spell from the sorcerer class, you also gain the sorcerer’s dancing lights class feature.
>Champion Feat: Choose a second spell-casting class. Jack a spell from that class as well.
>Epic Feat: Choose a third spell-casting class. Jack a spell from that class also.
A level 9 bard with this talent and a three-feat investment has gained a bonus *three level 9 spells*, with Charisma for their attack and damage, and a handful of at-will cantrips on top of that (note that cantrips include non-negligible effects such as Knock). That is very good! That is a spectacular, mind-blowing gain from a single talent and three feats!
>>43569597
My post containing the links was deleted. I suggest you search through this thread's archived version: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/
>>43569369
You've talked a lot about Bard, Cleric, Wizard and Occultist as being the big powerful casters, but how do Sorcerers, Chaos Mages and Necromancers compare?I love touhoufag threads, I can learn in an hour or two what would normally take days to puzzle out myself due to laziness
>>43569769
I would place the sorcerer a very, very slight notch below the bard, cleric, occultist, and wizard; the difference is very slight.
The sorcerer is far more limited than the other major caster classes, but judicious usage of those spells in conjunction with Gather Enemy can lay down serious damage on groups of enemies.Not as much as a wizard with Evocation, but still fairly good.The online article on sorcerers is a great boon ( http://pelgranepress.com/index.php/sorcerous-options/ ), since it gives them much better picks for spells, along with a VPV-like talent.
Unfortunately, there actually is a "correct" combination of talents for the sorcerer, because everything else is just weak. That would be Spell Fist (ignore the implication to go into melee; you should still be staying back) for +2 AC and less opportunity attacks for your enemies, Blood Link for an extra icon relationship die, and either Infernal Heritage or Spell Shaper depending on how you want to upgrade your best spells.
I would place the chaos mage a slight notch below the sorcerer; supposedly, a chaos mage's spells are more powerful in exchange for randomness, but that is not true. A chaos mage's spells are about as powerful as a sorcerer or a wizard's spells, yet for most rounds, you are forced into either "attack spells," "defense spells," or "special spells" and have to pick from a small selection. You will often find yourself stuck with offense when you need defense, and defense when you need offense, but I would not consider it *too* bad.
The necromancer is essentially a variant sorcerer or wizard, down to the same frail chassis and spells that are roughly on the same tier as sorcerer or wizard spells... except that for "flavor" reasons, the class is punished for having a positive Con modifier, and even tempts you with a feat that adds the absolute value of your negative Con modifier to your attack rolls. This is a major step down from the other big casters.
