Alright /tg/, redpill me on 13th Age. Is it worth playing? Why should I use it instead of D&D?
>>47191606
>redpill me
go to hell
>>47191630
Fuck off with your PC bullshit.
OP, 13th Age is pretty good. It's based off the same system as 2.5, so it shares a lot of the same problems, but it does make some improvements. If you enjoy 3rd or 5th edition D&D, then you should give it a shot.
>>47191606
It's far more balanced than D&D, and is designed for use without a grid, whereas D&D just pretends it's made for use without a grid.
>>47191606
More character options than 5e.
More interesting and easier to reskin monsters than 5e.
Less bookkeeping for both players and DMs than 5e. No one is bothering to keep track of arrows, food, rope, candles, or XP anyway.
Magic Items actually have personality, and consumables are actually useful.
Combat is designed to be gridless not just pretending to not need measurements like in 5e.
PC start as big damn heroes so no wasting time on whomping rats like the first 3 levels of 5e.
Living. F'ing. Dungeons.
It's not set in Forgotten Realms, and there's a built in story excuse why powerful PC's aren't dealing with it. Plus I actually liked the default setting.
Fighters are more than, "I hit it with my sword...again" as opposed to 5e.
Books are funnier than 5e.
Skills come from background story not from a combo of class and template like in 5e.
"Fall forward" is something that should have been in a DMG 30yrs ago.
Icon Rolls are a get out of jail free card when DM is running low on ideas.
Practically atheistic.
Feats are per class and not some long list.
Decent soundtrack.
Much easier way to deal with large groups of chump enemies than bounded accuracy.
No 5e class embraces randomness like the Chaos Mage.
Fewer people in the party, the better it runs.
>>47191606
it's like 4e, but significantly less tacticool, and significantly faster, with a whole lot of extra randomness.
>>47191606
>Why should I use it instead of D&D?
Because it actually does what it says on the tin.
Is anyone else looking forward to the 13th Age in Glorantha book?
It's skill system is as loose as fuck and based on"background" or AKA how much your DM lets you get away with.
Weapons and armor don't matter at all, it's your class that magically imbues them with proper dice and other values.
Now the thing that you'll love or hate is all dependent on how much you like crit conformation. by this I mean how much do you like extra steps to figure out if you did shit with one roll. Cause this game this game will make you keep track of if you rolled even or odd, if this magical bonus die is even or odd, and if you had done other actions and missed before. It leads to things like wizards only casting certain spells every other turn or they lose them. Fighters caring more about rolling above a natural 16 more than actualy hitting and other such shit.
If you can accept this really just kinda awkward very gamy inclusions you could like it. It doesn't do much else than offer a lot of character building for combat.
>>47195544
>Weapons and armor don't matter at all, it's your class that magically imbues them with proper dice and other values.
That is a serious annoyance. You are really pidgeonholed into 'Take the right weapons/armour or suck'
>>47191606
Steal the Icons system for other games and then play FATE or Dungeon World instead.
>>47191606
>Is it worth playing?
Only if you enjoy playing a game by yourself.
>>47195544
>It's skill system is as loose as fuck and based on"background" or AKA how much your DM lets you get away with.
The real solution is to take a background that's in the DMs field. Have a DM that does some house shit related with his job, take a builder background and you'll be able to pick locks, climb, set up camp, appraise things, all the good shit. Unlike that herbalist who can only tell if wild plants are poisonous to eat and that's it. Now if the DM was a botionist and you took herbalist you could make poisons, make healing salves, make alchemcial like mixtures that nearly do anything and the builder guy could build a hut in some 3 weeks.
>>47194547
Huh. When 5e hadn't come out yet, I used to struggle trying to describe 13th Age in terms of 3.5 and 4e.
But now, "What 5e could have been if WotC had tried to make it good" fits the bill perfectly.
>>47195750
I don't allow anything so general for a background when I run 13th Age. Backgrounds are supposed to be evocative, one part of a larger story of a significant event in your character's life. So while I'll never let a player jot down a 5 point Soldier background, they can absolutely have "Most Confirmed Kills as a Bannerman in the Empire" because that has a narrower but much more interesting focus.
>>47196532
Oh it's fascinating looking at how the 13th Age devs and WotC came up with different solutions to problems they both identified with 4e and 3.x
>>47196621
Well, WotC had an extra problem: "Don't split the market."
Of course, they completely missed that that train had left the station a couple years ago.
>>47196665
I would really love an unbiased biography about the design process of 5e. I'm happy with the game we eventually got out of it, I'm disappointed in the many things they promised and never tried delivering on, but overall it just seems like it would be a really interesting read.
>>47191939
How is not being a fan of movie references PC?
Also, this game is a redux of 4th edition. not third or fifth.
>>47194547
>Living. F'ing. Dungeons.
No really, you should have seen one of my players' face when I told him a living dungeon had burrowed its way out of the ground outside of town. He was nigh orgasmic.
>Practically atheistic
There is no presented pantheon. Thus it is actually atheistic, rather than practically. Not sure why that's a selling point.
>Feats are per class and not some long list
There are non-class-specific ones as well. And while it's not 3.5 with "trap feats," feats are easily the most confusing part of character creation.
>Fighters are more than, "I hit it with my sword...again" as opposed to 5e.
This has nothing to do with the system of choice, but how players play.
>>47195428
How has that not come out yet? They announced it 2 years ago.
>>47195554
I think you missed the point. Use the right weapons or suck is just a D&D thing; the difference here is that instead of a huge table of weapon stats you have to look through, equipment stats are the class section. If a DM allows, you can just reskin the weapon. Magic weapons also just do whatever the GM says they do.
>>47195607
The "Icons system?" Do you mean the relationship dice (which do not bother if playing another system, it barely adds to this one), or the "Pantheon that isn't a Pantheon cause they are right over there" concept?
>>47191606
Anyway OP, it's a good, lighter version of D&D with a kick ass setting (Basically, is it a fantasy thing? you want it? it's somewhere.) and interesting ways of handling some abilities. Try it out.
>>47197026
>Also, this game is a redux of 4th edition. not third or fifth.
Yeah and it failed at that. a 4e successor needs good crunchy grid-based combat and no dead classes. 13th Age has a few cool mechanics but it felt a lot like boring 3.5 style D&D to me.
>>47197044
There are no dead classes.
Crunchy, grid-based combat is for wargames, not roleplaying games.
>>47197114
There are absolutely dead classes in 13th Age. The majority of barbarians, paladins, and rangers (the three worst-scaling classes in the system), gain literally nothing but extra damage at levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10... which every other weapon-wielding class receives anyway.
The tier disparity in 13th Age is nowhere as bad as in 3.X, but there are definitely high tier 3, low tier 3, and tier 4 classes. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers fall squarely into tier 4.
>>47197026
>How is not being a fan of movie references PC?
The term red pill is associated with several alt-right communities, ranging from neo-nazis to men's rights activists. Presumably he assumed you were angered by the mere mention of the term because that's what the SJW bogeyman in his head would do.
>>47197114
>Crunchy, grid-based combat is for wargames, not roleplaying games.
That's very much an opinion, not a fact.
>>47197158
>gain literally nothing but extra damage at levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
Are you fucking kidding me? Barbarians get to summon the souls of their ancestor to fight beside them.
Rangers have beast companion.
I remember Paladins being a little lackluster, but dead is an overstatement.
>>47197213
I wasn't the guy he was responding to, but thanks for the explanation.
>>47197224
So is the opinion that the game needs it.
13th Age is nowhere near a redux 4e. It's some bits of 3e and 4e put together in a configuration that mostly works.
It's not as well-designed as 4e but it's also lighter and easier to get into.
So basically, yes, it's what 5e would be if 5e was actually good instead of aggressively mediocre.
>>47197114
'roleplaying game' and 'has grid combat' are orthogonal concepts. One has no relation to the other, and you can have as much of a mix as you want.
The past three (at least) editions of DnD have been crunchy grid combat, and they have also been RPGs.
>>47197235
>Barbarians get to summon the souls of their ancestor to fight beside them.
And what do they gain at levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10? Nothing.
The barbarian is a complete mess of a class, a low tier 4 that is arguably a borderline tier 5. The barbarian is expected to be a frontliner with 13 base AC and 7 base hit points, which is virtually suicidal. The barbarian's rage mechanic all but assures that the barbarian will spend most battles non-raging.
"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.
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.
>>47197304
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)
>>47197235
>Rangers have beast companion.
A ranger with Animal Companion Adept and a double attack talent has literally no other class features. The animal companion scales with level, but that is not actual improvement; it is just allowing the animal to keep up with the character.
Levels 4, 6, and 10 are dead levels for such a ranger. They gain absolutely no genuine improvements at such levels aside from the usual numerical boosts that every other character receives.
>I remember Paladins being a little lackluster, but dead is an overstatement.
The paladin is quite good at level 1, but gradually becomes more and more obsolete as the levels go by because Smite Evil scales *terribly*.
Smite Evil starts at +1d12 damage at level 1 (average enemy hit points: 27), which is great, but it takes three feats to bring it up to +4d12 damage at level 10 (average enemey hit points: 432), which is such dreadful scaling that Smite Evil becomes *more useful on a miss than a hit* by that point.
The barbarian, the ranger, and the paladin are all deplorably bad classes. The druid is another weak and awful class, but for entirely different reasons.
>>47197351
>
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)
Fuck yeah stalwart
The Vanguard is also a cool 'nonmagical' class with interesting combat mechanics.
>>47197368
13th Age does suffer from some "caster edition"-style disparity in that spell lists simply scale much better than martial maneuver and martial power lists, and all spellcasters can completely retrain all of their spells at the start of each adventuring day.
Compare the bard's progression and the fighter's progression and you can see the difference, really.
However, the overall gap in effectiveness is not *especially* bad in 13th Age. Bards, clerics, wizards, and the like are high tier 3, while fighters, rogues, commanders, and such as low tier 3.
Then we have the transcendentally awful wrecks that are the barbarian, the paladin, and the ranger, all of which resulted from "What if we made these classes 'simple' to play?" The druid is also a catastrophe, but for a different reason.
>>47197405
Absolutely agreed, it sucks that the designers made that decision.
At least outside of the barb/paladin/ranger the classes are mostly cool, and there's enough fan classes to make up for it. Vanguard is cool, Stalwart is cool, Dilettante is cool, Elementalist is cool.
>>47197026
>I think you missed the point. Use the right weapons or suck is just a D&D thing; the difference here is that instead of a huge table of weapon stats you have to look through, equipment stats are the class section. If a DM allows, you can just reskin the weapon. Magic weapons also just do whatever the GM says they do.
It's still highly limiting unless you go out of your way to get the GMs approval to change it.
That's not really good game design.
>>47197242
Yes but that wasn't the point. The point being made is that it can't really call itself a successor to 4e if it's tossing out one of the primary things that made 4e...4e.
>>47197405
>he druid is also a catastrophe, but for a different reason.
May I ask what that reason is?
>>47197562
The druid is a "build-your-own class." You have three talent slots, and each talent you take gives you a diverse array of options. Unfortunately, the druid has literally no other class features (strike one), and its chassis is horrifically poor: 6 base hit points and 10 base AC (strike two).
Furthermore, some talents are much worse than others, and some are much better (strike three). Wild Healer has the worst party healing mechanic in the entire system, whereas Terrain Caster is blatantly the best druid talent due to how it confers plenty of spells which are all cast at your full level.
The best way to showcase the druid's lack of effiacy is to compare a dedicated melee druid (Shifter initiate and Warrior Druid adept, or Shifter adept and Warrior Druid initiate) to a fighter, and a dedicated caster druid (Elemental Caster initiate and Terrain Caster adept, or Elemental Caster adept and Terrain Caster initiate) to a wizard. Both are completely feeble compared to their counterparts.
>>47197639
Ey, THF, good to see you
You recommend any other homebrew replacements, then?
>>47197671
http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/88-the-elementalist
The Elementalist is both a good 'simple caster' in the vein of a fighter, and a cool nature/primordial themed class.
>>47191630
This. Learn to do research and think for yourself, OP.
>>47197781
Have you considered that this might be part of his research on the game?
>>47197693
I would not recommend the elementalist at all.
>>47197671
Here are my suggestions to you when seeking out 13th Age homebrew:
1. Avoid any class whose progression is limited to an extra talent at levels 5 and 8 and nothing else at every other level, because they will inevitably fall into the same design trap as the barbarian, paladin, and ranger.
2. Stay away from anything by Martin Killmann, who has a grievously shoddy sense of balance and is far more concerned with immense quantity of homebrew rather than quality.
3. Disregard the eldritch knight on the Pelgrane Press website, which has issues with provoking opportunity attacks and too few spells.
4. Set aside the elementalist from the Pelgrane Press website, which is too frail, has too few powers, and has no reason not to rely mostly on Stormblade from levels 1 to 10.
5. Ignore the vanguard from the Pelgrane Press website, which scales poorly due to receiving too little resolve (what extra resolve it does receive provides starkly diminishing returns) and no higher-level techniques.
6. Summarily execute the witch from the Pelgrane Press website, which has an at-will daze from level 1.
7. Turn away from the truespeaker from 13thage.org, which is woefully incomplete and unrevised as of March 9.
With this in mind, I would propose the following roster of classes for use in any 13th Age game:
13th Age core rulebook:
• Bard: Unchanged
• Cleric: Unchanged
• Rogue: Unchanged, though note that the effectiveness of this class relies on either a full Dexterity/Constitution build or a Shadow Walk spam build
• Sorcerer: Unchanged, but with these new options: http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/sorcerous-options/
• Wizard: Ban Evocation completely
13 True Ways:
• Chaos Mage: Unchanged.
• Commander: Unchanged.
• Necromancer: Delete the Wasting Away class feature. It is wholly unnecessary, and the rest of the class is on par with any other dedicated spellcaster.
• Occultist: Unchanged.
>>47197908
Homebrew:
• Avenger: http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/274-avenger
• Binder: http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/303-binder
• Dilettante: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5k1Bo0pV5ilLTlyQUVaSlduZVk/edit , but change the duration of Dazzle and Fracture "the end of YOUR next turn"
• Elementalist: http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-age-character-class-the-elementalist/ , but give this two extra powers known to compensate for its shortage of powers and its great frailty
• Improved Fighter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xW7S4C_U_CvEPhUWmufF6DdX2J6vrw3kDe0ZqntFJ0M/
• Improved Monk: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gLEEupBLrzBKvclyFbEXxJvvHd7uOhfVqPZJ_fdoreE/
• Seeker (magical archer): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkF-NADPPk0TwhFWdNV_xv77jiqNm4srJRCTSnoCwpI/edit
• Stalwart: http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-age-class-stalwart/ , although base hit points should be 7
• Thief: http://chaosinferred.com/personal/13thage/resources/classes/the-thief/
There may be other good classes on 13thage.org, like the fury or the summoner, but I have not had the time to fully study them.
I will expound further on why the elementalist is a poor choice in a bit.
>>47197920
First of all, the elementalist has frailty issues. 11 base PD and MD are fine, but 12 base AC is anemic for a character with few skirmishing options, unlike the rogue. (The rogue also has the luxury of either tanking attacks with a Dexterity/Constitution build, or avoiding them altogether with a Shadow Walk build.)
Secondly, the majority of the class's talents are worthless. Absorption only triggers when you are hit with a certain damage type. Aspect of the Elements works only when the battle is essentially over. Body of Stone mitigates critical hits... which are not that bad from monsters in 13th Age. Ice Armor makes you take a penalty to attack roll. Stoneroot Stride makes you sticky... while you are quite a fragile class. Weapon of Fire gives you no numerical advantage at all. Wind Rider makes you spend both your standard action and your move action just to fly.
The only elementalist talents that are worthwhile are Eyes of Flame, Ice Armor, World Step, and perhaps World's Breath.
Thirdly, two powers to start with and a new power every even-numbered level is simply too little, considering that each of these powers is supposedly equivalent in value to an equal-level spell.
A level 1 elementalist has 2 powers. A level 10 elementalist has 7 powers.
A level 1 bard has 2 battle cries and 2 spells of 1st-level. A level 10 bard has 6 battle cries and 7 spells of 9th-level.
Why not play 5e?
>>47198681
Because >>47194547
>>47197908
>>47197920
>>47198081
Thought you were a dick at first but your assertions have all been backed up by math and an understanding of the design structure of 13th Age-- and moreover, you offer solutions after your criticisms.
So keep doing God's work, faggot, I'm listening.
>>47198779
>an understanding of the design structure of 13th Age
I do not think too highly of 13th Age's design structure, mostly because many of its decisions seem to have been motivated by pure whim or "it seems right."
Take the retraining of spells vs. martial powers:
>Spells: You can change the spells you can cast after each full heal-up. We don’t see much reason to penalize or favor some spellcasters over others on this count. If your PC is a spellcaster and you want to choose different spells that are legal for your character, go ahead.
>Powers: Non-spell powers are a bit harder to swap around than spells, but not that much harder. You can reselect your power choices when you gain a level.
How come spellcasters can change around their spell selection at the start of each day, while martials must wait a level? There does not seem to be a clear answer at all, particularly considering that "one appropriately-leveled spell is as valuable as one appropriately-leveled power" seems to be consistent across class talents.
Likewise, I do not think the defense system was well-thought out in the slightest. It is a blight on the game. Consider this:
AC is based on the median of your Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom modifiers.
PD is based on the median of your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution modifiers.
MD is based on the median of your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma modifiers.
Why? What does this accomplish? All it does is force, say, fighters under the standard 28-point buy to have an ability score array like:
Str 16+2, Dex 8, Con 14+2, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 8
End result: AC +2, PD +3, MD +2, initiative -1, HP mod +3
And paladins under 28-point buy to veer towards:
Str 16+2, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 16+2
End result: AC +2, PD +2, MD +2, initiative -1, HP mod +2
Whereas rogues can afford to have an array like:
Str 8, Dex 16+2, Con 16+2, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 8
End result: AC +4, PD +4, MD +1, initiative +4, HP mod +4
Something is not right here.
>>47198933
>Why? What does this accomplish?
It obfuscates the mechanics and makes it harder to optimise your build. Presumably this is the intended effect.
>>47198948
But it feels so good when you finally work out the right distribution of points!
>>47198933
Now, the solution to this is to implement "death to ability scores" as can be seen here:
http://13thage.org/index.php/house-rules/497-death-to-ability-scores-variant
However, this benefits some classes much more than others. The ones who gain the most from it are those classes who would have had to invest in Strength, the icky, red-headed stepchild of ability scores. The ones who gain the least are any class that would have aimed for a Dexterity/Constitution build (e.g. rogue) or a Constitution/Wisdom build (e.g. cleric). The latter is an acceptable loss, but the former means that the only particularly effective rogue build left is the Shadow Walk spammer; all other rogues can go home.
Fortunately, those who wish to play non-Shadow-Walking scoundrels can settle for the homebrew thief class:
http://chaosinferred.com/personal/13thage/resources/classes/the-thief/
>>47197781
Oh yes, but dont dare ask your peers as part of your research.
>>47198933
>>47198988
Thanks Touhou. Any other homebrew stuff you enjoy and want to share?
>>47198948
What is especially puzzling about 13th Age is that *every* character built under point-buy should absolutely have two dump scores. Compare this to, say, 4e, where a typical level 1 character would have an array of 16+2, 16+2, 12, 12, 10, 8.
>>47199485
I would not, but I have a reasonably complete collection of 13th Age books, including 13th Age monthly issues. Are there any PDFs you are missing?
I am on limited bandwidth and would prefer to upload only what I absolutely must.
>>47199583
> Are there any PDFs you are missing?
Not him, but do you have (or have a link to) bookmarked Core Book?
It's annoying, but I can't seem to find one.
>>47199623
The only 13th Age core rulebook PDF I have been able to locate lacks bookmarks, unfortunately.
>>47199583
Nah, I'm good. I don't actually play 13th Age but I find the design decisions for the game very interesting. Flawed, but interesting. Combat distance seems like a good piece of design, while the Hit Point and expected damage progression seems pretty terrible. Backgrounds are simultaneously very interesting and extremely easy to finagle and wheedle about to your GM.
What do you most like and dislike about the system? I really appreciated your analysis of 5E's math a few months ago, I'd love to hear how you feel about 13th Age's mechanics.
>>47199651
I've got 3 versions.
- 14,064,404 bytes
- 28,505,966 bytes
- 26,286,535 bytes
All without bookmarks.
>>47199017
You know, there's a way to ask for information without also being a fag.
>>47198933
I agree, that's why I've houseruled every class to have their own median of three stats that decides their AC, instead of it always being the median of dex, con and wis
This way you don't end up with bards and rogues being the tankiest characters
>>47199667
>Hit Point and expected damage progression
They aresomewhat reasonable provided that characters receive direct bonus-granting magic items as pages 191-192 of the core rulebook prescribe.
Consider a level 1 fighter with a greatsword and a Strength modifier of +4. They have an attack bonus of +5, deal 1d10+4 damage (average 9.5) on a hit, deal 2d10+8 damage (average 19) on a critical hit, and inflict 1 damage on a miss.
Level 1 PCs are expected to face level 1 normal monsters, which have AC 17 and HP 27.
At escalation die 0, each swing from the fighter deals (0.45 * 9.5) + (0.05 * 19) + (0.55 * 1) = 5.775 damage on average, or ~21.388889% of the monster's hit points.
At level 10, the fighter has a greatsword +3 and a Strength modifier of +5. They have an attack bonus of +18, deal 10d10+18 (average 73) damage on a critical hit, deal 20d10+36 (average 146) damage on a critical hit, and 13 damage on a miss.
Level 10 PCs are supposed to engage level 12 normal monsters, which have AC 28 and HP 360. At escalation die 0, each swing from the fighter deals 53.3 damage on average, which is... 14.805556% of the monster's hit points.
While the fighter has clearly lost some raw damage output from their melee basic attack, the maneuvers they have gained since then make up for it. (Maybe. There is a reason why one of the classes I had linked above was an "improved fighter" fix.) That is far better than the HP/damage scaling of some other games, up to and including D&D 4e.
>most like
The icon system is an effective way to give PCs an immediate buy-in into the setting, grounding them in the world and giving them relationships. They is not particularly entrenched in 13th Age's mechanics; they could reasonably be ported into any other game.
13th Age's numerical scaling across the levels is actually well-done (barring certain classes...), especially considering that level 10 characters have approximately ~45.254834 times as much combat power as level 1 characters.
>>47199667
>most dislike
The class design of 13th Age is astonishingly hit or miss. Some classes (spellcasters, mostly) are perfectly fine, and the occultist is a well-designed masterpiece. The authors drop the metaphorical ball for every other class, however. We have already covered the downfalls of the barbarian, paladin, ranger, and druid; but other classes have their arbitrary frailties as well, from the fighter's mediocre talents and maneuvers (solution: use the "improved fighter"), to the monk's MAD and questionable talents and forms (solution: use the "improved monk"), to the necromancer being screwed over by the unnecessary Wasting Away class feature, to the rogue being useful only for gimmicky Dexterity/Constitution builds and Shadow Walk spam builds.
There is also, of course, the matter of spellcasters getting to retrain all of their spells at the start of each adventuring day, giving them a distinct edge against martials.
Backgrounds are another sticking point for me, but that is more endemic to "write in your own broad skills" RPGs than 13th Age specifically.
>>47199955
Oh, yes, the Dexterity/Constitution bard is a rather... unique and unintended "feature" of 13th Age.
For those in the audience, by level 3, it is fully possible for a bard to avoid any and all battle cries, spells, and songs that call for Charisma. This allows a bard to have an ability score spread of Strength 8, Dexterity 16+2, Constitution 16+2, Intelligence 12, Wisdom 12, Charisma 8 and avail of fairly sturdy AC and hit points.
13th Age's "median"-based defense mechanics produce the strangest of results as written. Perhaps another reason to use the "death to ability scores" variant linked above.
>>47197908
>>47197920
>>47198081
Also, I may have expressed myself poorly regarding the elementalist here.
The elementalist is, out-of-the-box, a somewhat weak class, but giving it two extra powers should improve it to a degree. An elementalist player will have to accept that Eyes of Flame, Ice Armor, World Step, and World's Breath are the only good elementalist talents.
Using the "death to ability" score variant also helps melee elementalists considerably.
>>47199955
>I agree, that's why I've houseruled every class to have their own median of three stats that decides their AC, instead of it always being the median of dex, con and wis
Wouldn't at that point just giving everyone the same AC scaling achieve the same effect and save you some math?
>>47200237
The improved monk kind of bothers me
I've no problem with removing MAD, but it's also removed the possibility of strong monks, and I prefer my monks to be like Zangeif rather than Chun li
>>47200401
Yes and no
It kind of does, but this way, going all-in on one stat still costs you AC
Hey, touhou guy, what's your opinion of the 13th Age in Glorantha classes? There's a few retools of the Barbarian in it, along with two varieties of Berserker and a Paladin-like class called a Humakti.
>>47198933
That theoretical Rogue stat-line discounts the fact that the Rogue might be incentivized to have high Charisma via talents like the very good Shadow Walk and Smooth Talk, as well as just wanting to play a charismatic Rogue. Also, that low MD that Rogue has is not going to do him any favors as usually the most catastrophic effects in the game to have laid upon you, such as Confused, target MD.
>>47199956
>>47200237
I'm surprised at your answers. Personally I find the hit point and damage scaling to be much too high, and monsters tend to basically just be piles of hit points and damage because of that. I prefer games where enemies get tougher by having more complex requirements to fight them, or to defend against their attacks, where higher level characters excel not just by doing more damage and being tougher, but by being able to approach combat and challenges in new ways. Basically, I prize lateral advancement over vertical.
I don't like Icons but I can see how that comes down to personal taste.
Backgrounds are terrible, they could be called Skill Points and replaced with a list of 12 or so Skills with no trouble. You could even increase the total Skill points to 15 instead of 8 Background points since specific skills would likely be narrower than most Backgrounds.
>>47200404
Use the "death to ability scores" variant and take a background related to sheer physical might.
Moving along, over in 13thage.org are a few classes that *seem* to scale reasonably well, but I have not had time to study them more in-depth. If anyone else would like to experiment with them or analyze them, feel free:
• Fury: http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/278-fury
• Summoner: http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/167-summoner
• Thaumineer (variant wizard): http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/329-the-thaumineer
• Warlock by Jonathan Roberts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oMxnvuvSuQjImfKgGF0NZAh5YIR-2brWRskh_AblZlM/
>>47200459
This interests me very much. I will have to study this as soon as possible.
>>47200529
That is precisely why I have been mentioning the "Shadow Walk spam" rogue build elsewhere in this thread, as an alternative to the Dexterity/Charisma rogue build.
One does not want to be hit in MD, but MD-targeting attacks are uncommon compared to PD-targeting attacks in the core bestiary and the 13th Age bestiary. Furthermore, a Shadow Walk spammer needs as much Charisma as they can get, since they will be facing off against the highest MD amongst the enemies. A Shadow Walk spammer will probably have Strength 8, Dexterity 16+2, Constitution 14, Intelligence 8, Wisdom 10, Charisma 16+2, which gives only a meager AC +2, PD +2, MD +0, far worse than the Dexterity/Constitution rogue's defenses.
Speaking of which, Smooth Talk is an absolutely shameful piece of design that should be burned with prejudice.
>Smooth Talk
>Once per day, convince your GM with an amazing line of patter while you are using social skills to speak or interact with NPCs associated with a particular icon. If the GM is convinced by your patter, roll a normal save (11+). If you succeed, for the rest of the day you can function as if you have a 2-point positive relationship with the icon who seems to be in play. Thanks to your amazing gift of gab, for a short time, it’s more or less true. (Note that these points replace any points you normally have with the icon rather than adding to them.)
>Failure on the Smooth Talk save generally arouses suspicions.
You have two failure points here:
1. Your attempt to convince the GM.
2. Your 1d20 roll, which has a 50% chance of failure.
If you fail, you arouse suspicions and are worse off. If you succeed, you earn a 2-point positive relationship! Which... as written, only matters when relationship dice are rolled.
Compare this to the bard's Loremaster and Mythkenner talents, which can grant a direct +1 relationship point as well as +2 background points.
>>47200684
Characters in 13th Age do gain more lateral options as the levels go along, but it is admittedly much less than in, say, 4e.
If you are a fan of both lateral advancement *and* grid-based combat, I would suggest looking into the combat system (the combat system alone; the noncombat rules are a mess, aside from perhaps the "team conflict" rules for highly abstracted noncombat challenges) of the Strike! RPG.
Its combat is very much a retroclone of D&D 4e's.No, I still do not make any money at all from that game.
>>47200980
It's a shame that noncombat is so weird, I like the idea of icons and relationships with icons influencing the game
>>47194547
>PC start as big damn heroes so no wasting time on whomping rats like the first 3 levels of 5e.
This is easily solved by starting above first level, you fucking idiot.
>>47200940
Well, certainly one can say that the GM book is not filled with tons of MD-attacking enemies, so if one were to just pick and choose a monster at random out of the books more often than not they'd get a PD/AC attacker than an MD attacker. However, I can't really see that as a viable argument, as the DM is not likely to just pick enemies out of a hat, but to choose enemies relevant to the campaign. Not to mention the fact that the DM can just homebrew up enemies that target MD if he notices that the party is steamrolling anything that targets physical attributes.
However, I do agree that the Smooth Talk talent is busted, and that its replacements in the Rebel class for 13th Age in Glorantha, Kennings & Killings (which gives access to bard spells and gives you feats that reward you for being a poet) and Kinda Lucky (can reroll a number of natural even d20 rolls equal to your Charisma modifier per day), are much better.
>>47200940
Addendum: I would only really suggest a Shadow Walk rogue at levels 1-4. By level 5+, the lack of an enhancement bonus to Shadow Walk makes it rather unreliable, and by level 8+, its accuracy is shoddy.
>>47201141
>that's easily solved by not doing what the game tells you to do
Yeah, that isn't a point in it's favour
>>47197908
>>47197920
>>47198081
>>47200386
Anything good in the vein of a Paladin or 5E Warlock available?
I wish the sorcerer class had more spells avilable to it
Not because I want more flexibility within one character, but rather because I want a sorcerer who can specialise more in a single damage type, like in 4e
>>47201175
The game literally tells you you can start above first level. I'm pretty sure it's even in the main section for the players book in 5e, but I could be wrong. Either way, nothing is stopping this from happening, and the rules literally say its okay.
Heard you talking shit, like I wouldn't hear
>>47200459
This is a very thick PDF. I have been skimming through it at the very most, and I can only spare several more minutes. I
I like what I see with most of the classes: good progression and scaling for most of them and interesting mechanics. I will be skipping most of the classes in my comments.
The Humakti needs to be revised to gain a new power at every even-numbered level as opposed to every odd-numbered level, bringing it in line with every other class of its format. I am leery of Sever Spirit; at level 3, with Constitution modifier +3, that instantly kills an enemy with 55 HP or less, such as a level 4 normal monster.
The monk has not changed much, and is still MAD.
The Orlanthi warrior took a step forward for the barbarian by giving it 8 base hit points, but a base AC of 11 is another step back. Inspired Battler is not that much of an upgrade from the regular rage, especially with the non-engagement stipulation on Inspired Strike. Since this class still fails to scale well, I would consider it just as poor as the barbarian, save for the very tiny saving grace of Excellence.
The rebel is mostly a sidegrade to the rogue. However, more powers for both the rebel and the rogue certainly are an upgrade.
The storm voice gives sorcerers what they needed: more spell choices. That plus the new sorcerer spells from the website ( http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/sorcerous-options/ ) should be good news for them.
>>47201802
honestly, MAD in 13th age is not as bad as MAD in other D&D-like games
you get three stats up when your stats go up, which helps, and monks get +2 to three stats instead of two.
The problem is that they need strength, and strength in 13th age is a useless stat, dsue to dex and con not only attributing to PD and AC, but also having their own uses beyond that (health and initiative)
Solution: monks get AC based off of dex, wis and strength instead of dex, wis and con, and have a higher base HP to account for their invariable low con
>>47201191
The Humakti from this 13th Age in Glorantha PDF can be reasonably paladin-like, and I am sure at least one of the spellcasters here can be akin to a warlock.
>>47201246
The 13th Age in Glorantha PDF contains more sorcerer spells, and there are more here:
http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/sorcerous-options/
>>47201802
The trickster is a mess. First of all:
>And another thing. . . . The trickster doesn’t follow the same power arc as most other characters. In order to be a bad luck magnet and a scapegoat and a general boggle-farter, the class is front-loaded with features and abilities at 1 st level. But when all the other characters are hitting champion-tier and epic-tier and becoming awesome, you’re still going to be the trickster. Your abilities are never going to curve up toward Hero-dom, unless you count the very likely possibility that you’re going to be the first player character to try out the Heroic Return rules.
This is a deplorable design goal. Why is a certain class *supposed* to be stronger than the others, but only at the lower levels? So that someone can feel a rush of power, only to discard the character later on?
However, the trickster actually fails at this design goal by being *weak from level 1*. With 6 base hit points, a base AC of 9, and decent (but not incredible) powers, the trickster is on the much weaker end of the power scale. The trickster also scales poorly, having dead levels at every even-numbered level, so it only grows worse. This is awful.
>>47201802
I think the Berserkers, especially the Zorak Zorani, at least fill the barbarian hero niche very well compared to the Barbarian.
>>47201872
The troll warrior manages to be even *worse* than the 13th Age core rulebook barbarian. Base AC 11 and an average of 7.5 base hit points make this a frustratingly frail front-liner. Troll Frenzy is a sidegrade to the regular barbarian rage. Thus, we have a wreck of a class.
The table, the text, and the talents all disagree on whether a wind lord receives two or three exploits at level 1. Overall, however, the wind lord scales much better than the core rulebook fighter, and I appreciate that.
That is as much time as I can spare.
>>47201942
I took absolutely no issue with either of the berserkers, although I am sure there is an issue or two I had missed in my quick skim.
>>47197213
>le bogeymeme
It's as annoying as cuck at this point
>>47202224
>>47197213
Yup.
>>47203452
The badly dressed cartoon character makes a good point - all those people ARE annoying.
>>47202224
>>47203452
>>47203611
Says the people disrupting a thread to whine about politics.
Hoping to try 13th Age at GenCon. Suggestions?
If you're still here Touhou Man, what were your opinions on 5e?
>>47195607
>Dungeon World
>>47209540
>13th Age thread
>5e
>>47203611
I've actually been running a 13th age campaign for about a year now, it's a really fun system.
My party ranger isn't useless, he can fire 4 arrows a turn when he is lucky, and because that usually happens after a few rounds of combat, the escalation die is high enough that he rarely misses.
The wizard does a ton of damage, evoking force salvo is broken right in half, 6 never missing bolts that do 70 damage each? At least it only happens once a full heal up.
Lucky my players aren't entirely min/maxers.
But yeah 13th age is great.
>>47199667
>>47209540
I do not remember giving an analysis of 5e "a few months ago." That aside, here is the crux of my stance on 5e.
It is a very, *very* well-polished and outstanding system for a specific subgenre of fantasy: "low/mid-powered fantasy wherein the heroes improve their combat capacities only modestly as they grow in power and experience, sharpen their noncombat skills only marginally. At their absolute strongest, the PCs still face down-to-earth monsters that can be felled by dozens of peasant archers, and the PCs themselves are reality-grounded heroes who can likewise be taken down by dozens of peasant archers. In other words, 3.X-style E6 stretched out across 20 levels, except with less improvement of noncombat skills."
Bounded accuracy single-handedly makes 5e a much lower-powered form of fantasy compared to 3.X, 4e, and even 13th Age, all of which were "zero to superhero" in their progression. PCs improve their combat capabilities at each level by pittances compared to those other systems, and dozens of low-level monsters can tear through even level 20 PCs (especially using the mob rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide, which ignore advantage/disadvantage). When the difference in skill proficiency between level 1 and 20 is a mere ±4, it is hard to say that most characters get much better at their noncombat skills throughout their careers.
If you are a fan of 3.X-style E6, except want it stretched out over 20 levels, then 5e is absolutely the system for you. I am not saying this disparagingly; this is actually what 5e is good for. If you would prefer "zero to superhero," then keep to 3.X, 4e, or 13th Age.
It is also worth noting that players are much more at the mercy of the GM in 5e than in 3.X and 4e. Consider that many monsters halve damage from nonmagical weapons... yet magic weapon distribution is solely in the GM's hands. Likewise, most PCs never improve four out of six of their saving throws, yet monsters' save DCs steadily increase..
>>47211828
That said, 5e does have a major issue in its presentation. It tries to fool the player into thinking that it is yet another "zero to superhero" D&D game, with lines like:
>Levels 5-10: The fate of a region might depend on the adventures that characters of levels 5 to 10 undertake.
>Levels 11-16: The fate of a nation or even the world depends on momentous quests that such characters undertake.
>Levels 17-20: Adventures at these levels have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions in the Material Plane and even places beyond.
5e also presents monsters like high and mighty balors, pit fiends, solars, titans, ancient dragons, and, as of Out of the Abyss, demon lords as if they almighty overlords who could make worlds tremble in fear, only for them to actually be down-to-earth monsters not much more threatening than dozens of peasant archers and not *that* much more skilled than a petty human noble.
Rather than try to uphold the trappings of "zero to superhero" 3.X and 4e with such lofty expectations of high-level heroes and near-divine monsters, 5e would have done well to embrace its niche as "E6 stretched out over 20 levels" and present its expectations for high-level PCs and monsters accordingly.
>>47191606
My party is a dragon girl mage, a possessed suit of armor using the warforged rules, a paladin of the sun who looks like a less-gay french knight, and our elf bard fukboi who min-maxed to boost cha and int but has 8 wis, str, and con on his first tabletop character ever. He even has a shitty little lyre.
>>47211210
>My party ranger isn't useless, he can fire 4 arrows a turn when he is lucky
Double Ranged Attack does not work that way. It specifically stipulates "first attack" and "second attack," rather than allowing itself to chain into several extra attacks. Remember that the damage die reduction applies to both attacks.
>because that usually happens after a few rounds of combat, the escalation die is high enough that he rarely misses
Archer rangers are no more accurate than any other kind of PC (and in fact, spellcaster PCs are the most accurate due to targeting PD or MD, which are 4 lower than AC on average), unless they have the Archery talent, which does nothing but grant a single ranged attack reroll per combat.
Remember that the ranger has gained literally nothing but extra damage and the standard number increases at levels 2, 3, and 4, which every other character would have received anyway. Compare this to, say, a bard, who starts out at level 1 with two level 1 battle cries and two level 1 spells/songs, and then by level 4, has four level 3 battle cries and four level 3 spells/songs.
>evoking force salvo is broken right in half
There is a reason why I say in >>47197908 that Evocation should be banned entirely. It is irredeemably broken, whether used with Force Salvo at level 3 (or level 2 with an incremental advance) or Fireball at level 5 (or level 4 with an incremental advance), since it doles out an incredible amount of damage to a large number of enemies. This has been officially acknowledged even by the developers:
http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-sage-too-forceful-a-salvo/
>>47211850
I actually really like how 5e does dragons
It explain s quite well why dragons hide in lairs and use cowed minions like kobolds to do their bidding. Because for all their great power, an army of determined peasants could kill a dragon. Unless said peasants have to traverse the dragon's lair first
I think 13th Age could be better if you remove AC entirely and just use PD and MD. While shifting some spells and special attacks to targeting MD instead of PD, to even them out.
But that still wouldn't fix the problem of strength being useless and dex and con being super important
>>47197908
I think rather than deleting wasting away, it would be better to nerf other spellcasters a bit
>>47211984
Under the mob rules (not a variant or optional rule; they are available by default) in page 250 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, it would not even take an "army" of determined peasants.
An ancient red dragon is Challenge 24. It has AC 22, HP 546, a fly speed of 80 feet, a breath range of 90 feet, and a Frightful Presence range of 120 feet.
A generic human "scout" is Challenge 1/2. They have a double attack with a longbow at range 150/600 feet, with each attack at a +4 bonus and an average of 6.5 damage.
Under the mob rules, since the scouts hit on a natural 18, it takes 5 scouts to land a single non-critical hit against the dragon. The mob rules make no provisions for advantage or disadvantage, so the scouts are free to fire at long range (out to 600 feet) without hindrance.
The dragon goes down in 546 ÷ 6.5 = 84 arrows that land. This requires 84 ÷ 2 × 5 = 210 standard actions from the scouts.
Thus, if 210 scouts were to come within long range of the ancient red dragon and each spent a standard action to double attack under the mob rules, the Challenge 24 ancient red dragon is dead and there is absolutely nothing it can do about it.
For comparison, Wikipedia tells us that there were 5,000 to 7,000 English longbowmen at the Battle of Crécy.
Yes, 5e is *that* low-powered even for Challenge 24 ancient red dragons.
>>47212004
The true solution to 13th Age's bizarre ability scores is "death to ability scores":
http://13thage.org/index.php/house-rules/497-death-to-ability-scores-variant
>>47212026
The other spellcasters are more or less fine in terms of power level. The bard, cleric, and wizard are good benchmarks for what a class in 13th Age *should* operate like and scale like throughout the levels. It is wonderful to see that 13th Age in Glorantha is constructing its martial classes more akin to spellcasters, like the two berserker classes, the Humakti, and the wind lord.
>>47196679
This. I love 5e, but I think I would have loved what it could have been more.
>>47197026
>>47194547
Okay, hold on. I don't remember reading about this in the core rulebook. Living dungeons, what? Is there a campaign setting book I don't have for 13th Age? I thought I grabbed all of them.
>>47212213
They're detailed in the core rulebook and Eyes of the Stone Thief is all about a Living Dungeon with a personal grudge against the party
>>47191606
>redpill
So talk authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about? Seems like I'm especially suited for this then. 5/10 it's ok
>>47212182
okay, replace "army" with "militia"
The point still stands, the dragon is powerful, but is smart enough to know that a unified force could easily overwhelm it, so it puts itself in a position where the only threats it faces come from strike teams, which it has a much easier time dealing with.
This also makes the setting much easier to work with. Because when an army will consistently destroy even a max-level party, you don't have to wonder why max level adventurers haven't conquered everything
>>47212789
> 1 day old topic
>still shitposting about a shallow joke
Man /tg/ degraded hard.
>>47212213
Base Setting. If you didn't see it I feel like you didn't read it. You know about floating islands, right?
>>47212790
This would be perfectly fine under D&D 5e's paradigm of being "E6 stretched out across 20 levels," although it does not quite fit the way high-level monsters are presented as lofty balors, pit fiends, solars, titans, ancient dragons, and demon lords.
For instance, if 210 peasant archers are so powerful as you say, enough to instantaneously take down a Challenge 24 ancient red dragon in a single round...
>Levels 17-20: Adventures at these levels have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions in the Material Plane and even places beyond.
Then it is quite doubtful that level 17-20 heroes are the kind of people whose adventures determine the fate of whole worlds and planes, unless those heroes themselves acquire and command legions of peasant archers (which there are no rules for; compare this to AD&D 2e which did, in fact, have rules for fighters acquiring armies).
What D&D 5e needs is a vast rewrite of its expectations for high-level monsters and PCs, so as to bring it in line with what the mechanics actually convey.
>>47211828
E6?
>>47214331
A homebrew for d&d 3.5 where level maxes out at 6, and beyond that experience just gets you more feats
As far as d&d 3.5 goes, it's very balanced, and quite a bit of fun
>>47214331
Epic 6, a homebrew variant for DnD 3.5. You stop leveling at Level 6 outside of extra feats.
Surprisingly solves a lot (but not all) of the balance issues in 3.5.
For example, skill focus and those +2 to 2 skills feats become a lot more worthwhile and not trash feats, since those are now cap-breaker feats and may be needed to handle those really tricky monsters.
Doesn't solve all of the problems.
>>47211978
Excuse me, wood elf ranger. Racial feat grants a second standard action if he rolls under the exhalation die.
>>47214838
That is an outstanding ability of the wood elf race, not of the ranger class specifically. Consider how vicious a wood elf *wizard* can be: Ray of Frost doles out a large amount of damage and is quite accurate due to targeting PD, while Color Spray is at-will during escalation die 2/4/6 and can potentially be used twice in one turn to devastate and weaken a group of enemies.
>>47215187
u r a faget.
The 13th age setting is a blast, and 13 True Ways has some good additions. There is an off hand comment in true ways about the food in Axis that mentions cheese is illegal, and now my group keeps talking about trying to either get cheese legalized in Axis or start an underground cheese smuggling ring.
>>47213036
I'm getting the feeling I skipped a lot of fluff to get to the crunch. Crap. I need to go back and re-read the core book, then. And yea, I know, base setting, but many RPGs have a separate book that's basically all about the base setting, containing little crunch and mostly fluff.
>>47213297
I think the devs of 5e were too afraid to make monsters that could seriously threaten PCs outside of mobs. Too much carebear mentality, and I don't mean that as an insult, believe it or not, but as a valid way of RPG thinking.
I've had campaigns where PCs were a dime a dozen, and them dying happened often, and I've had campaigns where PCs had to struggle but could easily stay alive to tell their own story in the midst of the plot. 5e seems to be aiming to be the latter type of game. However, I think, given that a rewrite of monsters is probably not officially coming, the DM will have to be the one to fix these monster issues.
Still, I want to bring up a point here: There isn't 'nothing the dragon can do about it'. One good breath weapon, and depending on how packed the scouts are, the dragon will severely reduce their damage potential. Not to mention the old addage, "work smart, not hard". Any dragon that allows themselves to be put into a situation where they're facing enough combatants to be a threat to them has already failed at being a dragon. I sorta feel 5e is more realistic about it in this way: the dragon might be a force of nature that terrifies the masses and rules their territory without mercy, but they are not immortal, and enough arrows would bring one down. Enough cuts to the right place would kill them if by weakness and/or disease alone. Any dragon, no matter how arrogant, knows this... And this is why they have such high intelligence, to justify them seeking other ways of approaching combat or home defense. You don't meet with the dragon, you meet with underlings, go-betweens. You don't step into the dragon's den, you walk into a deathtrap of a fortress where a single mis-step could doom the party. It's always been said in DnD that a dragon ALWAYS fights only on their own terms, when they have the overwhelming advantage. 5e just gives dragons an actual reason to do this instead of just swooping in and delivering a full attack.
>>47216474
>One good breath weapon, and depending on how packed the scouts are, the dragon will severely reduce their damage potential.
600 foot bow range dude.
>>47191606
No. Fuck off.
>>47216474
Top-end monsters being down-to-earth and vulnerable to a band of lowly peasant archers is fine. That can work in the right setting.
What is *not* fine is those top-end monsters being the same old balors, pit fiends, solars, titans, ancient dragons, and demon lords of previous edition.
Another thing that is *not* fine is level 17-20 PCs being presented as:
>Levels 17-20: Adventures at these levels have far-reaching consequences, possibly determining the fate of millions in the Material Plane and even places beyond.
As it currently stands, level 17-20 PCs are the sort of heroes who might traverse the literally infinite layers of the Abyss, slay the Prince of Demons Demogorgon (the single most powerful demon out of an infinite number of them), save the whole multiverse and its dozens of infinitely expansive planes from a terrible fate...
Only to return back home to the Prime Material Plane and be shot down by hundreds of CR 1/2 peasant archers hired by a disgruntled CR 1/8 noble.
5e is trying to have its cake and eat it by trying to have level 17-20 PCs be multiversal superheroes and the monsters they face be multiversal overlords... while *also* having those PCs and monsters be low-powered. That is not very coherent.
>>47191606
Less stupid filler tables for random crap that GMs can just handwave
>>47191606
Now that 5E exists, there is literally no reason to play 13th age.
>>47217081
It's almost as if they wanted the entire MM to be relevant at all times and to not go full Elder Scrolls and have new monsters pop up while old ones vanish.
>>47194831
>13th Age
Uh...what is it saying on the tin, exactly?
I don't think you used that phrase correctly. "Exactly what it says on the tin" means that the name of a thing also describes its function or purpose exactly. 13th Age doesn't do that.
>>47217081
>Only to return back home to the Prime Material Plane and be shot down by hundreds of CR 1/2 peasant archers hired by a disgruntled CR 1/8 noble.
I'm trying to think up a situation where a 17th level PC in practice would actually be vulnerable to this, and coming up blank, unless the 17th level PC is already previously injured.
But a 17th level Fighter, while he might not be able to kill 300 CR 1/2 peasant archers, is certainly not going to be killed by them either if he chooses not to be. He should have innumerable methods of escape by that point if from nothing else than magic items and/or stealing a horse and/or finding cover to mitigate the attacks, and so on.
I mean, seriously, what it the situation wherein 300 peasant archers are actually going to be able to attack the 17th level Fighter? It would require luring him into some kind of open field trap. Not impossible but it seems like the sort of thing that a 17th level Fighter, after 17 levels worth of adventure, is gonna think is a mite suspicious.
>>47194547
>No 5e class embraces randomness like the Chaos Mage.
wild magic sorcerer???
>>47217224
There is also the 4e method of assigning minion, standard, elite, and solo status to monsters.
In 4e, a level 1 solo monster translates into a level 6 elite monster, a level 10 standard monster, or a level 18 minion monster.
>>47217412
I had covered this scenario in a previous thread:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/37282162/
Now, you might be saying, "Surely the fighter might have magic items that can help?" The issue with that logic is that magic items are handed out purely at the GM's discretion in 5e (which, incidentally, makes all those "half damage from mundane weapons" monsters rather unfair). Page 38 of the Dungeon Master's Guide tells us that in a "standard campaign," a level 17-20 character is probably going to have "two uncommon magic items" and "one rare item," which truly is not that much.
>>47198779
While I sometimes find him annoying, and I find that half of his (admittedly real) problems never arrive at the table because none of my players are sitting down to grind it all out, I will give credit where it's due that touhoufag definitely does the math and provides examples to back his arguments up, rather than just bitch or complain incessantly like i see some people do.
>>47217506
>I had covered this scenario in a previous thread:
So one guy who specializes in melee is looking at 80 guys, all armed with bows, hundreds of feet away, across a flat and featureless plain, and decides "naw, I got this"?
Of course the guy dies.
What he should have done is shout out "He who turns and runs away shall live to fight another day, and take revenge upon his foe, so bye-bye now I've got to go!" Perhaps while making a Charisma check.
Then he runs at least until he's got more favorable conditions, like maybe tree cover.
>>47217614
I generally assume that any given character of class X will be optimized to the metaphorical hilt.
Fully optimized characters are easy to compare and contrast, while it is virtually impossible (or unfeasible) to do the same across characters at different optimization levels.
Another factor to take into consideration is that most players and GMs have selective memory and never quite register just how much a character is truly lagging behind others. Someone playing a barbarian in 13th Age might not realize that their class is a feeble trainwreck from level 1 and only grows worse and worse as the levels go along, but they are probably going to forget about all those times their class was fragile and lackluster, and they WILL remember the times when they went into a rage, got lucky with the dice, and achieved something "awesome."
>>47217412
>I'm trying to think up a situation where a 17th level PC in practice would actually be vulnerable to this
Walking up to a castle and the lord deciding he wants you dead?
>>47217650
You must remember that level 17-20 heroes in 5e are, as the Dungeon Master's Guide explains, characters whose adventures dictate the fate of the multiverse and its dozens of infinitely expansive planes.
Level 17-20 heroes are, as presented in the Dungeon Master's Guide's explanation of levels, the kind of people who might traverse the literally infinite layers of the Abyss, slay the Prince of Demons Demogorgon (the single most powerful demon out of an infinite number of them), and save the whole multiverse and its dozens of infinitely expansive planes from a terrible fate.
Level 17-20 heroes are also, by page 249 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, fully capable of "being submerged in lava" (18d10 damage), "being hit by a crashing flying fortress" (18d10), or "being crushed in the jaws of a godlike creature or a moon-sized monster" (24d10).
There is a tremendous rift in expectations between the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide and how the rules actually flesh out the world.
>>47217763
>Walking up to a castle and the lord deciding he wants you dead?
And he just happens to have hundreds of archers right then and there, all of them ready to go, and you're in a broad flat open featureless plain where there is no chance for cover and every single one can attack you?
>>47217792
The DMG says that they *can* survive it, it never states that they'll be in particularly good condition once coming out the other end.
>slay the Prince of Demons Demogorgon
While possible, you're missing the part where said PCs probably aren't doing so by fighting their way through 88 layers of the Abyss first, then fighting their way through all of 88th-Abysm to Lemoriax, fighting everything else in Lemoriax, fighting to the Twin Towers of Demogorgon, slaying everything there, and THEN fighting and killing Demogorgon himself.
If they're fighting Demogorgon then instead they've probably skipped all of that and teleported straight to his face to do battle after immense preparation, or else Demogorgon's been called to the Prime and they go face him, again, after immense preparation. Characters level 17-20 CAN take a Demon Lord, but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily succeed, and it doesn't mean that they can casually ignore smaller-level threats on their way to doing so.
Your issue is that you're assuming that Multiverse-spanning threats must be immense DBZ-style powerhouses, who can literally ignore bullets while wondering whatever happened to Launch. They don't have to be, though - not in 5th Edition.
>>47216866
Flight speed of 80ft per round, penalties for trying to hit something in flight, etc. While the latter may not be RAW penalties, any DM worth their salt knows that hitting a flying target, even a very large one, is very hard. The dragon will reach them exempting astounding luck on the scouts' parts, and will massacre them in one or two rounds as soon as it does.
>>47217919
>you're in a broad flat open featureless plain where there is no chance for cover and every single one can attack you?
The scenario in the previous linked thread does give the fighter ample cover.
>The DMG says that they *can* survive it, it never states that they'll be in particularly good condition once coming out the other end.
18d10 or 24d10 damage is simply damage. 5e has no default rules for being debilitated simply for taking damage; those are optional rules.
>teleported straight to his face to do battle after immense preparation
Abysm is likely full of carefully-placed Forbiddances that prevent easy teleportation into a convenient position.
>or else Demogorgon's been called to the Prime
That takes plot-device level magic in 5e, since Gate can be barred off by deities and other planar rulers.
Consider a canonical example of an assault on Demogorgon's realm, in Dungeon #150. Even with the support of Charon, Gwynharwyf, Iggwilv, Malcanthet, Orcus, and those lofty lords and ladies' respective forces, the PCs still have to wade through legions and legions of tanar'ri hordes.
>They don't have to be, though - not in 5th Edition.
If only because they themselves can field hordes of archers.
>>47218105
>any DM worth their salt knows that hitting a flying target, even a very large one, is very hard
Yeah no. Hitting a flying target is no harder than hitting a ground-based target moving at the same speed, and D&D's turn-based combat system is not the place to try and insert in real-life physics anyway.
D&D is not a Real Life simulator.
>>47218105
>Flight speed of 80ft per round, penalties for trying to hit something in flight, etc.
If the archers are 600 feet away and the dragon moves and dashes each round, it will take the dragon three full rounds to get within 120 feet for Frightful Presence alone.
>While the latter may not be RAW penalties, any DM worth their salt knows that hitting a flying target, even a very large one, is very hard.
Not RAW at all. This would also impose disadvantage, not an attack penalty (only cover really influences numbers directly as a circumstantial adjustment). Disadvantage does not stack, and the mob rules already ignore disadvantage.
I am perfectly fine with a d20-based, low/mid-powered fantasy game that is essentially "E6 stretched out over 20 levels, but with much slower improvement of noncombat skills," but let us not kid ourselves and think that the balors, pit fiends, solars, titans, ancient dragons, demon lords, and multiverse-saving heroes of 3.X and 4e are appropriate for a low-powered endgame.
>>47218167
You're right, it's not. Let's just throw all physics out the window then! No more gravity, no more light, and you can walk right through walls with no magic!
Or we can allow a DM to make flying creatures harder to hit based on simple logic. I'm not saying we calculate the exact leading you need to perform to hit the target, I'm not saying we need to figure in the flight speed or that we make all the arrows be unable to travel to the target because they lose velocity from shooting that high, I'm saying that trying to hit a moving, flying target is hard and should be hard. If you don't agree with a DM doing this, you're free to disagree. But it's what I would do.
>>47218183
And I'm not even remotely arguing against your point. I'm not kidding myself, I'm just pointing out that 'white room' scenarios are great for math but terrible for an actual game situation. A well played dragon will DEMOLISH the scouts, even in 5e, because the conditions won't be perfect for them. The dragon will make SURE they aren't. Is the dragon much weaker than it should be? Yes, certainly. But 210 scouts will not kill a dragon in an actual game unless the DM is a moron.
>>47217650
He doesn't need to decide he's got this, they just need six seconds to fill him full of arrows before he can decide very much of anything.
>>47218251
>Or we can allow a DM to make flying creatures harder to hit based on simple logic.
They aren't though
>>47218108
>18d10 or 24d10 damage is simply damage. 5e has no default rules for being debilitated simply for taking damage; those are optional rules.
It does, however, impact their ability to keep going. A Fighter at 1 hit point is at what should be a self-evident disadvantage compared to a Fighter at maximum hit points, regardless of whether or not the Fighter's other combat statistics are and regardless of whatever else it's facing.
>Abysm is likely full of carefully-placed Forbiddances that prevent easy teleportation into a convenient position.
Hence the careful preparation, which also includes things like Greater Invisibility, Stealth checks, etc., etc. Point being that no 17th-20th level character is going to grand melee his way straight to Demogorgon and then fight Demogorgon in a straight-up slugfest, there will be tactics and strategy involved.
>The scenario in the previous linked thread does give the fighter ample cover.
It provides an extremely sparse forest that grants three-quarters cover. I mean actual *cover*, as in the bowmen will not be able to hit the Fighter at all thanks to it. A wall, a hill to block line-of-sight, a thick forest, etc.
The Fighter lost that encounter because he made a stupid, avoidable tactical mistake, i.e., thinking that one guy with a sword can take on 80 guys with bows when the cover is lackluster given the situation.
>That takes plot-device level magic in 5e, since Gate can be barred off by deities and other planar rulers.
It was called Out of the Abyss, dear. Great campaign. You should play in it.
>Dungeon #150
1) neither Dungeon nor Dragon are/were necessarily canonical, regardless of who worked on them
2) Dungeon #150 represents a completely different edition of the game. In between editions the way the Multiverse functions actually does change on a fundamental level, and rules that were previously true become no longer true
2a) Hence "Die, Vecna, Die!"
>>47218251
>Or we can allow a DM to make flying creatures harder to hit based on simple logic
A flying creature moving in a straight path is no harder to hit than a ground creature moving in a straight path, however, assuming that both are moving at the same speed, are the same size, and are the same distance away. This is fact. Flight does not mystically make you harder to hit simply because you're in the air.
If the flying creature is taking advantage of being able to move in 3 dimensions, well, then sure, they're a bit harder to hit, but that's represented by a creature having a high Dexterity and Armor Class. You don't up the creature's armor class otherwise.
Besides which by that logic any creature on the ground that jinks around when moving should also be harder to hit. Dodging left isn't, in practice, different from dodging up.
Additionally, dragons are bulky, clumsy fliers, especially the larger ones. They're easy to hit as a result.
>>47218283
Sure, if they win initiative, but this returns us to the issue of: how the Hell did the Fighter let himself get caught in this situation in the first place?
>>47218377
>but that's represented by a creature having a high Dexterity and Armor Class.
Or the Dodge action. Forgot that. It is also represented by taking the Dodge action.
>>47218321
>A Fighter at 1 hit point is at what should be a self-evident disadvantage compared to a Fighter at maximum hit points
This is not how 5e's rules work. A level 20 fighter with Constitution 16 has an average of 184 hit points. The average of 18d10 is 99, and that is for a full round of literal submersion in lava.
>Hence the careful preparation, which also includes things like Greater Invisibility, Stealth checks, etc., etc.
Invisibility and illusions will probably not help against high-level demons. Even Challenge 9 glabrezus have truesight out to 120 feet. Stealth is the better option here, since most demons have no proficiency in Perception... but then, the party's Strength-based warriors likely lack Stealth proficiency as well, and will have disadvantage on their Stealth checks because of their armor.
>Point being that no 17th-20th level character is going to grand melee his way straight to Demogorgon and then fight Demogorgon in a straight-up slugfest, there will be tactics and strategy involved.
No character in 3.X or 4e would grand melee their way to Demogorgon either. Demogorgon would, in either edition, have the might to personally back himself up.
>I mean actual *cover*, as in the bowmen will not be able to hit the Fighter at all thanks to it. A wall, a hill to block line-of-sight, a thick forest, etc.
In that case, the fighter is never reaching them.
>It was called Out of the Abyss, dear. Great campaign. You should play in it.
Plot device level magic indeed, exactly as I said.
>2) Dungeon #150 represents a completely different edition of the game. In between editions the way the Multiverse functions actually does change on a fundamental level, and rules that were previously true become no longer true
In that case, we are looking at a multiverse wherein all of those balors, pit fiends, solars, titans, ancient dragons, demon lords, and multiverse-saving heroes are *much* weaker than before... which means the setting should also be changed up.
>>47191939
>PC
How the fuck is it "poltically correct" you fuckwad?
Only angsty teens and untermensch retards use the term 'redpill', and it isn't even appliable in this situation.
Kind of funny how you yell about PC while you get so mad when someone calls you out on your reddit shit.
>>47218321
>It does, however, impact their ability to keep going. A Fighter at 1 hit point is at what should be a self-evident disadvantage compared to a Fighter at maximum hit points, regardless of whether or not the Fighter's other combat statistics are and regardless of whatever else it's facing.
No edition of D&D has ever included rules that disadvantage you when you lose hit points, to the best of my knowledge.
>>47218426
It's a slang term that means "Give me the info and not the shitty memes". Get good.
>>47217919
>And he just happens to have hundreds of archers right then and there
Where else would he have them other than up on the walls?
>>47218321
>I mean actual *cover*, as in the bowmen will not be able to hit the Fighter at all thanks to it.
There are two choices here:
Either you just hand the fighter the fight because he can walk up to the mob always in cover.
OR
It doesn't matter since the mob prepares an action and shoots the fighter between covers... or the fighter just never moves, I guess that could work too. He probably has to sleep at some point or die of exhaustion tho.
>>47218424
>This is not how 5e's rules work. A level 20 fighter with Constitution 16 has an average of 184 hit points. The average of 18d10 is 99, and that is for a full round of literal submersion in lava.
Yes, but my point is that the Fighter who was at 184 hit points is now at (using your average) 85 hit points, or less than half. While his attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and so on, have not been impacted, the Fighter is still certifiably in a worse position then he was before simply because he is that much closer to being reduced to 0 hit points. He can deal with fewer encounters, tank fewer spells, etc. His combat ability has been impacted in that he simply cannot fight for as long anymore.
Which is what I was saying when I said that while a Fighter CAN survive lava, that doesn't mean he's in a good condition afterwards: the Fighter after dipping in lava and being reduced to less than half health is well advised to stop and heal up rather than immediately continue onwards in order to beat up Demogorgon for his lunch money as soon as possible.
You are, in sum, reading "the player can survive lava" and extrapolating far too much from that statement.
>Invading Abysm
All of this would have been covered during that "careful preparation" thing I mentioned, and is the reason why if you want to fight Demogorgon, you plan this shit out, you don't just teleport straight to Abysm looking for a knock-down drag-out brawl.
The DMG may state that you CAN defeat Demogorgon in a fight, but that doesn't mean you don't have to take the threat he represents seriously.
>In that case, the fighter is never reaching them.
Yeah, but they're never reaching him either, unless they close to melee distance. Impasse. Tactics. Etc.
>>47218431
SEE the start of this post.
>>47218446
not the same anon, but it's kind of hard to claim that redpill is a slang term for giving you the straight talk and not just a bunch of memes when "redpilling" is in and of itself a shitty meme.
How does one, with a straight face, ask others not to dump shitty memes on them when they open the dialogue itself with a shitty meme to make said request?
>>47218500
>Either you just hand the fighter the fight because he can walk up to the mob always in cover.
I was assuming a low, stationary wall or other such thing. The Fighter can't necessarily move himself once in cover.
>He probably has to sleep at some point or die of exhaustion tho.
He's 550 feet away. If he waits for night to fall there's no way the archers are going to be able to see him at that distance. He can then make a break for it.
>>47218538
You're being very petty and irrational, anon.
>>47218446
>>47218446
>It's a slang term that means "Give me the info and not the shitty memes". Get good.
No, it means "show me the truth and open the eyes of the sheeple" bullshit for the most part.
For fuck's sake just look where the term originated from and see how it is applied.
Has anyone stopped to point out how archer volleys in 5e aren't even realistic?
Seriously, they can't just pinpoint target a single man.
>>47218557
>If he waits for night to fall there's no way the archers are going to be able to see him at that distance. He can then make a break for it.
Scouts have Advantage on Perception checks, nighttime just gives Disadvantage.
>>47218557
>He's 550 feet away. If he waits for night to fall there's no way the archers are going to be able to see him at that distance.
Most armour a fighter would wear gives disadvantage on Stealth.
>>47218621
He's got a point in them just literally not seeing that far tho.
Then again, depending on how suicidal/loyal the peasants/scouts are, they could easily just have a few walk up to a spot without cover where they can shoot the fighter from, and if the fighter goes for them shoot him with prepared shots.
Of course, at this point the fighter probably just kills one then loots the bow and that strategy stops working.
>>47196679
>I'm disappointed in the many things they promised and never tried delivering on
Which things specifically?
>>47218621
Pg. 183 of the PHB describes darkness as effectively imposing the Blinded condition. A Blinded creature "can't see", ergo they will not be aware of the Fighter making a break for it once night falls since they can't see him do it.
They might *hear* him do it, I guess, for which the Scout still has advantage. However at 550 ft. away, the Scouts should also suffer Disadvantage to try and hear the Fighter, particularly if the Fighter does the smart thing and shucks his armor (he can always get more or even come back for it later).
The ultimate point being a) the Fighter should have turned and run the moment he saw 80 archers against him; b) there are ways for him to escape even if he can't immediately flat-out run away; c) the entire scenario is contrived to begin with.
>>47218726
>The ultimate point being a) the Fighter should have turned and run the moment he saw 80 archers against him
Fighter who can survive 2 rounds of submersion in lava, folks.
>>47218841
You're, again, extrapolating too much from that. D&D is not a real life simulator.
>>47218662
>Of course, at this point the fighter probably just kills one then loots the bow and that strategy stops working.
Well, they'll still most likely win unless he's super dex heavy. The loss of a shield to his defense makes him a lot more fragile.
>>47218720
Modular rulesets that can adjust the base system to feel more like different game systems.
What are the 13A ancient dragon stats? For that matter, what's the range on a longbow?
...because I'm away from my books but since all fight distances are approximate it won't matter.
>>47194547
>>47201141
>>47201175
>>47201314
I don't know what kind of campaigns you run, but I've run two separate 5e campaigns starting at 1st level. In neither of them were they fighting rats/other assorted vermin.
>>47219298
Not gonna work, nat 20 in 13th age is an auto crit but NOT an auto hit.
>>47211828
>>47211850
>>47212182
>>47213297
>>47217081
>>47217506
>>47217792
>>47218108
Would you say that it's more similar in power level to the first couple of editions of D&D? That's a comparison that I've heard before.
I've personally found that I can port AD&D/OD&D adventures into 5e very easily, but I've never played either before.
>>47219528
Nope, tons of monsters in 1e/2e can only be hit by +X weapons. No peasant archers killing them.
>>47219604
If you're lucky with find familiar, you can get one of those monsters as a pet!
>>47219604
Well why don't we just port that over to 5e? Seems like a pretty easy way to solve the 'problem' that peasants can kill a red dragon.
>>47223425
because then the PLAYERS can't kill them, unless specifically gives them +X weapons
>>47219368
looks like given ACs, PDs, and those big HP pools that even a group of mid-level adventurers are a no go against a lvl 10+ dragon.
>>47223425
Peasants killing dragons is fine. 210 peasants killing ancient red dragons is unbelievable.
>>47223703
This is a major concern because magic item distribution is solely in the hands of the DM in 5e.
>>47226579
I'll be honest - I kind of like the idea that if the dragon's up against a small army it's gonna get wrecked. That's why it's smart, and doesn't just let them know in advance that it's coming, doesn't fight where they can shoot at it from 600 feet away, etc.
And why the high level fiends have armies backing them up when they go a-slaughtering, gotta have some fodder to soak up those pesky mortal arrows
>>47226921
Maybe in a setting without ridiculous multiverse stuff.
>>47200684
>Backgrounds are terrible, they could be called Skill Points and replaced with a list of 12 or so Skills with no trouble. You could even increase the total Skill points to 15 instead of 8 Background points since specific skills would likely be narrower than most Backgrounds.
Why the fuck would you do this
So for anyone wanting to check out 13th Age, they are having a sale today (which they do nearly every Friday the 13th, but this is the only one this year). All their 13th Age stuff is 13% off, and they're also giving out some cool extra stuff like a download of part of The Book of Loot for free focused on items relating to the Diabolist. You can check out what all they're doing today on the Pelgrane Press website, and the code for 13% off is up on their Twitter and Facebook pages.
>>47191606
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3473530&pagenumber=119&perpage=40#post420375158
Because falling forward is this awesome and allows goofy parties to have fun fun adventures.
>>47230427
>Something Awful
Please no.
>>47230427
This is a good example of write-your-own-background leading to everyone's skills being vague and meaningless. They might as well have take Advance Plot +4
>>47231250
I fail to see a downside to that
>>47231250
Heh.
Approved Skill List:
Advance Plot (Red-Hot)
Advance Plot (Suave)
Advance Plot (Goofy)
Advance Plot (Grim)
Advance Plot (Pragmatic)
Advance Plot (Over-The-Top)
Advance Plot (By the Skin of your Teeth)
>>47231930
The downside is that skills don't matter and we might as well ditch the formality of rolling entirely. What a contemptible, awful lie.
>>47234933
That's an exaggeration if there ever was one.
Skills do matter, but fail forward makes every game more fun. There won't be a single game where fail forward is implemented that the players are having a bad time.
>>47218426
>How the fuck is it "poltically correct" you fuckwad?
Furfags are really sensitive to insults.
>>47197920
Hey Touhou, I'm the guy that made the Thief class, and I just wanna say thanks for the kind words regarding him. I was always under the impression that he was a shit tier piece of homebrew. Worked him over 5 times and still not entirely happy with him.
>>47218446
>It's a slang term that means "Give me the info and not the shitty memes". Get good.
This. People here need to stop being so happy to condemn others.
>>47211850
>>47212182
>>47213297
>>47216866
>>47217081
>>47218300
>>47218377
>dragon
Friendly reminder that it only took one peasant to kill the biggest, baddest dragon alive in Middle Earth.
>>47235030
In that particular example posted, the end result was the same; the party saves the city, everyone is happy, so on, and so on, and everything went according to the GM's overriding vision of what they "should" accomplish that session. This is a very real danger of failing forward. Doesn't mean it's not a useful tool to apply, when appropriate, but there should occasionally just be full stop, yes, you DID fuck up here, especially if it results in more interesting consequences. The part I dislike the most about that example is how the party ends up fighting the same level of encounters in the same order, with the same treasure reward. Awful.
>>47235125
>biggest, baddest dragon alive in Middle Earth
No, just the last.
>>47235322
Anon, I hate to tell you this, but you have incredibly bad reading comprehension.
If something isn't currently alive, then it doesn't count as being currently alive.
>>47235322
That's a big-ass dragon.
>>47235621
for thee
>>47235074
2hu is a real human bean.
>>47235125
Bard the Bowman was hardly a mere peasant. He is a descendant of the Lords of Dale, and thus a cut above normal Men.
>>47235143
DId you miss the part where the city streets got torn up, the daughter died, and they got banished?
The point is that they had the same 'encounters' but had a different plot - the only similarity in plot is that at the end they managed to kill the bad guy.
>>47218446
>Give me the info and not the shitty memes
>implying redpill isn't a shitty meme too
You reap what you sow. You use a shitty meme, you get shit on in return.
>>47191606
Why is it that we need a dozen different ways to say 'please tell me'?
>>47241470
Cause there are a dozen different types of people.
>>47242173
This.
>>47235125
>Art has Smaug with 6 limbs
>PJ Hobbit has him with 4
GOD DAMMIT WHY COULDN'T THEY JUST STICK TO THE PICTURE!!! Shit looks so much better!
