Holy Heck this is great. Who's played? I went to a free game day at my game store and someone was running this. The story moved along smoothly and combat was efficient but fun
>>48031070
A couple of questions:
(1) Does 13th Age use Strength to In 13th Age, do you use Strength for your melee attack rolls?
(2) Is armor treated as an Armor Class bonus or as Damage Reduction?
>>48032794
>(1) Does 13th Age use Strength to In 13th Age, do you use Strength for your melee attack rolls?
UGH. Sorry, still sleepy. Let me try again.
(1) In 13th Age, do you use Strength for your melee attack rolls?
>>48031070
Signed up for 2 games at GENCON. Psyched.
>>48031070
Isn't this just the Pathfinder of 4e?
>>48033202
Not exactly. There no tactical positioning; all combat is positional and designed for TotM. Not a metric ton of players options. Lots of story game stuff as I'm told.
Also strength is typically used for melee attacks and armor is for avoiding attacks not damage reduction.
What's the draw of this game? Seems to me like it's just another 3.5 style generic fantasy game. What's the interesting, unique mechanic that will make me want to play it?
>>48032794
AC is based on your class, with each class being assumed to have appropriate gear.
>>48033534
Your relationship with the world is a big part of the game. Really good for those "fantasy Vietnam" like games. If the Tet Offensive does not have appeal, might I suggest playing a bard, occultist, or chaos mage.
Outside of all that, not much appeal honestly
>>48033534
It really doesn't have much mechanical similarity to 3.5.
The most interesting mechanic imo is the Backgrounds mechanic, which is left open to the players; basically, instead of putting points into a list of skills, you spend points on broad areas of experience, giving a lot of freedom in character creation as well as allowing the players to directly add to the setting.
So instead of putting points in climb, stealth & lockpicking skills, you put points in having a background as a catburgler, and get a bonus to your roll whenever you're doing something a catburgler would have experience in, such as climbing, stealth or lockpicking.
On top of that, say you come up with the idea of having a background as a Thieves' guild member; now you've made it so the setting includes at least one Thieves guild. Or you could have a background as a Northern Tribesman; now you've made it so this setting has tribes in the north.
>>48033607
>Fantasy Vietnam
What?
>>48033534
There are a few cool mechanics in 13th Age, though they could easily be taken and applied to other games. The escalation dice is cool, though it's basically just that every round you get an extra + (from 0 to 6) to help prevent last monster syndrome.
Another is the background system. I don't think it's really explained well and when we played it seemed to be up for interpretation, but you get points to assign to different background, any that you want. As specific or vague as you want (so it could be as general as 'mage' or specific like 'head illusionist of the whatever academy'). You then use these points to justify to your DM why you can do what you want to do. As another person mentioned, the relationship system is important too, but that largely depends on if you DM is skilled at including it in the story.
>>48033754
>>48033783
I really like 13th Age but I don't like Backgrounds. I feel like they encourage players to fish for bonuses and argue "No, this Background would totally apply here because X and Y." Yes, those kinds of discussions can sometimes help flesh out character history by having them bring up some anecdote from their Background that applies to the situation. On the other hand, when a Background's giving a +4 or higher bonus to an action that could have DIRE consequences for failure, it's VERY tempting to players to argue and stretch their Background to the breaking point, just to ensure success. Those kinds of arguments slow down the game and either lead to the GM (1) being very permissive with players' Backgrounds to avoid arguments, or (2) pissing off their players by denying them bonuses they think would apply.
In comparison, something like D&D 5E's skill system works better to avoid these problems, because either (1) the skill is obvious and the player knows what they need to roll, or (2) the GM tells the player what Skill or Proficiency/Tool applies, and then they add that bonus if they have it. You don't have situations where a player says "My character with his 5-point 'Criminal Mastermind' Background would totally know about this kind of demon, because he knew a thief who encountered one of these on a job he hooked up for him, so he was curious and read all about it in case he ever encountered one on a job." Instead you might have "My character is trained in Religion so I can add my Proficiency bonus to the Intelligence check to know what this is."
Yes, it's true that not all players do this and yes, my opinion may be biased and stupid, but I still prefer discrete skill lists over abstract 'pick what you're good at' mechanics.
>>48034078
>I feel like they encourage players to fish for bonuses and argue
Maybe you just have shitty players raised on 3.PF.
>>48034785
Says the 13th Age kettle.
>>48033754
>The most interesting mechanic imo is the Backgrounds mechanic,
So basically what 5e did. Good to know, anon. You can stop shilling your shitty D&D alternative now.
>>48033758
Oh yeah, it's all the rage these days.
>>48036966
4e introduced background/themes which do simuliar things.
Honestly, it's kinda WoDy (at least my understanding of nWoD
>>48036966
>So basically what 5e did.
I highly doubt 5e replaced the skill system with backgrounds.
Good job at reading comprehension, boss.
If anyone would like a decent overview of 13th Age's failings and how they could perhaps be repaired, I would recommend going over certain posts in this archived thread:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47191606/#47197304
>>48032794
>Does 13th Age use Strength to In 13th Age, do you use Strength for your melee attack rolls?
There is no "default" ability score for attack rolls and damage rolls. It is all dependent on your class's powers and basic attacks.
That said, Strength does the least out of any of the ability scores. If your class does not use Strength, you should absolutely dump it into the ground. If you belong to a class that needs Strength, unfortunately for you, you *will* have to dump your Dexterity in order to have appreciable defenses, due to the way hit points, AC, PD, and MD all work.
>Is armor treated as an Armor Class bonus or as Damage Reduction?
Armor increases most classes' AC.
>>48033534
The only aspects of 13th Age I find appealing are the icon relationship dice subsystem, the design of the spellcaster classes, the design of many of the new 13th Age in Glorantha classes, and the monsters. Everything else about 13th Age, from the ability scores, to the backgrounds, to the AC/PD/MD subsystem, to the design of every class not mentioned above, is rubbish.
>>48034078
>I feel like they encourage players to fish for bonuses and argue "No, this Background would totally apply here because X and Y."
Dude, it's just a +5 Bonus at maximum. And considering the total lack of outer bonuses in this game (there are no situational modifiers), it's not THAT overpowered.
Unless you're player is being an utter dick and trying to get that +5 bonus for EVERY SINGLE noncombat roll (even when it's totally irrelevant, like using the soldier skill to build a farm), there's no real need to hold them back.
>>48034785 is right. You're stuck on PF, where skill values get hella huge. Backgrounds have a low cap in this game.
Why is paladin so shit scaling?
>>48034785
A vague Background system encourages fishing for bonuses by design. When the boundaries of what a modifier applies to are intentionally blurred, and it's in the player's best interest to push the limits of their Backgrounds, it's very tempting to do so. Discrete skill lists prevent this kind of behaviour.
>>48038521
A +5 modifier in 13th Age is massive. Remember that skill checks are Attribute Modifier + Level + Background, with stats capped at +5 and level capped at 10. Most characters won't have a +5 to any stat before end-game due to how attribute increases and point-buy work, a +3/4 to one or two core Attributes is far more likely. This isn't D&D 3.5 where people are throwing around +35s to skill checks; in this context a +5 modifier is seriously huge and can really unbalance non-combat situations.
Remember that these kinds of games exist on the three pillars of combat, social interaction, and exploration. Backgrounds are the predominant mechanic for covering exploration and social interaction (along with Icons to a lesser extent), and yet it's incredibly vague compared to the combat rules. I'm not even advocating that non-combat mechanics be as complex as combat is. I'm just pointing out that when the game is incredibly precise about what bonuses you get to AC or PD, where every little +/-1 to combat-related abilities is tracked and balanced, but social and exploration mechanics are vague and open entirely to GM interpretation, that creates an imbalance.
Like I said, feel free to disagree with me here. I just think it's shitty of the designers to care so much about the Fighter's flexible attacks and every tiny bonus they (and the feats that enhance them) grant, but everything non-combat can fit on an index card and essentially amounts to "Keep the story moving, otherwise do whatever."
>>48034078
>feel like they encourage players to fish for bonuses and argue "No, this Background would totally apply here because X and Y." Yes, those kinds of discussions can sometimes help flesh out character history by having them bring up some anecdote from their Background that applies to the situation.
That's exactly what its designed to facilitate. It's a system that works fantastically with good roleplayers and terribly with powergamers.
>>48042348
This post is more insightful than it appears at first glance.
Lots of systems function fine until you have a "particular type of player" and then design conceits end up bended around those assholes and not the people who are capable of enjoying the game without being a knob.
13A compromises a little bit, I mean it is the descended of 3.X/4E, but for the most part you can tell by the tone of the book it seems much more like it's just *not* for a "particular type of player". It's nice to see it doesn't try to protect them like lots of other games in the fantasy/heroic genre.
